Hi PeKay - yes, I went back to FOS after I had the initial offer as I outlined in my earlier post & said I wanted Thistle to also consider a lump sum settlement. They agreed to consider this and I was asked to submit a figure via the FOS. I had no idea how to calculate such a sum but ended up totalling up all my dog's insurance claims with Petguard and any veterinary costs for pre-existing conditions that my dog has incurred since my policy was axed. I then took the monthly average and multiplied it by the remainder of my dog's life expectancy according to his breed. It turned out to be a not insubstantial sum and FOS have told me Thistle are now considering this and will get back to me. I will see what happens but have told FOS I may still wish to pursue my complaint to a Final Decision OR may still want to consider the first offer of meeting any claims not met by ny new insurance company etc. I, however, do not relish future dealings with a company I do not trust so a lump sum settlement and to wash my hands of all of this is the most attractive option at the moment but not if they come back with a silly offer. Can you let me know how you decide to calculate a lump sum? I'd be interested if I should have considered anything else in my calculation. Thanks.

It's been a while since anyone posted on here about the current situation with petguard so I thought I'd post where I have got to in all of this. I have received copies from the FOS of their provisional and final decisions in the lead (test) case against Thistle Insurance (the company they decided to hear the complaints against petguard with) It makes interesting reading and the FOS has upheld the complaint and seemingly required Thistle to do more than they required of Halifax/Lloyds in the lead case for complaints against them. They say that Thistle have to pay out for the lifetime of the dog, for any treatment etc that a new insurance company will not pay out for as it is considered a pre-existing condition. Any bills we have already paid that our new insurance company wouldn't pay out for Thistle have to reimburse plus 8% interest on top from the date we paid. They issued the final decision in December 2012 and told Thistle they had to comply with the decision or come up with an alternative solution. I was told we would be contacted by Thistle with their proposal - I have still heard nothing from either Thistle or the FOS about my particular case. If Thistle don't come up with an alternative proposal the only thing I am unhappy with is that the FOS decision in the lead case REQUIRES the customer to have insurance cover for the dog in place as a condition for Thistle paying out for anything the new insurance doesn't pay for. I'm unsure about that - I don't see why I should be forced to have another policy as long as I agree to cover any veterinary costs and treatment costs etc for my dog that Thistle aren't required to pay out for. What does everyone else think about this condition? Anyone else heard anything back about their individual case? Has anyone received an individual proposal from Thistle? Please share any information you have - thanks!

Well, it's only been just over a year now since I submitted my complaint to the FOS... You're probably aware that the FOS issued a provisional decision some time ago on Halifax & Lloyds lifetime cover pet insurance customers who had their policies axed and they have either been offered alternative policies and/or a lump sum & £200 compensation. Although there has been a lot of confusion and inconsistency as to who has been offered what and some new policies have had their premiums hiked up considerably. And of course there is nothing to stop these new polices being cancelled after 12 months as I don't believe they are like for like policies ie they're not the lifetime cover the customers thought they had bought in the first place. I chased the Ombudsman to find out what on earth was happening with my complaint and recieved this reply today whcih indicates a Final decision will be made in 2 weeks and it will be found in our favour. Though quite what that means remains to be seen.. We are in the final stages of determining which business your complaint, along with other consumers complaints in the same situation as yourself, should be set up against. The ombudsman has consulted with all businesses involved, and reviewed their arguments. The ombudsman then issued a provisional decision on the lead case to Thistle Insurance Services advising that this business should be responsible for the misrepresentation of its covered for life policy (underwritten by NIG). Thistle provided its response two weeks ago and did not agree that it should assume liability. The ombudsman is now in the process of drafting a final decision (the last stage in the process). This decision will be binding and following this being issued, we will then be able to move forward with your complaint. We hope that this will not take too much longer and that we will be able to progress your complaint shortly. Thank you for your continued patience with this process. I understand you are in a difficult situation with your dog's inflammatory bowel disease. I will let you as soon as the final decision is issued and we are able to move forward with your complaint. Anyone else heard anything? Comments on above?

Really sorry to hear about your dog melbury - I hope everything turns out OK as this is just such an awful situation to be in Hmmm...it's curious you haven't been contacted by the FOS; you'd think they'd contact everyone who'd lodged a complaint and tell them the same thing if they are holding off making any decisions 'til they decide their approach. I'll contact them tomorrow to get clarification on this. I know Halifax/Lloyds are more in the news - because they're High Street names and had thousands of customers I suppose; I still plug away about JLT Online/NIG/Petguard. Got cover on my local radio BBC Sussex Breakfast and got interview with me about Petguard if you forward to 1:40 and listen to Mrs 'Absolutely Disgusted' !! http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/p00pm7qc and the Telegraph do regular stories and Metro covered it in paper and in a blog: http://blogs.metro.co.uk/money/insuring-pets-isnt-the-same-as-insuring-houses-or-cars/ BBC Watchdog covered Halifax/Lloyds in their programme last week and it was on BBC Radio 4 You and Yours this morning You and Yours: Hosepipe use and care home fees (forward to 33.20). I just piggy back in on any mention of Halifax/Lloyds and contact the programmes/journalists to let them know that it was the RBS underwriter NIG that pulled out of the Petguard/JLT Online policy that started this whole mess rolling and tell them my story. On BBC Radio 4 You and Yours this morning they read a statement from Lloyds saying they are considering a settlement process and will contact those affected in a few weeks.. I've contacted the FSA (who will probably again say they can't tell me anything) to ask if they are talking to Lloyds and whether UK Insurance are involved in any talks with them regarding NIG pulling out of the market and dumping Petguard customers. I'll also contact UK Insurance and Stephen Hester's office (CEO RBS) to ask them directly if they're doing the same. It's such a slow process but I do want to see the FOS process through to see if we get an offer and what that might be before I consider court action. The sad thing is that many of us are suffering emotionally and financially while they dither about with not a care in the world for what they're putting us and our pets through

TINK660 & Melbury - has the FOS contacted you to say that they cannot investigate your complaint at the moment?? I've had an email from the FOS adjudicator assigned to my complaint telling me that she can't investigate it as they have had a large number of complaints about this issue concerning several insurers so the need to decide their approach first before she investigates. I'd be really interested to know what the FOS are telling you as my complaint has been with them since September 2011 and I think you both lodged your complaints before mine...? Another interesting thing - I have a statement in response to something I asked the FOS telling me that my complaint should be heard against UKI as they are who my contract of insurance is with (UKI have taken over the responsibilities of NIG, the underwriter of the Petguard policy) but I've sought legal advice about this and who, if I decide to pursue this through the courts, I should bring my case against and I have been advised that our contract is clearly with JLT Online who sold us the Petguard insurance product. Obviously I have to say that you should seek your own legal advice on this and not take my word for it but it has left me perplexed ... I am going to contact FOS and tell them about this as I do not want to find myself in the situation where they do not uphold my complaint due to it being heard against the wrong company!

I'd be happy to but what is the admin email address or where can I find it? I don't know how to contact you other than post on here - sorry! ah ha! Just found it - am being dense...

Quick update. After lodging my complaint in September 2011 I got the following email from an adjudicator today: I am just writing to give you an update regarding your complaint about UK Insurance Limited (Formerly NIG). I understand your complaint involves NIG pulling out of the pet insurance market and leaving you without the lifetime cover that you signed up for. This is an issue that is affecting a large number of customers, across a few different Insurers. At the moment, our service reviewing our approach regarding these complaints, to determine a fair and reasonable outcome for customers who have been affected by this. This means that I am currently unable to investigate and issue a formal view on your complaint. As soon as our approach has been verified and confirmed, I will contact you to discuss your complaint further. At this stage I am unable to give you an exact timeframe, but will keep you updated with any developments. So nothing as yet but I do think it's encouraging they are looking at this issue across the board. Will let you know when I hear anything more. Meanwhile lots going on on the Facebook page and there's now an online petition to sign (yes it's all about Halifax & Lloyds but the principle is the same and I mention Petguard all the time!) Go to this website for all the latest and links to fb page and petition http://www.dogstodaymagazine.co.uk/petinsurance/

@ BankFodder - do you mean edit my previous post to read like an article?? Not sure if I'm capable of doing that as I just write how I'd talk! Do you mean just take out all the 'I's and me's' kind of thing and just make statements?? I have copies of my original schedule of insurance from August 2008 and subsequent ones at each renewal up to August 2010, along with the policy booklet and terms of business along with the couple of links to the petguard web site I've posted previously which are the only web pages I've been able to get hold of. I can get them scanned or copied if you have email address to forward them to (will remove my personal details though). P.S The ASA have said and I quote: 'yes you can complain to the ASA, but our remit over certain kinds of financial products is limited. We may need to refer your case to the Financial Services Authority. We can only, however, look into ads that are less than three months old apart from in exceptional circumstances. Unfortunately I am not aware of a formal means by which you can secure copies of the advertisers web pages. I’m sorry I can’t be of more help' And this story is about the RBSI rebranding and the disposal of the Royal Bank of Scotland's insurance interests: http://www.insurancetimes.co.uk/rbsi-rebrands-uki-affinity-division/1394820.article

Thought I would just give an update on where I'm at. Enjoying all the comment on the facebook page https://www.facebook.com/HoundOutHalifaxandLloyds/posts/320428748003963?ref=notif&notif_t=feed_comment_reply#!/HoundOutHalifaxandLloyds started by Beverely Cuddy, Editor of Dogs Today magazine. Keeps this whole lifelong pet insurance fiasco high profile in the media which can only be a good thing. I had a useful comment from the FSA that I want to share with you: 'We have rules for the firms we authorise to follow when dealing with consumers, and, for general insurance companies, we have specific rules, which can be found in the Insurance Conduct of Business Sourcebook (ICOBS) section of our online handbook of rules and guidance. In particular, we have rules that state that general insurance companies must provide customers with adequate information about the policy to be able to make an informed decision. This includes any mid-term changes, for example, a change of underwriter or amendment to the policy terms and conditions http://fsahandbook.info/FSA/html/handbook/ICOBS/6/1. In addition, you should be aware that the FSA also requires firms to provide information in a way which is clear, fair, and not misleading. Where this does not happen, and the consumer suffers material loss, distress, and/or inconvenience, then you may have grounds for complaint.' 6.1.5 onwards in the ICOBS is appropriate to our cases. I also note that both Direct Line and Churchill were recently fined by the FSA (both RBS Group companies as was NIG the underwriter of the petguard policy): http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2088302/Direct-Line-Churchill-fined-FSA-fines-RBS-Insurance-2-17million-tampering-complaints-files.html and that UKI, Direct Line and Churchill had to change the wording of their pet insurance policies (but not in relation to using the term 'lifelong' I note!!) : http://www.insuranceage.co.uk/insurance-age/news/2128378/rbsi-firms-referred-oft-unfair-pet-insurance I've recently written to my MP and the new Minister for Consumer Affairs, Norman Lamb MP asking them to ensure the FSA carries out a swift investigation into the mis-selling of lifelong pet insurance policies. I have also found out by reading this http://www.insuranceblog.co.uk/2012/02/royal-bank-of-scotland-insurance-ungoes-rebrand/ that the RBS Group have to dispose of all of their insurance interests by 2014. As Direct Line and Churchill pet insurance policies fall under the RBS umbrella, as do Virgin (as they are underwritten by UKI, an RBS Group company) then anyone who has a policy with these companies need to be asking them now if they are pulling out of pet insurance or will have a change of underwriter as this may affect their cover or they may not have their cover renewed as happened with us petguard customers. I've also contacted my vet with our story and asked him to help me put together a ball park figure for likley future treament costs for my dog if he were to suffer a reoccurrence of any condition/illness or related condition I claimed for under the petguard policy - seems like an impossible task as this is why we take out insurance in the first place - to cover us for risk that is hard to quantify - but I hope he's able to help. I also contacted the Advertising Standards Authority regarding the petguard web site. I don't think they actually have any jurisdiction over the marketing of financial products but I have asked for their help in how I can obtain or require petguard to provide me with a full copy of the web pages used to advertise, market, quote and sell me my lifelong policy in August 2008. I can obtain only a few pages using the web archive trawler. I know web sites can use robot.txt files to prevent relevant pages being trawled but I don't know if this is actually what petguard/JLT Online have done but I intend to find out! Oh and I regularly contact the FOS just to keep my case fresh in their minds!

How about we start to lobby consumer bodies like CAB, Consumers Association etc to consider lodging a super complaint with the OFT about the pet insurance market? See this link on OFT web site about super complaints: http://www.oft.gov.uk/OFTwork/markets-work/super-complaints/ Since this affects literally thousands of people it would be an effective, quick way to get a spotlight shone on this market's shoddy practices. I'll be firing off emails and letters to them over the next week or so so the more the merrier!

Has anyone succeeded in obtaining screen shots/copies of the web pages for the petguard/JLT online web site? I'm really keen to obtain copies of the web page text/screenshots from June 2008 when I purchased my policy and unsurprisingly petguard/JLT are unable to provide me with that information and I can't find the relevant pages using the www.archive.org web site. I want to prove that petguard/JLT online marketed one of the options of their vet fees cover as providing lifelong cover for your pet if you chose to say 'No' to the 12 month limit option. I have got a copy of the 'front page' of the site from 2008 http://web.archive.org/web/20080810020535/http://www.petguard.co.uk/? and of their 'Jargon Buster' page from 2009 http://web.archive.org/web/20090503200630/http://www.jltonline.co.uk/secure/jargonbuster.asp?product=Pet&promCode= and this clearly states: Vet fees cover - we offer 'annual' (also called lifelong cover). This allows you to claim up to the level selected every year (providing you renew your policy of course). An excess needs to be paid by you for each condition each year, but it’s often a wise choice for pedigree pets which have a tendency to suffer from longer term or congenital problems. Our 12 month limit option allows you to reduce the 'lifelong' cover to a 12 month period. This will mean that you will have the same cover as above, except that you can only claim for a particular condition for up to 12 months from the first date of treatment and no longer. Although much cheaper, this does mean that the condition is then a pre-existing condition and therefore likely to be excluded from any future policies from most insurance providers. Each renewal letter that contained the 'schedule' details of my insurance policy also contained a similar statemet regarding Vet Fees cover and the 12 Month Cover limit. Also take a look at this link to the Financial Ombudsman Service web site: http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/pet-insurance.htm On this online technical resource the Ombudsman Service clearly states that there are two types of pet insurance policy: annual policies lifelong policies They describe annual policies as, and I quote: 'the most common type of pet insurance policy. They cover conditions that arise within the term of the policy – usually 12 months. When an annual policy is renewed, a condition claimed for during the previous 12 months may still be covered by the new policy if the limit specified in the old policy has not been reached. The limit could be for a period of time or an amount of money. If the limit has been reached, or the policy is not renewed, then the policyholder will have to pay themselves for any further costs relating to that condition.' They descrie lifelong policies thus and again I quote: 'policy provides continuous cover (so long as the policy is renewed periodically) for ongoing conditions throughout the pet’s lifetime. So if a claim is made for a particular condition in the first year, the policyholder may be able to claim for that same condition in later years. The insurer cannot normally amend the basic cover provided by the policy.' If the Ombudsman service themselves understood that the pet insurance market offered two types of policy - annual and lifelong and have clearly outlined the differences as above then they have the same understanding that customers like us had when we purchased the policies - so if I were you TINK660 I would turn around to the FOS and quote their own website and information back to them! I suggest anyone else that has a complaint lodged with the FOS to contact them immediately and quote their own web site to them and to also lodge a complaint with the FSA, Trading Standards and Office of Fair Trading if they haven't already - oh and for good measure write to your MP. I'm currently contacting my MP to complain about the FSA on top of all this as the FSA replied to my complaint about petguard/JLT online bascially saying they would pass the information on to the relevant department but they couldn't tell me if they would investigate it! They would only say if they did investigate they would publish a press release on their web site in the future: As you correctly state in your email, the FSA does have powers to take action against firms where they are in breach of our rules, and the breach poses a risk to consumers. We also have powers to carry out thematic work in certain areas of the financial services industry, for example, the work we carried out on payment protection insurance (PPI). However, it is not possible to state whether there has been any breach, as before we can comment on that we would need to investigate your concerns thoroughly. I have therefore passed a copy of your email to the department that supervises Petguard and JLT Online for consideration. Please be aware that due to confidentiality restrictions placed on the FSA, I will be unable to provide you with any feedback about how the information is used, including confirming whether or not we will be investigating your concerns. I have also passed your email to my colleagues within the general insurance policy team for their consideration, and again, I will be unable to provide you with feedback on this. If we do take action against Petguard/JLT Online, or decide to carry out any thematic work, then we will issue a press release and publish the details on our website. I have attached a link to our website which gives details of recent press releases we have issued: www.fsa.gov.uk/Pages/Library/latest/index.shtml And this is a public body meant to serve the public interest! I'm just about to send the FOS copies of the web pages I've found and the copies of my Renewal Notifications which I don't think I provided originally as well as a screen shot from their own web site about annual and lifelong policies. No way can they say we bought an 'annual' policy purely because the renewal period set by the insurance company happened to be 12 months!

Just heard from The Telegraph that they are running another article this Saturday about pet insurance because yet another insurer has pulled the plug on its pet insurance policies: Lloyds Banking Group which includes Halifax and Lloyds TSB. This means that literally thousands of customers will be in exactly the same boat we are in. I understand that existing policies with Halifax that come up for renewal between now and September 2012 will not be renewed whereas policies with Lloyds will be renewable only up until February 2012. It may be sensible for anyone with pet insurance from Halifax or Lloyds TSB who hasn't yet made any claims to cancel their policy and seek cover elsewhere but that's a decision only each individual can make. And of course we now know that any underwriter of any pet insurance policy can pull out at any time leaving anyone with a claims history for their pet in a situation where they may not be able to obtain insurance cover for any conditions they have previously claimed for their pet. 'Lifetime' cover does not exist and pet insurance brokers/retailers should not be allowed to refer to 'lifetime' cover at all. If you're in this situation complain to the Financial Ombudsman and compain to the regulator, the FSA , and let's change the pet insurance market for good (and for the better) I do get the feeling that the pet insurance market is like a house of cards and it's all about to come tumbling down.. Since I can finally post links on this forum; here's the link to the current Telegraph online article about Lloyds Banking Group pulling out of pet insurance:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/insurance/pet/8805322/Lloyds-and-Halifax-to-pull-pet-insurance-cover.html and here are the links to the previous two online Telegraph articles about petguard here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/insurance/pet/8784021/There-was-no-warning-no-explanation-and-no-apology.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/insurance/pet/8784009/Owners-bitten-by-pet-insurance.html

Thanks for posting the link PeKay. We got two articles in the online Telegraph and a double page spread in the Saturday Telegraph's Your Money section of the actual newspaper! For me the important points are that by not informing us that our policies would not be renewed until very shortly before they were due for renewal, petguard removed our choice and continued to take our premiums. Given my dog's history of injury and illness, had I known that his cover was not going to be renewed, I would have liked the choice to cut my losses and move to another policy in case he fell ill/was injured in the period before the policy renewal date and so avoiding what would inevitably become another 'pre-existing condition' in any other insurance policy's eyes. I didn't have that choice because petguard didn't tell me until 3 weeks before my renewal date that my policy was going to be cancelled and they had 6 months worth of premiums (I paid monthly by direct debit) that I may have chosen not to pay had I been given all the information in a timely fashion and given the opportunity to take out another policy if I decided that was best for me. There are inevitably others still out there who have yet to reach their renewal date who aren't being given that choice either. I feel petguard/JLT online have no right to continue taking your premiums when they are not disclosing material facts about your policy that were you to be made aware of, may persuade you to cancel your policy and find alternative cover with another insurer. The description, wording and marketing of this and other similar polcies is also very misleading (which is why I wanted petguard to provide me with the website text that was live when I first took out my policy in 2008). The word 'lifetime' should not be used in pet insurance policies because it's just not true that you are insuring your pet for its lifetime - you are insuring your pet for a 12 month period and may be able to insure for any condition that lasts for longer than 12 months if your policy offers that option and your cover is renewed every 12 months. NIG who were the original underwriters of the petguard policy withdrew their cover for commercial reasons. NIG are part of the Royal Bank of Scotland group who we, as tax payers, bailed out and own the majority share of. The Royal Bank of Scotland have other underwriters within the group including one called UKI. UKI underwrite other pet insurance policies such as Virgin pet insurance. Why couldn't existing petguard policy holders have been offered alternative cover underwritten by UKI? I've asked Stephen Hester, Chief Executive of RBS and his board to explain this and await their repsonse with interest..

We made it into the National Press! See today's Telegraph. Still unable to post links on this forum as I haven't made enough posts..grrr. All of you affected could now contact your local press and TV with your story about petguard and get us even more media attention. My complaints to the Ombudsman, the FSA and Office of Fair Trading continue..

Bad news first - got final response from NIG which basically just says sorry but tough; nothing we can do so I too will now progress onto the Ombudsman. Haven't even had any acknowledgement or response from FSA so am going to chase them up. But here's the good news. A reporter from The Daily Telegraph contacted me regarding our situation and they're intending to run an article this weekend about pet insurance and will include some details about my particular experience with petguard. Hopefully if the article runs it will at least raise awareness for petguard customers who haven't reached their renewal date and who are therefore still unaware of the situation they're in. And it will raise awareness amongst the pet-owning public in general of the way in which these policies are underwritten and sold and that these so-called 'lifetime' pet insurance policies are not what we think we're paying for. I know the reporter is talking to NIG, petguard and the Ombudsman. Cross fingers it makes it into the paper!