Disappointed with travel insurance decision

TomsMom

I posted recently for advice when my husband had just been diagnosed with an incurable cancer and we had to cancel our planned holiday to Spain in November and was grateful for the help received at a very difficult time for us.

We had booked flights with Monarch and the accommodation was booked independently. We were fortunate that the owner of the accommodation refunded our deposit, no problems.

We contacted Columbus and their claims are dealt with by Claims Settlement Agency Ltd. to claim for a refund on the flights. They said we would need a letter from Monarch confirming that we had cancelled the flights. This letter cost us £10 but we were happy to pay if it was necessary (although we had provided proof that the flights were non refundable).

Today we have received a letter from Claims Settlement Agency stating that additional charges are not covered, i.e. extra leg room seats, taxes, fuel supplements, etc., and that they only pay for the lowest price of the flight, so the claim only comes to £63.96 out of a total of £220.76 we paid for the flights. The policy excess is £50 per person so we get nothing.

We were happy with the £50 excess (although we mistakenly believed it was per claim not per person and hold our hands up to this) as if this was a package holiday then £50 would be a very small percentage, but to be told your husband is going to die and then find your insurance doesn't cover your holiday costs after all is a real blow.

If they only pay out for the lowest cost of the flight, what would happen if you booked, say, to Australia and upgraded to business class. Surely they wouldn't take the lowest price fight, i.e. economy, in that case?

Sam_Bee

That's wrong.

Very wrong. And very unethical. And actually doesn't make sense.

I can understand them insisting that you claim back anything you can from Monarch (i.e. taxes) but the rest should be covered by them.

I would write a formal complaint to them, then follow it up whilst cc'ing in Colombus.
I would find out who the arbitrators are for insurance.

Pursue, i'm so sure this is wrong.

Pollycat

TomsMum
Firstly, I'm so sorry to hear about your husband's health.

I'm not 'up' on travel law but I agree with Sam Bee that this sounds awful.

The best advice I can offer is for you to get onto
http://www.holidaytruths.co.uk/index.php

There's a specific 'complaints' forum and on there you'll find contact details for a lady called Ros who is a Travel Law Solicitor and offers HT members free impartial legal advice.

good luck

dmg24

Hi TomsMom,

I am in agreement with Sam Bee, the insurers are completely in the wrong on this.

Have you got a link to the terms and conditions for the insurance, or do you know what the policy was called?

What they are saying is nonsensical, it is like saying that if you book a 1p + taxes flight they would only give you back 1p. In my mind they should be paying for everything that you cannot get back from Monarch, including the £10 letter fee.

I know that Columbus are a business, but things like this really make my blood boil. I'll have a look on their website and see what I can find to help x

dmg24

Just looking through the t&c's which appear to be applicable to all of Columbus' policies, and it states that you will only be reimbursed the lowest fare if you paid by vouchers or Airmiles - I am assuming this is not the case with your flight?

Otherwise, the only thing that I can find is that you are not covered for any costs recoverable from another source (e.g. airport taxes), however as the other noted items are not recoverable, then you should be able to claim on your insurance for them.

Here is the linky if you need it x

TomsMom

Thanks for your replies. I'm glad we're not the only ones who think this isn't right.

Just for information, this is how the fares were detailed when we booked:

Flight Costs

Air Fare: £63.96

Air Passenger Duty: £20.00

Fuel supplement: £32.00

Passenger service charge: £23.52

Airport departure tax: £6.20

Airport handling Charge: £3.10


Fee Sub-Total: £71.98

Services Sub-Total: £0.00

Total Cost (original pricing currency): £220.76


[Fees
Extra Leg Seat : 15.00

Extra Leg Seat : 15.00

GBP Bags INET 1 : 4.99

Extra Leg Seat : 15.00

Extra Leg Seat : 15.00

GBP Bags INET 2 : 4.99

Visa Debit Fee : 2.00

Total £ 71.98]

So I can see where the £63.96 comes from.

This is what Claims Settlement Agencies wrote:

It has been noted that you are only claiming the cost of the flights, as the accommodation has been refunded to yourself. We would advise cover is not provided under the Policy in respect of taxis (my thoughts - I think that is supposed to taxes and additional charges incurred upon booking, and therefore after taking into consideration the Policy excess of £50 per person, your claim of £63.96 falls within this and no further consideration can be given.
If it's the general opinion that this doesn't sound right then I think we might look into it further.

TomsMom

dmg24 wrote: »

Just looking through the t&c's which appear to be applicable to all of Columbus' policies, and it states that you will only be reimbursed the lowest fare if you paid by vouchers or Airmiles - I am assuming this is not the case with your flight?

Otherwise, the only thing that I can find is that you are not covered for any costs recoverable from another source (e.g. airport taxes), however as the other noted items are not recoverable, then you should be able to claim on your insurance for them.

Here is the linky if you need it x

Thanks dmg. Not paid by vouchers or Airmiles, just good old money :rotfl:

We have the policy wording leaflet and a quick look under cancellation says "You are covered up to the amount specified on your policy schedule for travel ...... cancellation costs.... If reinstatement is not possible we will reimburse the lowest advertised fare by the airline for the flight in question."

I'm still looking for the £50 per person bit as it does say under Not Covered "the policy excess of £50" but hubby told me about the per person bit so he must have seen it somewhere.

I'll check out your link. Many thanks.

Edited to add: Just found policy schedule which says: Policy Type - Annual Super, Geographical Region - Worldwide, Policy Duration - max 60 days per trip. Can't find an actual name for the policy.

dmg24

I only looked briefly, but I can't see anywhere where 'additional charges' (other than those which are refundable by the airline) are not covered x

dmg24

TomsMom wrote: »

Thanks dmg. Not paid by vouchers or Airmiles, just good old money :rotfl:

We have the policy wording leaflet and a quick look under cancellation says "You are covered up to the amount specified on your policy schedule for travel ...... cancellation costs.... If reinstatement is not possible we will reimburse the lowest advertised fare by the airline for the flight in question."

I'm still looking for the £50 per person bit as it does say under Not Covered "the policy excess of £50" but hubby told me about the per person bit so he must have seen it somewhere.

I'll check out your link. Many thanks.

I think we might be reading the same thing. If so, the reinstatement not possible clause relates to those paying by Airmiles/ vouchers, as it is in the bracket covering that scenario.

Did you book a group/ family policy, or individual ones?

TomsMom

dmg24 wrote: »

Did you book a group/ family policy, or individual ones?

It was one policy covering us a couple.

I've got all the papers out on my desk and am sifting through them now.

Incisor

TomsMom wrote: »

It was one policy covering us a couple.

I've got all the papers out on my desk and am sifting through them now.

Having taken a quick look myself at dmg's link, I too agree, if you didn't pay by airmiles but paid cash then the lowest cost exclusion does not apply.

If your reading of the conditions agrees, I would write back and request them to quote the exact part of the T&Cs which they are relying on. It may be that if they get someone intelligent to answer the question, they may realise their mistake. FWIW, only agree to non-binding arbitration, as this is so straight forward you should win it in a small claims court, so you wouldn't want to rule this angle out.

My 2p