Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you for the above Andy. I’ve not stated to Shoosmiths that I have not signed the agreement, however at the time I didn’t really understand the agreement, it was just put in from of me, and told to sign. I did also sign a document saying it did not require legal representation.   What would you suggest as my next steps? 
    • Barclays have finally responded to my friend on this asking for  Date of birth, all previous addresses, any former names and account numbers she has.   I don’t think my friend included a council tax bill (I did when I sent my Dad’s DSAR to Barclays last week!).   Do they need all this info?
    • There is no statutory provision requiring a witness in these circumstances to be independent. However the purpose of having a witness is so that they can provide unbiased evidence of what was signed and by whom, if required in the future. Therefore a witness should be independent and it is best practice to interpret this widely. A witness should not be the signatory’s spouse or partner or a family member, and should not have a personal interest in the provisions of the document. Case law has confirmed that a party to the document cannot act as a witness to another party’s signature. It is advisable that a witness is aged eighteen or over.   More importantly ...One of the distinguishing factors about the execution of a deed as compared to a contract is that a deed must be “delivered”. Delivery fixes the date from which the executing party is bound by the deed, and once delivered, a deed is irrevocable in the absence of an express right of revocation. At common law, a deed is delivered when a party expresses an intention to be bound by the deed, even if it retains possession of the document.   The best way to deal with delivery of a deed is to have clear wording in the document setting out that the deed will be delivered on the date appearing at the head of the document. Where a deed is executed by a company, legislation provides that it is presumed to be delivered on execution, unless a contrary intention is proved. There is no such presumption for execution by an individual. Clear wording in the document confirming the position on delivery will avoid confusion and unintended consequences.   https://www.osborneclarke.com/insights/signed-sealed-delivered-execution-of-deeds-and-documents-and-how-it-might-go-wrong/
    • ok increased to 3.5mb now and numbered and titled each page   FYI- the quality of the terms are unreadable even before scanning   thanks jpg2pdf(1).pdf
  • Our picks

    • Future Comms is a Big Con. How to get out of it. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/417058-future-comms-is-a-big-con-how-to-get-out-of-it/
        • Thanks
      • 4 replies
    • Future Comms issues. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/416504-future-comms-issues/
      • 5 replies
    • This is a bit of a lengthy one but I’ll summerise best as possible.
       
      THIS IS HOW THE PHONECALL WENT 
       
      I was contacted by future comms by phone, they stated that they could beat any phone contract I have , (I am a limited company but just myself that needs a business phone and I am the only worker) 
      I told future comms my deal, £110 per month with a phone and a virtual landline, they confirmed that they could beat that, £90 per month with a phone , virtual landline  they also confirmed they would pay Vodafone (previous provider) the termination fee. As I am in business, naturally I was open to making a deal. So we proceeded. 
      Future comms then revealed that the contract would be with PLAN.COM and the airtime would be provided by 02, I instantly told them that this would break the deal as I have poor 02 signal in the house where I live as my partner is on 02 and constantly complaining about bad signal
      the salesman assured me he would send a signal booster box out with the phone so I would have perfect signal.
      so far so good.....
      i then explained this is the only mobile phone I use for business and pleasure, so therefore I didn’t want any disconnection time in the slightest between the switchover from Vodafone to 02
      the salesman then confirmed that the existing phone would only be disconnected once the new phone was switched on.
      so far so good....
      • 14 replies
    • A shocking story of domestic and economic abuse compounded by @BarclaysUKHelp ‏ bank complicity – coming soon @A_Gentle_Woman. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/415737-a-shocking-story-of-domestic-and-economic-abuse-compounded-by-barclaysukhelp-%E2%80%8F-bank-complicity-%E2%80%93-coming-soon-a_gentle_woman/
      • 0 replies
ccholland

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

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 827 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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....

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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 :)

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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. :)

Share this post


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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...