Contents insurance claim

[LittleMissHappy]

My van was broken into and tools and fishing gear was stolen. This happened in the early hours of the morning. My neighbour heard the glass beiing smashed and look out to see someone taken belonging from my van and running around the corner, he then came back for more!!!!! My neighbour phoned the police and then phoned me to tell me what had happened. I am claiming through my contents insurance which covers this sort of thing. They have now told me I have to provide proof of purchase in form of original receipts/ bank statements showing purchase/ withdrawral of cash/ photographs/ manuals etc. I do not have receipts or proof of purchases as some of the items were 4 or 5 years old also some things were gifts. I am trying to draft up a nice letter saying it is unfair for them to ask for receipts. I have given them the crime number, my neighbour name and address and even the names of those who purchased items as gifts. How can I word this letter in a way that tells them I know what i'm talking about and wont take any of their crap.

[LittleMissHappy]

Here is a copy of my draft, please feel free to ammend as I am not so good at this letter writing marlarkie

Thank you for your letter and claims list form which was received 23/04/09.As discussed with you on 17th April 2009 I do not have receipts for the items which were stolen. It is unfair for you to use this as a term. I have provided you with my crime number. My neighbour phoned the police as the crime was happening. You have all his details too. I have filled in the form with the items which were stolen and have enclosed it with this letter.Having been a customer of the Co-operative Insurance for over 20 years I am miffed as to why I have been told that you will not pay out my claim without receipts.I look forward to your speedy response in this matter

*added im sorry about the lack of paragraph. but it wont post it up as i have typed it???!?!?!?!

[djmetsandy]

Hello, I think you will actually cause more problems by stating you have been a customer for 20 years. I get this sort of claim every single day, what you need to do is treat your insurance company as one of your friends i.e explain to them that you do not have any proof of ownership due to the age of the items but the fact you have provided the crime reference number, contact details for your neighbour and that you are willing to help in anyway to process your claim. state you are sorry for any inconvenience caused. Please remember that the insurance company is regulated by the FSA and therefore are required to obtain proof from the insured - I agree that it is not fair for them to totally disregard your claim.

[gyzmo]

There are the CPUT regs and also the Treating Customers Fairly requirements, both of which are breached by asking for receipts unreasonably:

 

1. Where the products were purchased some time ago

2. Where it would not be expected for someone to keep a receipt

3. Where other evidence demonstrates ownership (photos, witness statement etc)

[LittleMissHappy]

Thank you both very much, this will help me out with the nice letter I will send

[gyzmo]

Make sure to mark it as a complaint.

[djmetsandy]

I think marking the letter as a complaint contradicts my comment but it certainly will have your letter acknowledged in 2 days instead of 5.

[LittleMissHappy]

Thanks again guys/girls. I have included a letter with the stolen items list explaining the situation. It was nice polite and to the point. I didn't mark it as a complaint! I will wait to see what they decide first. (as it was implied over the phone that may not pay out if no receipts) If I have to send another letter that will certainly be marked as a complaint.

I think its all to do with the news this week and how they are trying to scare off the [problematic]

[djmetsandy]

I think its all to do with the news this week and how they are trying to scare off the [problematic]

 

That is a good point and certainly may have something to do with it...although you have got to take in to account, your insurance company will deal with these sort of claims every single day. The FSA enforces the insurers to prevent fraud but also state that they have got to take age of the items being claim for into account - sounds like the insurance company are walking a very thin line between a happy customer and complaints.

 

I look forward to hearing the outcome of your claim.

[gyzmo]

It is usually down to poor training or a deliberate attempt of the insurer to delay paying out.

 

Any decent advisor would have told the OP to list items and provide any evidence possible - photos, boxes, warranties - anything at all - without the need for the insured to complain. An insurer should not refuse to pay out on the basis of no receipt.

 

"it could be a fraudulent claim" is not an excuse unless there is evidence or reasonable suspicion of fraud.

Edited April 27, 2009 by gyzmo
fingers can't spell

[djmetsandy]

"it could be a fraudulent claim" is not an excuse unless there is evidence or reasonable suspicion of fraud.

 

And who is to say that the insurance company did not have suspicions in the first place?

An insurance company must implement certain guidelines for staff to follow, if a claim is applicable to those guidelines, it will be reviewed and appropriate questions asked.

 

I completely disagree with your comment below:

 

"It is usually down to poor training or a deliberate attempt of the insurer to delay paying out"

 

Why would an insurance company purposely delay a claim, remembering that the longer a claim remains open the more money it costs?

 

It sounds as though the insurance company did request proof of ownership for the item, whether the advisor did state that the claim would be declined due to lack of supporting documentation or whether it was a misunderstanding will not be resolved without the recorded call.

 

Either way, we will wait and see the outcome of LittleMissHappy's letter...

[gyzmo]

If the insurer had suspicions they should have acted accordingly in the first instance. A suspicion cannot follow from what seems like perfectly ordinary circumstances. There is nothing to suggest any suspicious circumstances - indeed the information given suggests quite the opposite.

 

As for the rest, I have seen more deliberate delays with claims than I care to mention - most of them down to staff not wanting to speak to an "awkward" customer or not wanting to get involved because it will affect their targets.

 

The insurer, who was dealing with claims on behalf of the DTI, lost their contract because they were sitting on several thousand claims that were ready to be paid out but they refused to do so due to them being out of target, meaning that they would not get paid the fee for each one of them. They were trying to find a way to bring them back into target or to negotiate with the DTI to get paid.

 

I know that because I worked there at the time and the manager had a meeting telling us as much.

 

And in the OPs case, if it was known that there were no receipts, any decent advisor would ask for supporting information - photos, witness statements, boxes - anything to support the claim. Refusing to pay out due to lack of a receipt is an unfair practice (and illegal).

 

You may disagree with me, but I have first hand experience and evidence that what I have said is more true than no.

Edited May 8, 2009 by gyzmo
removal of certain name

[gyzmo]

Just as a matter of fact, what you have said seems to contradict what you first said on these forums:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/insurance-assurance-companies/149227-home-insurance-ival.html#post1966204

[djmetsandy]

Sorry I'm a bit brain dead this morning, do you mind providing where I contradicted myself (please take into account, you are a experienced claims handler like myself and know that each claim must be taken into its own merits.)

 

I note that you have stated:

 

A suspicion cannot follow from what seems like perfectly ordinary circumstances

 

You are looking at just the claim, you have to look at the policy also. We are unaware of what LittleMissHappy's claim history is like..therefore suspicions can be followed.

How can you predict that this claim did not flag up at one point?

I am unaware of whether CIS use voice analysis software - maybe you can share some light on this?

[gyzmo]

But the point is the insurer refusing to pay out due to lack of receipts. That is not an acceptable reason. Like I said, a decent advisor would have advised of other forms of evidence.

 

And with regards to fraud - there was no mention of it until you raised the subject. As regards to my reference to your original post, you stated:

 

"Ival will push for proof of owner a lot because we require them to, sometimes a lack of common sense comes into play - this is down to original training. We are always vigilant in highlighting areas where the validation process has failed and we endeavour to get the claim moving and settled as soon as possible UNLESS we have concerns with the claim that has been presented to us.". This seems to agree with what I said originally, and yet you go against it in a later post.

 

As regards to treating your insurer like a friend,I do not see why one should. There is a contract in place, not a buddy system, and that contract needs to be upheld on both sides. If the insurer refuses to do what they are supposed to do without sufficient reason then they must be taken to task over it. "friendliness" has nothing to do with it.

 

But anyway, none of this is helping the OP.

[djmetsandy]

I shall agree we have gone off in a tagent but I purposely do not moan and groan at every company I deal with, insurance or not, in order to get what I want. I feel people are more proactive if you are friendly and if you are nasty then that person will scrutenise your claim which will delay the claim..

[gyzmo]

I'm not saying to be nasty with them - I believe in being amicable to them. I also believe in insurers doing their job first time round without the insured having to chase things up or suffer delays.

 

Where that happens, I have no problem whatsoever in complaining.

[djmetsandy]

Then your ideal world is a world run by robots...no faults, no feelings and no hesitations.

[gyzmo]

What? No!

 

I don't think it is too much to ask for a company to

 

A select the best staff it can

B Train them properly

C Promise only what they can deliver

D Deliver what they promise

E Adhere to the spirit and letter of the law.

 

That is the essence here. I am not saying mistakes cannot happen. But where they do they should be learnt from. That seems not to be happening.

 

Insurers know damned well they cannot insist on receipts to meet a claim. So why are they still doing it? There is simply no excuse.

[djmetsandy]

The reason they ask for receipts is because the FSA say so..and yes the FSA also say to keep age in mind..and as far as I am aware there is no set guideline for when you would not expect someone to have a receipt. It is all done to the person in particular, type of product and price of product. Handling claims is not always easy and that is what makes them enjoyable and a learning curve.

[gyzmo]

Look at FOS case studies 75/08 complaints involving household contents insurance - specifically states that a receipt is not the only proof of ownership. Whilst the complainant did not proceed, the FOS are quite clear in what they state.

 

The CPUT regs also bar insurers from refusing to pay out by unreasonably request for documentation.

[djmetsandy]

Thank you, I will have a read of this later, but you must also take into mind that handler must decide when it is unreasonable to have receipts of items.

[gyzmo]

Most people chuck their receipts away pretty quickly - more so for less valuable items such as that claimed for here. And the more time that passes, the less likely it is for someone to have a receipt. And again, even if it is reasonable to have a receipt, it is not sufficient to reject a claim solely on the absence of it. The advisor shoudl also consider what else will do. In this case they did not.

[Wulfyn]

Claims handlers are now being put under more pressure to pressure the customer in the first instance in order to put off fraudulent claims. It's not right, and it's not TCF, but the company I work for has seen a 40% rise in the number of claims reported that are never followed up by the customer - one of the simplest (and bluntest) ways to measure fraud.

 

 

Insurance companies will also try and delay payment for as long as possible on claims that are not accruing any further cost. For example a car accident where you hire a vehicle will be dealt with very swiftly in order to cut the claim cost down, but a theft claim on fishing gear has no such accruing cost.

 

It is slightly backwards to say that the longer insurance claims take to pay out the more they cost, as this is not the direct link. The more complex a claim the longer it takes to pay and the more that has to be paid. There is a relationship, but not a causal one - they are both effects of the complexity.

 

The longer it takes to pay a claim the longer the insurance company collects interest/investment income on the cash they keep. So there is certainly not a culture of getting on with things - something the TCF regulations are helping to change.

 

 

 

To the OP - both are right in saying that it is unrealistic to expect you to have all of your receipts. You have a non-family member as a witness, so fraud is not likely in this case. Good luck!

[djmetsandy]

This sort of claim can incurr costs by just sitting there, specially if the insurance company has a diary system, as a handler has to go into the claim, read the notes, deal with it and then leave - all costing handling costs through wages - these are unnecessary costs.