We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
MSE News: Ombudsman gives hope to angry Halifax and Lloyds pet insurance customers
Former_MSE_Helen
Posts: 2,382 Forumite
This is the discussion thread for the following MSE News Story:
"Halifax must cover a pet with an existing condition for three years even though it no longer offers insruance ..."
"Halifax must cover a pet with an existing condition for three years even though it no longer offers insruance ..."
0
Comments
-
From the article:
And the banks wonder why they are so distrusted?"The first time I spoke about this on TV it fought tooth and nail for the first few weeks – including outrageously trying to claim that even though the front of the policy document said 'lifetime cover' the fact it wasn't in the Ts&Cs meant that didn't matter."
The Ombudsman's decision is a victory for justice.
Warning: In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
0 -
I haven't been able to pick an insurance company for Kia yet. She has one months from the rescue but still want hers sorted asap !!0 -
I have life insurance with the Halifax. My health has deteriorated since I took out the cover. I'm under the impression that this is a whole of life policy but now I'm getting worried that they might do the same to me :-(0
-
It's made me worry about insurance a lot more - mine have now been switched to Petplan - slightly more expensive but at least they (hopefully) shouldn't withdraw from the market.
Hoping more people submit claims too - think it's disgraceful they way they've been treated. IMHO they should have the pre-exisitng conditions covered by the new insurer - with either Halifax footing the tab or paying the difference (as per this judgement) but I do think it should be for the lifetime of the animalGrocery Challenge £211/£455 (01/01-31/03)
2016 Sell: £125/£250
£1,000 Emergency Fund Challenge #78 £3.96 / £1,000Vet Fund: £410.93 / £1,000
Debt free & determined to stay that way!0 -
I am a victim of the Halifax pet insurance disgrace. I had my dog insured with them from 2006 when she was a puppy and specifically chose a policy that offered cover for life.
While the ombudsman ruling is very reassuring and it's great for the governing body to acknowledge that we've been treated unfairly (disgustingly more like) I worry that 3 years top up will be all they will be forced to pay.
My dog has 2 existing conditions now and she's only 5 and could live to 15. Does this ruling mean that Halifax will be forced to cover my dogs pre existing conditions for only 3 years then I'm back in the same position with no cover for them?
I'm waiting with bated breath to see if Halifax offer me enough to cover her treatments for the remainder of her life. Here's hoping but it's certainly a win for the customers they tried to dump!0 -
The statement Lloyds & Halifax have been putting out to the media about working with customers is an OUT AND OUT LIE!
I received a letter from Halifax yesterday which stated that they 'cannot provide direct answers for you regarding your complaint' and that the letter i was reading was 'a final response on behalf of Halifax General Insurance Services Limited.'
Now I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer but that doesn't exactly scream 'urgently working on a solution for customers with pets who have pre-existing conditions and will be contacting them in the next few weeks with our proposals.' So my wife and I will have to put our dog's epilepsy meds on a credit card or go without something else or, well who knows. We regard ourselves as responsible pet owners, thus we tracked down a policy which gave us peace of mind that any ongoing condition would be covered (we're not first time pet owners and have had this type of insurance before, albeit with a more reputable insurer).
No pet owner wants their pet to develop a serious long term illness and the pet insurance industry plays on the fears that it may well happen, but when the insurance companies get it wrong it's the owners and pets who suffer while the insurers walk away patting themselves on the back (and bonuses all round!) for dumping a bad risk. Absolutely sickening!!!0 -
It's obviously an emotive issue, but at the core of it insurance is a business. If the consumer is not tied into the insurance policy for the life of the pet, then why should the insurance company be?
Anyway, from the other thread, a link to the provisional decision:
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/pet-insurance-mar12.pdf0 -
But that's just the point, once a pet develops an on going condition, the customer is a customer for the life of their pet as cover is then impossible to find elsewhere. It's not like other types of insurance and the pet insurance providers know it.
And if they haven't done anything wrong then why did they settle with one pet owner for £10k and another for £6k?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.8K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.7K Spending & Discounts
- 245.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.8K Life & Family
- 259.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards