sorry if this is in the wrong place bit of a confusing one im just coming to the end of an iva all went well for five years until i get a phonecall today saying santander one of the creditors arent covering all of my debt with them according to them i carried on spending on my account after the iva was in place and im not covered for it its my own debt for five years all it has said on my yearly report is evidence required next to santander questioning the amount-i queried it over the years and all i was told was dont worry about it there wont be a problem well there now is as they wont be covered and i now owe 2000 out of my own money which i dont have what advice id like is is it my fault for not persuing this harder is it their fault for not breaking down the amount and saying what was not covered earlier or the IP fault for not clearing this up sooner when i asked they say they have no record of me asking about it-of course not-ive put in a complaint but all they kept saying was but why are you complaining if you spent the money my response was because i was not told about this for five years and could have sorted it out by now if there was a problem where do i stand now as i believe ive been given the wrong information over the course of the iva

I was tempted to use 'discriminate against' in the thread title but thought that may have been a bit too strong. Ok, so my mum is currently on a trip to Dubai with my dad (He's already over there for work) and so we went to take out a travel insurance policy. She's done this trip (alone and with me) several times in the past few years so we've got a good bit of experience with buying Travel Insurance online, usually from the Post Office, and just printing out documentation at home within minutes. All nice and simple. So this year we sat down (She's not at all IT-savvy, so it's down to good old Son who works in IT to do something so 'complicated' for her ) and went to go through the process as usual, but this year there was something a bit different about the questions to answer/fill in, with more details on the medical side being requested. In the past there's never been any medical questions when buying travel insurance beyond the "pre-existing conditions wont be covered" type stuff. Now, unfortunately my mum was diagnosed with Breast Cancer nearly 6 years ago. Fortunately it was caught very early and through a combination of minor radiotherapy and drug treatments, she made a complete recovery and was given her all clear last December. Previously this has never been applicable to the questions that we've been asked when buying Travel Insurance online, but the new questions, or at least the new wording of the questions, meant that it did seem to fall into the 'relevant' bracket now, so when the following question came up, Along with. We had to click Yes, wanting to give an honest declaration that she had been for treatment, but that she was now all clear and no longer undergoing any treatment. On clicking Yes we were asked what the condition was, and Breast Cancer was an option. We were then given the following questions, Available answers were, "No", "Yes - spread to lymph nodes in armpit only" and "Yes - spread to other parts of the body". Fortunately, our answer was "No". "Under 2 years" "2-3 Years" "3-5 years" "5-8 years" "8-10 years" "More than 10 years" Our answer was "5-8 years" "Yes" "No" "Still waiting for surgery to remove the cancer" Now on this one, we selected "No", as there was never any surgery. However I'm assuming here that Chemotherapy and medication don't classify as 'surgery' as there wasn't what I could consider a surgical procedure involved. For this one we selected the option of 1 to 2 visits in the last 12 months, the last one being her final check last year before getting her all clear. Well, no she's not. Treatment is complete, but there was no option for that at all. There were only options for Chemotherapy, Surger, Radiotherapy, Tablet treatment, Other Treatment or No. So we had to pick no. So as you can see, there were absolutely no options to say "I did have cancer, but it was treated completely successfully without the need for surgical removal". So we put in those details, and then got prompted that there were no policies available based on the information. Hm, odd. So next we tried a comparison site, thinking that might be a bit better. We ended up on Moneysupermarket after prompting that there was a previous cancer case involved were directed to their "Pre-existing condition" quote site. Sounded good, something a bit more specialist. Went through that only to be prompted with word for word the same questions and answers. Obviously we put in the same information....and got the same results. No policies available. In the end, she had to phone up her bank and managed to get a quote over the phone since she could actually explain the cancer was now gone and she'd received her all clear. But why not have an option for people who have been successfully treated for Cancer? Why did we have to go through all that? Are insurance companies just of the opinion that once you've had cancer, you always have cancer?

Hi All First post here, happy new year to you all I am writing on behalf of my wife who has been suffering from Graves disease (a thyroid condition) and thyroid eye disease for approx 18 months. She has needed regular (ranging from weekly to bi monthly depending on severity of the condition) consultations with her consultants throughout that period. Recently we received a letter from AXA PPP stating that from the 5th Jan 2014 they would no longer be covering any claims made on these conditions as they now consider her illness to be chronic rather than active. All of her consultants disagree with this assessment of her condition, she is definitely in the active phase and they have all written letters to AXA PPP confirming this. However PPP are not interested in the doctor's opinion. They have stated to me that they consider a condition to be chronic if it has required a certain number of consultations or gone on for a certain length, regardless of the illness itself. This just does not seem right to me and would appear to be a purely financial decision on their part that they have paid out too much already. My wife has had this insurance for many years and has paid them thousands of pounds in the process. I will be appealing against their decision and would also consider going to the ombudsman to get them to reverse their refusal to cover her illness. The doctor's (all highly regarded in their field) have stated that her active phase has gone on longer than the average, but that the average is just that, and as many people have a longer period of active phase as have a shorter one. Does anybody here have any experience in this kind of appeal against an insurer? Is there anything particular i should be looking to do? has anyone had any luck with a similar type of claim or are we fighting a pointless battle? Any help would be most gratefully received. Many thanks Dan