Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Petplan insurance declined payment of new health issue


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 223 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

We successfully claimed from Petplan insurance to have a biopsy on a small-ish Lipoma (fatty lump) on our Cockapoo in March 2019.

This resulted in an exclusion being added to our policy doc (which I've  only just noticed) : "excluding claims resulting from or connected to Lipomas from 08/03/20".

Winnie developed a NEW mass (probably a Lipoma) Aug 2022. This is growing rapidly and the vet is concerned that it will ultimately effect her mobility or other generate other health issues and advised it should be removed. Its currently the size of a grapefruit, but could potentially grow to size of a watermelon.

It feels unfair that because we had a biopsy (not treatment) on a previous small lump, we are not allowed to claim for something more problemlematic, even though it is a New issue. 

Our policy is a '12 month' type - restricting only treating one condition for 12 months.

Can I appeal, and contest that the quoted exclusion imposed is too big an umbrella ie too big a penalty.

We have paid £400/Yr for 8.5years and feel that the small print is stacked against the customer unfairly.

Or am.i wasting my time trying to convince Petplan, this new issue is not related to the past biopsy.

Thanks for any advice.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Standard way of operating for pet Insurances. Each 12 month policy is totally separate. Make a claim for any condition and it does not matter if treatment is actually completed, the Insurers for the next 12 month period onwards will exclude further cover for the condition.

Not much you can do. You could complain and then continue this with the FOS, but very unlikely they would uphold the complaint in your favour.

  • Like 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

Thanks for taking time to give me advice.

Heartbreaking,  but perhaps I'll have to accept the painful and very expensive outcome.

So frustrating, as even our vet thinks its a New health issue. Just cant convince Petplan.

Think we'll cancel the policy - lessons learned 😔

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi.

Sadly, a lot of people are caught out by this and I've seen the same with human health insurance.

For what it's worth a lifetime policy is the best one to have but it wouldn't cover pre-existing conditions. It could be worth considering even now at renewal time, depending on Winnie's age.

Here's a link to a comparison website I picked at random. Others are available.

WWW.GOCOMPARE.COM

Lifetime cover is the most comprehensive pet insurance available as it continues cover for a condition, year after year. Compare quotes with us...

 

HB

  • Like 1

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...