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

Non-reveiwable exclusion to be placed on new pet insurance policy


ccholland
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2649 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

Morning All,

 

 

I recently applied for a new pet insurance policy for a new dog and after a lot of chasing the company for an answer I have finally received a very poorly worded letter from them advising 'the cover will be limited to accidental external damage only'!

 

 

They then go on to say 'this exclusion is non-reviewable as this condition can affect many systems and is unpredictable'.

 

 

The condition is called Rickettsia and the dog contracted it in Spain as a result of being bitten by a Tick most likely. When the dog came to us we took him to our vet for a full check-up and our vet contacted Defra for some advice. They came back and advised that they were not in the least bit concerned with the condition and as a result our vet advised he is good condition and unless we are concerned by anything he would see us for our next scheduled check-up in approximately 6 months time.

 

 

I am going to contact our vet and ask his opinion on the insurers stance but before I do I was wondering if anyone with any experience in this filed had an opinion please?

 

 

Does anyone think this could be deemed unfair as I fully expected and exclusion to be placed on an issued policy with to Rickettsia and any RELATED condition but not a blanket exclusion for any illness at all?

 

 

Thanks in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just googled it (as you do) and PetMD.com has a reasonable description of the disease including the following -

Most dogs recover well with prompt and appropriate therapy. Some dogs clinically recover but the infection is not entirely eradicated, remaining in the body and sometimes returning at a later time

http://www.petmd.com/dog/conditions/infectious-parasitic/c_dg_ehrlichiosis

 

Seems it can be a pretty unpleasant disease in the chronic stage with a wide range of symptoms. What the insurers seem to be saying is that any future illness 'may' be related to this pre-existing condition so they can't provide cover for illness but will for accident.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Hightail - funnily enough I saw that website as well. It's a difficult one as I get where the insurers are coming from after reading up on the condition however I think they could be a bit more accommodating with regard to the nature of the exclusion. I was up front when applying for the cover and mentioned the condition - not sure where I would stand if applied else where....

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would discuss it with your vet first. You say your dog is having another check up in six months so it could be that there will come a time when a vet can say conclusively this has been completely eradicated from your dog's system. I honestly don't know but maybe two clear PCR tests six months apart would do?? There is a chance that the insurer is working from out of date information which predates the availability of such precise testing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I spoke to a lady from the insurers who was very nice but to be fair was trying to 'wing it' and she advised that because this condition is so rare in the UK that they do not have enough data to refer to hence the reason for the blanket exclusion - again it appears to be a rather rash decision on their part. Will email my vet with a copy of the letter and see what he thinks.

 

Thanks for your input , much appreciated :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I emailed a copy of the letter to my vet and he kindly came back and advised that he thinks that their exclusion is very wide ranging. He also went on to say that there was no evidence that the dog has had or currently has any clinical Rickettsial disease - just that he had been exposed to it at some point before we got him. Based on this I sent a lengthy email to the Insurer and they said they would look into my 'complaint' and come back to me - will see what happens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But it is a risk and the insurance company are not prepared to accept that risk. That's their choice. Have you tried another insurance company?

 

You may find they change their mind on the back of the complaint, but its very unlikely. I would check a few other companies and get some quotes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair point regarding risk and their choice - I understand that. I have managed to get some other quotes however the level of cover is not as good. Suppose its weighing up whether the level of cover needs to be that good I guess as he may never need to have treatment for anything - may go through life as 'fit as a butchers' dog' as they say or he may be a sickly dog (hope not obviously).

 

 

I would expect an exclusion for the condition itself and anything related - to place a blanket exclusion for all illnesses though is a bit much for them to justify in my opinion without sound evidence to back up that decision. The FCA do bang on about 'TCF' and all that but in practice...

 

 

I guess I am being a bit stubborn about this as I was annoyed at how long they took to come to a decision.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which company is it with the blanket exclusion on illness? I think on balance I'd rather go for the limited accident cover with a good company than supposedly having illness cover with one which doesn't have a great reputation for paying out. The really expensive urgent things tend to be broken bones from accidents, long term illness is something you can make more measured decisions about. The upside of the accident only cover is that there's no need to take out a lifetime policy so premiums will be cheaper.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is Sainsbury's which is underwritten by Allianz.

 

You make a good argument to be fair and I am grateful for your input. Will wait and see what they come back with but will keep in mind what you have said - thank you. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind of you to say so. I don't think there's a right answer, just making the best of a very unusual situation. Whoever you choose to insure with it's important you check they aren't charging a full premium if they aren't giving you full cover. Do an online quote with a few of the bigger names without any pre-existing condition to get an idea of the premiums for complete cover. Treatment for accidents is often very costly but I'll bet most payouts are for illness and your premiums should reflect this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

13/03/2017....I have the exact same problem as described above....I'm with Petplan, and they too are underwritten by Allianz.....could you give an update to help me please ? Did you try the Financial Ombudsman ? Did you find a company that would provide cover to a dog , (like yours rescued from Spain 0, which has been treated for Ricketsia. Thanks in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...