To think our mortgage advisor was insensitive

[confettispaghetti]

Me and my DP are first time buyers who recently had a meeting with our mortgage advisors, as part of our meeting we discussed life insurance. The mortgage advisor went through a questionnaire on health and family history etc for a quote for life insurance and one question which came up was about your parents having any related illnesses etc. Obviously I had to answer truthfully - my DM has Huntington's disease (HD) which was one of the answers. At the end of the questionnaire I was rejected to be covered for life insurance because my DM has HD. As it is hereditary there was a possibility that I also had HD (I do not - my DM had me tested before giving birth) but our mortgage advisor was certain there was a possibility that I could still get HD later in life!! It's a 50/50 chance that you have the faulty gene which I do not!!! It really upset me - AIBU to think this was insensitive?

He’s uneducated, as most people would be on things that aren’t common.

I’m so sorry you had to argue this though.

Maybe prepare some evidence for future quotes or even that person?

It sounds like they were just uninformed rather than insensitive. I wouldn't expect a mortgage advisor to have a good knowledge of dominent vs recessive genetic disorders.

Well, not insensitive, no.
Ignorant, if you can medically prove you do not have the gene that causes it. You should take it further, as the next time you apply, it will come up again.

The strange thing is I don't actually have any proof that I do not have the faulty gene! Hence why I think I was so upset by it...

I've contacted the hospital where I was born to request the details and proof so like you say I can be prepared next time. It's a strange one because it is not on my medical history anywhere that my DM had a test which came back negative.

I guess because HD is not massively talked about, that like you say he was probably just uneducated.

It wont be his decision, it will have been rejected by the company who issue the policy. You have no proof, therefore you are a risk.

@NewYearNewMe18 I understand that it wasn't his fault it was rejected, just think he could of handled it a little better!

It might be in your mum's hospital notes if she had genetic testing when pregnant? Worth getting a copy if you can, even for your own piece of mind.

Can you have the test again? Could you check if the insurance company would agree to insure you if it came back negative.

I suppose it was the way the form was laid out, but yes, he could have handled it a little better.

Annoying there's nothing on your medical history.

YABU

Like a PP said it wasn't his decision, and it doesn't sound like he was insensitive. They can't really insure you without proof, you could be lying. I'm not saying you are, but how will the insurance company know that?

It's on my DM's medical notes that she has a positive gene for HD but nothing about mine being negative... the hospital have said it'll probably take 2-5 days to find as it's going back 24+ years.

It's never been something that I've had to prove before so it's quite distressing not having anything as hard proof. But I have always had in the back of mind that I should get re-tested. Question is... what if it comes back positive?! Scary thought really!

Like a PP said it wasn't his decision, and it doesn't sound like he was insensitive. They can't really insure you without proof, you could be lying. I'm not saying you are, but how will the insurance company know that?

^This. You must have known the issue would come up. Why not get yourself tested to avoid this in the future?

@greendale17 I'm a first time buyer (no idea about stuff like this) and never had to prove it before. I wasn't to know that a question like that would come up

Given that genetic testing for Huntingdons was only possible from 1993 onwards how confident are you that there was actually a test? Must have been one of the first with the timeline you mentioned.

I understand what you mean, OP. It's not that you were rejected, but that he was "certain you could have it later in life".

Hope you manage to find the proof you need.

@PintOfMineralWater thank you, me too!

@soulrider I've had this conversation with my mum. She said that if the test was positive that she wouldn't of been able to have brought a life into the world knowing it had the faulty gene. Like you said, I believe it was very early on when they started testing for it

Can you do an in utero test for HD?

I wasn’t even asked about life insurance when I got a mortgage. It isn’t obligatory.

I think I would look into testing myself (again possibly) in order to be reassured. And have the correct paperwork.

@Sevendown yes, my mum had a CVS test (not sure at how many weeks)

OP the individual gene relating to Huntington's was only isolated on 2993, testing did not begin immediately and certainly not in utero testing. When were you born?

*in 1993

Presumably op could be 24 or 25 (or even younger)

Maybe your mum didn’t want to worry you?

Aside from the life insurance It's important for her to be sure, especially as she currently has no evidence. Prior to 1994 they would've just done a test that said whether it was likely or unlikely for the baby to have HD, which isn't the same as prenatal genetic testing.