Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Attachments (Exhibits)   FTMDave and I have called them "Attachments" but I note Andyorch used the term "Exhibits".  I don't think it makes any difference which you use but perhaps Exhibits is more correct.  Whichever you use, make sure you use the term consistently.  (i'm going to use Attachment for now).   You use Attachments as supporting evidence for things you mention in the numbered particulars of your claim.  Might be a report from a third party or a quote from a third party.  In the relevant numbered particular of your claim you refer to the appropriate Attachment supporting that part of the claim.  eg like this "(See Attachment A)".   You can use numbers or capital letters to identify each Attachment.  I don't think it matters which but be consistent in your usage.   It helps if the Attachments are organised and incorporated into your claim in a logical sequence.  (eg A, B, C etc)   Make sure each attachment is clearly labelled "Attachment A"  etc.   If it is not immediately clear to the reader what an attachment is, put a brief description.  Eg "Quote from XXXXX Ltd to complete unfinished plastering" or whatever.  Make sure the reader can understand what each attachment is.   Ideally each Attachment will be no more than one page.  So you can make the labelling of attachments even clearer by labelling them "Attachment A  -  page 1 of 1" etc etc.   If an attachment is longer than one page you label it "Attachment A - page 1 of 2" and then "Attachment A - page 2 of 2", or whatever it is.   By doing all that you are making it easier for the judge to follow - and you want the judge on your side...   Now - what you've posted in #109 is helpful because it adds up to to £16577.  Which is good.  But if I were the judge, I'd want to know where the individual items come from.     So what you have posted in #109 should - I suggest - be your final attachment.  Let's call it "Attachment H" for now.  So at the end of your particulars of counterclaim where you say you are claiming £16577 from the defendant, you put the reference "See Attachment H".   The judge then looks at Attachment H and sees a total of £16577.  What you then need on Attachment H next to each individual item on there, is a reference to which earlier Attachment that item comes from.  eg "See Attachment C".  The judge can then look at Attachment C and understand where the item on Attachment H comes from.  By doing that rigorously and methodically for each item on Attachment H you are justifying each item and the total of £16577.  Yes?   Your schedule in #109 is OK but raises questions that need answering.  eg: spelling as spotted by Honeybee13 Grand total as spotted by Honeybee13 TBA or estimates as per my previous post and Honeybee why is it in two separate sections (£8577 and £8000)? The item numbering is absolute garbage At the end of the day it is going to be the detail (or lack of detail) in your attachments that will win (or lose) you the case.  It has to be just right and you have to be consistent.  It has to be logical, methodical and consistent so it can be understood immediately.   I don't want you to give me answers to these questions.  I want you to act on them.   As I said earlier, don't post any more work you have done for now.  Wait until FTMDave is back this evening so we are all working from the same page at the same time.   If Andyorch or FTMDave suggest anything that disagrees with me, go with what they say.  They know more than me.   (I suspect one of them might suggest some kind of contents list identifying and listing all the different attachments)    
    • Hi again I sent my letter off on Monday, signed for delivery as I wanted to make sure it's got there, it was finally delivered yesterday Last night I had a text from them:   "There is a 50% settlement discount available on your account.  If you cannot pay in full this can be paid across 3 equal monthly instalments of £339.57.  To take advantage of this offer please visit" and then a website link.   Hopefully they will be in touch soon to say they've taken the letter on board and will leave me alone now.   I'll update this thread if I hear anything, it really helped me to see others had been in my situation. Fingers crossed
    • It hasnt caused tfl financial harm, those cards are paid for by the public purse. Your abuse of that is what you need to get acrossYour   id also state a criminal record will destroy your future career totally.   Dx
    • sure, this is the email i will send today unless there are any changes i should make?   Dear Sir/Madam,   I am emailing as I wish to ask for an out of court settlement regarding my case (case number). I realise that my actions have caused TFL financial harm and for that I am truly sorry, and would like to help remedy this in any way. Whilst there is no excuse for my actions, at the time, I was struggling to afford transport as a student working only 6 hours a week. Student finance did not provide maintenance for masters and on top of this, I was on universal credit during that time. I have since been paying for the travel using my bank card and despite going into overdraft multiple times, I continued to pay the full fare for the past 4 months and will continue to do so. This is a mistake I truly regret and am willing to pay the entire amount stated to settle this as soon as possible. Thank you in advance for your consideration.   Kind regards,    
    • Ex-Credit Suisse chief António Horta-Osório went to Wembley on same day he attended Wimbledon.View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Vet Claim Handeling Question

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4085 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then


Please click the "Report " link


at the bottom of one of the posts.


If you want to post a new story then


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts



We recently made a claim on our pet insurance for some lumps to be removed from our 10 y/o dog. The bill was £640 and we had an excess of £80. That's all OK.


We submitted the claim with our vet filling in the technical bits of the form and the claim has bee processed and payment issued.


We were expecting a check for £560, but no. They have sent 4 cheques amounting to £260 claiming that as there were 3 different types of lump, Cyst, Melanoma and Lypoma this is 3 separate conditions each being a separate condition and therefore being 3 claims and 3 excesses. Even then the maths don't work out.


Surely this can't be right. It was 1 operation, and 1 consultation, and one bill. Had we have not paid for histology no one would have been the wiser, but of course this is not in the dogs best long term interest. If we had had these lumps removed in separate operations there would have been significantly greater expenses for things such as pre & post op consultations, aesthetic, medication etc, but again this would not be in the dogs best interest.


How should I fight this? The company is Direct line.


Thanks in advance.



Link to post
Share on other sites



The dog is doing just fine thanks.


I am going to go through it tonight.


It does however gall me that if we had not had the histology done, or claimed for it then this would be treated as 1 item "lumps removed"


I just strongly feel this is a very wrong approach and even if it is in the wording it is a VERY significant item and attention should be brourght to it lest it be considered unfair / reasonable terms.


We have 2 dogs and have paid out 42 p/m for 10 years and this is the first claim we've made. Thats over £5000 in premiums. I know this is a typical statement and I know the underwriters job is to save the insurance co. as much as possible but this really is taking the micky.


Even our vet had never heard of this happening.



Link to post
Share on other sites



I have already sent a letter of complaint. My key point in it is if we had not had histology it would have been a bil saying something along the lines of "lump removal".


This is their full policy




This is the key facts summery.







Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello again and thank you for taking the time to post this info.


I think I'm up against the limits of my knowledge, but I wonder if they're trying to hide behind their definition of 'different diseases' in the claims section of the policy document. I imagine what your poor dog had wasn't any sort of pre-existing condition?


Depending on what the guys say, it could be a case of waiting for a reply to your letter and arguing it from there, but at least we have the policy terms to refer to now.


My best, HB

Illegitimi non carborundum




Link to post
Share on other sites

I got a phone call today from an underwriter agreeing to pay in full as one claim. However their reasoning for dividing the claim into 4 is so we can claim again if one or more of the listed types of lump come back.


Heres the bit I don't get. If we go for the full settlement the current lump types are only covered for a year after the surgery if they need revising or come back. After this time we would not be able to claim at all for them as they would then be classed as a pre-existing condition. If we go with their proposed settlement the lump types will be covered for life and we wouldn't have to lose our excess again.


Surely pre-existing would be at the time the policy was taken out, i.e. when each one was 8 weeks old. There has been no lapse of missed payments. Does this policy renew each year or is it an ongoing policy with annual revised payments


I need to speak to my vet about this. Seems like a climb down to me dressed on bullsh*te



Edited by Bigglesw
to add a missed sentance.
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have a policy which gives ongoing cover then I don't understand their argument UNLESS you have one which has a cover limit per condition rather than a limit per year in which case I understand what they're saying. Even so £640 shouldn't be anywhere near your limit. I would be interested in knowing their reasoning on this. I honestly don't understand how they can exclude 'lumps' as a pre-existing condition but not exclude named lumps.

Link to post
Share on other sites


  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...