Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Excess charged twice on Pet Insurance


TimGS
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3990 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

Please

Start your own new thread

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

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

I have a dog, who is insured, with a long term condition for which he is on medication.

 

He had a stroke last April and is on heart medication. Our insurance policy clearly states that they will pay out for no more than 12 months per condition - I have no dispute with this, the period of payment is coming to an end, but that's how it is. Similarly the excesses, although steep, are made very clear (a fixed 170 plus 30%).

 

I renew the policy every 12 months, in October, and have been with this company since we first got our dog.

 

What I didn't expect was to have the fixed excess applied twice. The table of excesses is prefixed by the text 'What you must pay during each period of insurance', and on a different page to the table of excesses, the policy defines a 'Period of Insurance' as the time for which they provide cover as described in the Schedule i.e. October of one year till October of the next year. Crucially, it appears to not include the 12 month period for which they will cover a condition.

 

This appears to mean that although they will payout for 12 months per condition, this period is defined as sitting within two periods of insurance, so we are stung twice for the fixed excess.

 

This seems nonsensical and counter-intuitive. If my dog had had his stroke in October, the clearly stated maximum 12 months of payout would fall within one 'Period of Insurance' and be subject to just one set of excesses. It is fairly unlikely though that an illness will coincide with the renewal date.

 

I realise that the large amount of small print is a legal necessity. However I would dispute how clear the situation is - and for any long term (12 months+) condition it is more likely than not you will be paying the fixed excess twice - which certainly is not made clear in the otherwise very clear table of excesses.

 

I don't think this is fair - but is it legal and does it amount to 'treating the customer fairly' ?

 

Thanks in advance for any advice.

 

-- Tim.

Edited by TimGS
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never heard of this before. The insurer appears to be straddling the line between continuous cover and 12 month policies. I'm not quite sure if you're unlucky that they charge the excess twice or lucky that they will cover a condition beyond the renewal date. I can see the thinking, when you renew each October you are starting a new contract so it's a new excess. Who is the insurer?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most insurers would charge an excess either per course of treatment or per period, not both. My gut instinct is that per course would be more normal but I think you should do a quick check with other insurers to see what they do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have recently done extensive research covering most pet insurance policies in the UK. The excesses you mention are indeed very steep!! Not sure I have found another one that steep but have admit I have not come across Paws Pet Insurance. Most 12 month policies only charge the excess once per condition. However Animal Friends is an exception to this... their policy says "you are responsible for either the first £69 or the first £99 of each claim per condition per policy year depending on the excess level you have selected.

 

If your insurers did not make it clear when you purchased the policy (either in their Key Facts document or Policy Document) that you would have to pay the excess in each policy year then I suspect you might have a good case with the ombudsman as this is not generally the norm for this type of policy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Our dog is about 15 years old, hence the large excesses.

 

The issue - as I see it - is that the documents do not make clear, nor has it been made clear at any point in the past, that the excess is per condition per policy year - on a first reading it looks like it is just per condition.

 

The wording before the excess tables is "What you must pay for each illness or injury that is treated during the period of insurance".

 

I would have expected the "period of insurance" to include the 12 month period during which I am eligible for payments from the insurer for each illness/condition.

 

I realise that in terms of the small print I may be wrong - but I certainly don't feel this amounts to fair treatment, and I do feel the documents do not make this clear.

 

-- Tim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Our dog is about 15 years old, hence the large excesses.

 

The issue - as I see it - is that the documents do not make clear, nor has it been made clear at any point in the past, that the excess is per condition per policy year - on a first reading it looks like it is just per condition.

 

The wording before the excess tables is "What you must pay for each illness or injury that is treated during the period of insurance".

 

I would have expected the "period of insurance" to include the 12 month period during which I am eligible for payments from the insurer for each illness/condition.

 

I realise that in terms of the small print I may be wrong - but I certainly don't feel this amounts to fair treatment, and I do feel the documents do not make this clear.

 

-- Tim.

 

Hey Tim,

 

I actually work for a large pet insurance company, May i ask who it is you're insured with?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm having trouble locating there website to look at T&C's. if you can provide them or a website i would like to look at them.

 

A lot of insurance companys that offer liftime cover with a flat xs will apply for each unrelated condition with that policy year and when the policy renews the xs will apply again for that year. If there's a % then that will usually apply to all claims regardless of continuation claim or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

@bg5067 - I'll try and find an electronic T&C, though I'm suspecting it doesn't exist online.

 

I complained to the Financial Ombudsman service, but it turns out that is useless in this case. Thistle acted as an intermediary for Alpha A/s in Denmark, which the FOS tell me means that it is not under their jurisdiction. I have to complain to the Danish equivalent.

 

This costs money unfortunately - not a lot, but I'm wondering how far it makes sense taking this.

 

Annoyingly Thistle themselves, in response to my complaint, directed me to the UK FOS as my next port of call. Evidently this has been nothing more than a waste of time.

 

-- Tim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...