Been having some further thoughts on this matter of the right of a third party, in this case the insurer, to prevent another member of the three parties legally involved in the agreement(the lender, the borrower & the insurer)from having sight of the MIG on the grounds of a breach of confidentiality (or against their interest). As this is what the Data Protection Act states is permissable, the borrower would therefore be equally entitled to refuse permission for either the lender or the insurer,(each in their separate status as a third party to the MIG policy), to have sight of, or a copy, of that same MIG policy.(posted 8114 days ago)If that is not the case there must be some clause within the policy that prohibits this for some good reason, as far as the lender & the insurer are concerned. The prohibited party would have to be specifically identified as 'the borrower' or else NONE of the three parties involved would be allowed to have sight of, or a copy of the MIG policy because either of the other two could with-hold their permission!! ( Bring on the clowns ...)
Of course lenders & insurers could have tacit agreements, but they're always a bit dicey where money is concerned I think, human nature being what it is. (Have a look at Mark Chap X11, Verses 1-5.)
Even so, let's imagine a situation where a lender & an insurer do have a tacit agreement and trust one another absolutely, they do not have to hide anything do they?
So, if the lenders & the insurers are above aboard in their dealings why do they behave in an obstructive fashion? It could be that they very definitely do have something to hide, couldn't it?
I think this very questionable state of affairs should be seriously investigated by the Financial Services Authority.