Barclays Insurance Dublin

george99_2

I am having a dispute with this company over my PPI insurance.

I was made redundant in October 2007 I made a claim which was accepted, I had to wait for my first payment after a 60 days elimination period. The maximum benefit period I was told was 720 days. First payment was made 10th December 2007
I became ill with depression in August 2008, so I rang to advise them of the change in my circumstances, I was told not to worry there would be no elimination period imposed and that the 'new' claim would replace the original claim and be classed as a continuation of the original claim, subject to the same terms and conditions.
This was the clause
"Claims that occur within 6 months of a previous claim will be treated as a continuation of the original claim and will be subject to the maximum benefit payable"
My benefit was stopped in August 2009 I am still unwell but they claim they can only pay for 12 months if you go sick whilst unemployed. This is in the policy but I'm unhappy they never told me and actually they had told me the policy would run under the T&C of the original claim back in August 2008 i.e. 720 days.
I asked for a full explanation of the so called "continuation" rule.
None was forthcoming I was getting fobbed off big style with garbage, anyway I suggested a scenario , if I had been unemployed for 700 days and then reported my illness I would have expected the claim to be 20 days taking in consideration the above rule, the perplexed Barclays representative had to put me on hold for 5 minutes before returning to say 'Yes we would have paid you for 12 months', I replied , "Well, once again can you explain the relavance of "continuation clause" , I was told it would be referred to an assessor to adjudicate.
As I lost the benefit I could no longer pay the premium, when I missed one payment a letter dropped through my door the next day to say the policy was cancelled, no words like 'Sorry we have not received your payment if you would like to correct this situation by making payment etc etc'.
I have worked since leaving school in 1970 until 2007 apart from 2 years in college during a career change.
Am I wrong to question this? Have I understood the rules correctly?

di3004

george99 wrote: »

I am having a dispute with this company over my PPI insurance.

I was made redundant in October 2007 I made a claim which was accepted, I had to wait for my first payment after a 60 days elimination period. The maximum benefit period I was told was 720 days. First payment was made 10th December 2007
I became ill with depression in August 2008, so I rang to advise them of the change in my circumstances, I was told not to worry there would be no elimination period imposed and that the 'new' claim would replace the original claim and be classed as a continuation of the original claim, subject to the same terms and conditions.
This was the clause
"Claims that occur within 6 months of a previous claim will be treated as a continuation of the original claim and will be subject to the maximum benefit payable"
My benefit was stopped in August 2009 I am still unwell but they claim they can only pay for 12 months if you go sick whilst unemployed. This is in the policy but I'm unhappy they never told me and actually they had told me the policy would run under the T&C of the original claim back in August 2008 i.e. 720 days.
I asked for a full explanation of the so called "continuation" rule.
None was forthcoming I was getting fobbed off big style with garbage, anyway I suggested a scenario , if I had been unemployed for 700 days and then reported my illness I would have expected the claim to be 20 days taking in consideration the above rule, the perplexed Barclays representative had to put me on hold for 5 minutes before returning to say 'Yes we would have paid you for 12 months', I replied , "Well, once again can you explain the relavance of "continuation clause" , I was told it would be referred to an assessor to adjudicate.
As I lost the benefit I could no longer pay the premium, when I missed one payment a letter dropped through my door the next day to say the policy was cancelled, no words like 'Sorry we have not received your payment if you would like to correct this situation by making payment etc etc'.
I have worked since leaving school in 1970 until 2007 apart from 2 years in college during a career change.
Am I wrong to question this? Have I understood the rules correctly?

Hello there

Sorry to hear this.

Unfortunately many claims only protect for the first 12 months in a row, then to be eligible again to reclaim, for example, for unemployment, its a return to employment for at least 3 months in a row, some are that of 6 months continued employment.

However, I do see your point.

Hopefully someone with the knowledge of these actual issues will post up with some useful advice for you on this one, on how to go about this.

And of course like any other financial complaint, if your not happy with the outcome you can always complain to the financial ombudsman service (FOS).

Will bump this up later for you if no-one has responded, good luck.;)

Barclaysstaff

First of all, I do apologise for re-opening an old thread. I came across this question on a google search.

I work in Barclays and I deal with PPI every day. I can assist with any confusion over interpretation of the claims terms and conditions

george99 wrote: »

I am having a dispute with this company over my PPI insurance.

I was made redundant in October 2007 I made a claim which was accepted, I had to wait for my first payment after a 60 days elimination period. The maximum benefit period I was told was 720 days. First payment was made 10th December 2007

Up to this point, I am glad that the service you received was satisfactory.

I became ill with depression in August 2008, so I rang to advise them of the change in my circumstances, I was told not to worry there would be no elimination period imposed and that the 'new' claim would replace the original claim and be classed as a continuation of the original claim, subject to the same terms and conditions.
This was the clause
"Claims that occur within 6 months of a previous claim will be treated as a continuation of the original claim and will be subject to the maximum benefit payable"

Ok, there appears to be some confusion here. The clause you are quoting refers to continuation of existing sickness or unemployment claims, not to a switch between an unemployment and a sickness claim.
What actually happened was your unemployment claim ended as you were no longer available to actively seek work, and we started a sickness claim to cover you for the period you were certified as unfit for work,
This sickness claim is actually separate from your unemployment claim. the 60 day elimination period was waived as a gesture of good will, under the terms of the policy we could have imposed an additional 60 day elimination period, but we generally waive the elimination period because we understand that our customers will be in a difficult financial position if they are first unemployed, and then become sick.

My benefit was stopped in August 2009 I am still unwell but they claim they can only pay for 12 months if you go sick whilst unemployed. This is in the policy but I'm unhappy they never told me and actually they had told me the policy would run under the T&C of the original claim back in August 2008 i.e. 720 days.

The reason the claim ended after the 12 month sickness claim is because there is a term in the policy that we can only pay for a maximum of 12 months for a sickness claim if the customer is unemployed at the onset of the illness. It was not because there was a previous unemployment claim, it was because the customer was unemployed when he became sick.

I asked for a full explanation of the so called "continuation" rule.
None was forthcoming I was getting fobbed off big style with garbage, anyway I suggested a scenario , if I had been unemployed for 700 days and then reported my illness I would have expected the claim to be 20 days taking in consideration the above rule, the perplexed Barclays representative had to put me on hold for 5 minutes before returning to say 'Yes we would have paid you for 12 months', I replied , "Well, once again can you explain the relavance of "continuation clause" , I was told it would be referred to an assessor to adjudicate.

Even if the customer had received the maximum 720 days for an unemployment claim, he would still have been entitled to another 360 days for sickness. this is because sickness and unemployment claims for this type of policy are treated separately.
And this is the main reason I type this message. If George99 may still have been entitled to claim for unemployment if he later recovered from his sickness and once again became available to actively seek work. We may have been in a position to re-open his unemployment claim and potentially pay him to the balance of his 720 days maximum benefit.

As I lost the benefit I could no longer pay the premium, when I missed one payment a letter dropped through my door the next day to say the policy was cancelled, no words like 'Sorry we have not received your payment if you would like to correct this situation by making payment etc etc'.
I have worked since leaving school in 1970 until 2007 apart from 2 years in college during a career change.
Am I wrong to question this? Have I understood the rules correctly?

We do not cancel an insurance policy unless a customer either requests cancellation in writing, or he specifically cancels the direct debit, or he has missed 3 premiums in a row (and a letter will be sent out for the first two months advising of the missed premium and that we can collect the arrears if the funds are available.

If the customer thinks his policy was canceled without warning, he should contact our premiums department and discuss this with them. If there was an error on our side, we will do everything we can to correct it.

If anyone else has any questions to do with Barclays Insurance Dublin products, please send me a PM or start a new thread and I will do my best to answer them as best I can. (but this is in my spare time so I can not promise that I will be able to reply straight away)

di3004

Thank you for your feedback, hopefully George will be back again at some point and read your post, much appreciated, cheers.

Barclaysstaff

di3004 wrote: »

Thank you for your feedback, hopefully George will be back again at some point and read your post, much appreciated, cheers.

No problem.

src007

Hello Barclaysstaff,

This is off topic (and you may not know) but, how are Barclays allowed to put PPI complaints 'on hold' at all because of the Judical Review?

I thought that only the Courts, Financial Ombudsman Service or FSA could put complaints on hold? This isn't meant to be a criticism, I genuinely just want to know!?

src007

Hmmm, it looks like Barclaystaff isn't going to get back to me.

Maybe they're too busy counting Mr Bob Diamond's bonus (thats a hard, time consuming task!) Anyway why should Barclays have to answer complaints?


Don't the general public realise what a very, very tough time Mr Diamond's having during this recession. Can't they see that Barclays have more important things to be doing, like setting up tax avoidance schemes?

Surely Barclays were perfectly allowed work out the cost of PPI, times it by four, add interest and early settlement charges? And if the customer didn't read, memorise and understand the 28 pages of small print exclusions it their own stupid fault.


And if you complain why should you expect an answer? Its up to you to struggle on because because the bank only made six billion pounds of profit this year. They certainly deserve more and why should the amazing talent at the bank have to follow ''rules''. Can't people see that they're too important for that.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/8325019/Barclays-profits-jump-to-6.07bn-as-salaries-rise.html

csnomad

I am still in dispute with Barclays Insurance Dublin with my premiuns being paid for by JSA and looking to have claim backdated to 1998 when it was a Barclays Mortgagecare plan and Im ex BFS I have requested a copy of the original policy docs as I think that other Barclaystaff member is wrong.

[Deleted User]

csnomad wrote: »

I have requested a copy of the original policy docs

You won't get them from 1998 I'm afraid.

This thread is very old.