Real life clown at the Halifax

Insco

cogito wrote: »

Watchdog? That clinches it then.

Ok then, as it appears to confuse most people, perhaps you could explain to us all how Halifax are able to determine whether a property has been subjected to windspeeds of 55mph or more - and when the Met office advises this is an impossibility for every house location in the UK. Clearly you know something most of us don't.

Oscar_The_Grouch

Evening All

With due respect to everyone, I think OP was talking about the dumbing down in the financial services arena and the fact that the sales-driven culture in the last decade means that staff are rewarded for achieving targets on income rather than satisfied customers.

The £7m fine of Alliance and Liecester for their poor showing on Payment Protection Insurance is a good example of "sales before satisfaction".

I think that if everyone else wants to talk about specific policy inclusions and exclusions, then it would be best if they set up a new post rather than taking over someone elses.

Just my opinion.

Thanks.

FlameCloud

Insco wrote: »

Missed the point - Flame was suggesting that there is no difference between the Halifax policy and other Insurers - when clearly there is

Windspeeds of less than 55mph can cause stuctural damage that would be dealt with by most other Insurers.

Its a definition that Halifax cannot enforce - the BBC Watchdog programme identified that - so that's hardly clear from the policholders perspective.

There isnt, Halifax just defines what it means by a storm. As you know, policies cover for storm damage- now go and look up what the beaufort scale defines as a storm.

The watchdog episode was a joke. They neglected to mention that the claim was significantly less than his xs, and as far as I am aware the fos hasnt said anything about the definition in the policy.

raskazz

cogito wrote: »

Policies traditionally include storm damage without defining it in any way. Thus a period of prolonged heavy rainfall would not constitute a storm. The Halifax policy gives a clear definition of what is intended by the policy. This is a welcome improvement and I fail to see why Insco sees this as a negative.

Exactly, This is how a storm is defined in science and it is that definition that is almost universally used as the standard by home insurers. The Halifax policy merely confirms this in black and white and so actually benefits consumers who might be unaware of how a storm is defined.

Similarly, the accidental damage clause that Insco mentions is not in any way unusual - it merely defines 'accidental' in a commonsense way and is essentially the same clause as found in the More Than home policy, the Equity Red Star policy, the LV policy and others.

The first part of the water clause that Insco mentions merely confirms that the policy will cover fortuitous losses not but not inevitable loss (a lot of insurers are introducing similar clauses in the wake of people taking out cover in the face of imminent floods); the second part is not particularly uncommon - it features in the esure and Equity Red Star policies amongst others.

Nobody is trying to pretend that the cover afforded under the Halifax policy is akin to a Hiscox policy but then Insco's approach to this seems a little under-researched. The policy is plainly pretty similar in scope to every other run of the mill 'off-the-rack' policy.

raskazz

Insco wrote: »

Ok then, as it appears to confuse most people, perhaps you could explain to us all how Halifax are able to determine whether a property has been subjected to windspeeds of 55mph or more - and when the Met office advises this is an impossibility for every house location in the UK. Clearly you know something most of us don't.

Presumably in the same way as other insurers do - i.e. by looking at the available evidence in the form of whatever local meteorological data is available, the nature of the damage sustained, local press reports, other damage sustained in the same location and so on. I wish you'd desist with this tabloid, knee-jerk anti-insurer dogma; it really does cast a shadow over the few valid points that you actually make.

Oscar_The_Grouch

OK, but getting back to the original post, would any of you want to walk round your office with a £50 note pinned to your chest trying to sell insurance policies?

I would tell my employer exactly where they could shove their idea; I haven't spent this long in the industry to be treated like a walking advertisement.

Insco

raskazz wrote: »

Presumably in the same way as other insurers do - i.e. by looking at the available evidence in the form of whatever local meteorological data is available, the nature of the damage sustained, local press reports, other damage sustained in the same location and so on.

Thanks for confirming that Halifax have no real way of verifying whether a property has been subjected to windspeeds of 55 mph - fortunately the contra preferentem rule will mean that they will have to give their policyholders the benefit of doubt.

cogito

So yesterday you were saying that it was an issue and now you're saying it isn't. Make your mind up please.

BTW - it's proferentem.

koexelek

Oscar_The_Grouch wrote: »

OK, but getting back to the original post, would any of you want to walk round your office with a £50 note pinned to your chest trying to sell insurance policies?

I would tell my employer exactly where they could shove their idea; I haven't spent this long in the industry to be treated like a walking advertisement.

I worked in a bank many years ago.
I remember one day we were made to dress up as clowns ( must have been comic relief or something like that).
Dressed as a clown, I have to take an appointment with a little old lady who's husband had just died :eek:

Insco

cogito wrote: »

So yesterday you were saying that it was an issue and now you're saying it isn't. Make your mind up please.

BTW - it's proferentem.

It is an issue that Halifax define storm, but then will be unable to prove the definition - it is you who said the Halifax definition was clear and an improvement when clearly it is not. Raskazz effectively admitted that they can't prove windspeeds of 55mph or more for every house location in the UK ( the Met office confirm this as well)!

No doubt Halifax will use the windspeeds of 55mph to fob off most policyholders with claims for storm damage, leaving the few to contest.


BTW cogito preferentem or proferentem are in use ( Chartered Institute of Loss Adjusters publications use preferentem)