petguard insurance problem ** RESOLVED SUCCESSFULLY **

[stevescott]

my policy has a "12 month limit per condition - No" section. This infers lifetime cover

 

My dog doesn't have any lifelong conditions that I'm concerned about but I have paid a premium for a lifetime cover which was canceled before my first year! I'm seeking a refund for the difference in policy costs!

 

Does anybody know when petguard were made aware by NIG that NIG would no longer underwrite petguard policies?

[melbury]

I am still waiting to hear from the adjudicator, but certainly not holding my breath.

 

There is a thread on Moneysavingexpert about the Halifax giving up on pet insurance and actually paying some of their customers who have a pet with a pre-existing condition one off compensation payments.

[BankFodder]

I am still waiting to hear from the adjudicator, but certainly not holding my breath.

 

There is a thread on Moneysavingexpert about the Halifax giving up on pet insurance and actually paying some of their customers who have a pet with a pre-existing condition one off compensation payments.

 

I'd forgotten that this thread existed.

 

Please do let us know what the FOS says. Someone else has reported that the FOS declined to take any action.

 

However we think that pet insurance customers have a very strong case.

 

We have heard that Halifax is handing out money when pushed but that the amounts are very small compared to what is needed.

 

You can be sure that the Halifax compensation pot is very small and is calculated to take the wind out of people's sails and sweep the problem away.

 

We think that there is a good chance that a legal action can succeed.

 

It would be helpful if you would start a thread for your story so that we can follow your progress.

 

Have a look at the other pet insurance threads on the forum

[BankFodder]

my policy has a "12 month limit per condition - No" section. This infers lifetime cover

 

My dog doesn't have any lifelong conditions that I'm concerned about but I have paid a premium for a lifetime cover which was canceled before my first year! I'm seeking a refund for the difference in policy costs!

 

Does anybody know when petguard were made aware by NIG that NIG would no longer underwrite petguard policies?

 

There should be no problem about getting this. Please keep us informed and let us know if you need any assistance

[BankFodder]

Hi

 

I am currently searching through all my documentation relating to Petguard and my orignal booklet that I have come across states:

 

'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 tendancy to suffer from longer term of congenital problems.'

 

My next step is to complete the FSA complaint form as I am not happy with the fobbing off letter received from NIG. I only received my letter from Petguard in December informing me of the changes to the policy which really annoys me as they obviously knew this a long time ago and should have informed everyone at the same time not upon renewal of your policy.

 

Good luck to everyone making a complaint. A friend told me he saw a Watchdog programme regarding Petguard - I wish I could have seen it.

 

 

We would very much like to see a copy of this. Please would you contact us using our admin email address.

 

We would also like to see your fob-off letter. Any chance that you could stat a new thread and post it on the forum for us? Remove identifiers, of course.

[BankFodder]

I've received a letter today from the Adjudicator at the FOS basically saying that the policy we had was an annual one as there is no mention of "lifetime" on the policy documents. Now I know that we purchased a lifetime policy and we paid extra for it. What I really need now is a screenshot of the old petguard website to prove that we bought and paid for lifetime cover. Petguard are obviously not going to supply me with this - so if anyone on this site who reads this has one (I know its a long shot) please let me know.

 

The letter goes on to say that if we have been sold an annual policy when we requested lifetime cover, this is not the underwriters responsiblity but the insurance company (Thistle) and we would need the complaint to be amended and set up against Thistle. This means waiting ANOTHER 8 weeks for them to respond before it can go any further. It also says that the FOS consider it fair and reasonable for the policyholder to read the documentation they have been provided with about a policy and that the documentation we provided them with states that the policy is an annual one.

 

How can something that is so obviously the fault of the insurers underwriters get twisted around so that it appears to have been our fault for not reading the documentation. We had to supply the documentation because apparently Petguard were dragging their heels and now this - I am totally disgusted. PLEASE PLEASE everyone see if you have a screenshot so that I can prove that these people are cheating us all.

There are enough Petguard customers that I expect that we can help you get the documents you are looking for.

 

Your complaint should be against Petguard. I'm afraid that we tend to think the quality of the FOS advice is often very poor

[melbury]

Thank you for your reply Bank Fodder. Are you a solicitor or suchlike? Just curious because you say "we think there is a good chance that legal action can succeed." Or perhaps you have also been let down with your pet insurer.

 

The Lloyds/Halifax people are getting a lot of publicity, probably because there are far more of them than there were with Petguard. I can't believe that Petguard had to cheek to start trading again with a different underwriter, I mean who in their right mind would go through them after the way they treated their customers last year?

 

I understand that Halifax are offering some people compensation, but Petguard certainly didn't do this.

[BankFodder]

Thank you for your reply Bank Fodder. Are you a solicitor or suchlike? Just curious because you say "we think there is a good chance that legal action can succeed." Or perhaps you have also been let down with your pet insurer.

 

The Lloyds/Halifax people are getting a lot of publicity, probably because there are far more of them than there were with Petguard. I can't believe that Petguard had to cheek to start trading again with a different underwriter, I mean who in their right mind would go through them after the way they treated their customers last year?

 

I understand that Halifax are offering some people compensation, but Petguard certainly didn't do this.

No, there is no qualified expertise on this site and as you will see in most disclaimers on this site, people take their own actions at their own risk.

However we do try to give decent advice based on our understanding of the law.

 

The compensation that Halifax is offering amounts to bonbons as far as I can tell and based on the halifax documents I have seen there seems to me to be a good chance of success.

[melbury]

No, there is no qualified expertise on this site and as you will see in most disclaimers on this site, people take their own actions at their own risk.

However we do try to give decent advice based on our understanding of the law.

 

The compensation that Halifax is offering amounts to bonbons as far as I can tell and based on the halifax documents I have seen there seems to me to be a good chance of success.

 

Thanks for replying BankFodder.

 

If you look at this thread - post number 64, 66 and 68 all relate compensation offers from Halifax:

 

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=3507585&page=4

 

To be quite honest, I wouldn't call £1,390, £2,500 and £1,030 bonbons! At least it is something to put away in readiness.

[BankFodder]

Thanks for the links. Yes, quite impressive gestures of good will - but still bonbons, given insurers' real level of liability and the real likely cost of keeping those pets in good health.

 

What is now clear to me is that Halifax is very aware of their legal liability in this matter - or else they wouldn't have offered this level of bribe.

 

As the payments have been made as a gesture of goodwill - and not as a matter of liability, I think that that even the people who have accepted the payments should go back for more and be prepared to go to court if necessary.

 

Halifax are bang to rights and they know it.

[fidel]

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!

Edited February 9, 2012 by fidel

[BankFodder]

 

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!

 

Thanks for the links. Anything like this is very useful.

 

The FOS will not get the job done. The only solution is to take a court action. If you go the FOS route, you will simply tire yourself out until you can scarcely be bothered any more. The FOS won't help you. They are supine

[fidel]

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!

[BankFodder]

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!

 

Yes, a good idea to let as many people know as possible. However, I'm sorry to say that although it is a good idea to get it all down on file - I have no optimism that it can achieve results. The OFT isn't a lot of good and they take ages to grind into any kind of action.

The only remedy which is quick and effective is court action, unfortunately. A County Court claim form is the equaliser. For the most part the banks/insurers - etc don't care about their reputation. They realise that most of the rows blow over and then it is business as usual. They also don't take threats seriously. They get thousands of them and scarcely any of them ever develop into a legal action. Threats of legal action are filed under "huff and puff". Issue the claim and suddenly you have their attention.

[fidel]

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!

[BankFodder]

Fidel - this is great stuff. Very useful and very thorough too.

 

Any chance that you might alter it slightly so that it reads like an article and then we can publish it on our CAGMag and use it in our forthcoming newsletter. The Newsletter goes out to 300,000 or so people and hopefully will attract more interest.

 

Also, we are trying to collect and examples of pre-sale and post-sale documents of any type.

[fidel]

@ 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

Edited February 16, 2012 by fidel

[fidel]

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]

 

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.

 

 

Thanks for this.

 

Would you like to talk to the press about this media reponse? We have had a media approach about it.

Please email on our admin email address

[fidel]

Thanks for this.

 

Would you like to talk to the press about this media reponse? We have had a media approach about it.

Please email on our admin email address

 

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...

[BankFodder]

Ta, I got your message and I've responded.

[PeKay]

FSA tells Lloyds to 'get a grip' on pet insurance fiasco as owners make life or death decisions over their animals

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/news/article-2112963/FSA-tells-Lloyds-grip-pet-insurance-fiasco.html#ixzz1opCIxatf

[BankFodder]

FSA tells Lloyds to 'get a grip' on pet insurance fiasco as owners make life or death decisions over their animals

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/news/article-2112963/FSA-tells-Lloyds-grip-pet-insurance-fiasco.html#ixzz1opCIxatf

Thanks for this

 

The explanation by the "industry source" that the insurance failed because there weren't new customers coming in - shows that the Halifax and Lloyds pet insurance product was just one huge Ponzi scheme - destined to fail.

Ponzi schemes are illegal and people are getting long prison sentences for running them.

So why is the FSA merely losing patience. They should be going for the throats for the people responsible for persuading innocent people to part with their money and then pulling out when they weren't making as much money as they wanted.

We know already that Lloyds and Halifax are disreputable and inefficient - but now we find that the FSA doesn't really want to do anything very much.

[PeKay]

So what's the difference between Halifax/Lloyds customers and PetGuard?

 

NIG are part of the Roayal Bank of Scotland, so none imho.

 

Why are the press not reporting on us and why are the FSA not as talkative about us?

[BankFodder]

Who is "us" - Lloyds or Halifax?

 

It seems that Halifax may have had many more customers and so it has become a larger issue for them

 

However, they are both caught in the same trap and I have documents on both of them for anyone who wants to make a claim.