Anyone else having trouble with ANIMAL FRIENDS Insurance?

humblethinker

They managed to make a sucker of me by showing a GBP 20,000 lifetime cover at a cheaper than competition price on a comparison website.

When the documentation arrived, in the hidden fine print, I realised there were sub limits of GBP 2000 per treatment and GBP 2000 benefits per year.

This means, in order to truly benefit from the GBP 20,000 lifetime cover, your pet will need to suffer from 10 different conditions across 10 different years. After all the exclusions and the excesses, you would be better of going elsewhere.

The complaints department put the blame on me saying I should have clicked on each document on the website and read them page-by-page before buying the policy. Beware of sharks who use the small print as an excuse to blame the policyholder.

I cancelled my policy in the first 14 days. I am now with John Lewis Pet Insurance, which seems much better.

Elifin

...and was seriously considering Animal Friends as it seemed to offer the best value, but after reading your reviews I definitely won't be using them.

When will companies realise: that they can spend loads of money on marketing and offering deals, but if they don't look after their customers, those customers will share their negative experiences, and in these modern times of social media they'll be sharing them with far more than the other mums at the school gates.

I, for one, am fed up with paying insurance premiums for years without claiming, only to be put through the grinder when you want to make a claim. My dog is like another child in our house and I would hate to be worrying about his health whilst I fought with the insurers, so whilst I may not be able to afford to stick with Pet Plan I shall certainly not be using Animal Friends, or any other pet insurer that doesn't look after it's pet owners.

For the record, I have also taken into consideration the positive reviews, but there are just too many negative ones regarding payout and small print to take the risk.

annetteclark43

I insured my two Labs (5 and 2) with Animal Friends for the first time last year. I have never claimed on pet insurance before for my dogs. In October 2013 my eldest was diagnosed with DJD. I sent off claim and after saying my vet hadnt sent further information (which they had and this delayed the claim by several weeks), they eventually paid out less my £99 excess and the cost my vets charge to fill in their part of the form. (This is compulsary). The claim is ongoing and after sending in another form with further bills on , I noticed they had deducted a further excess of £99. On querying this , i was told because the policy renewal had overlapped my 12 month claim, they take another excess of £99. I assumed once a claim is made and excess paid, any ongoing amounts would be paid on the same claim. I will be researching other Pet Insurance and if this isnt the norm, I will be claiming as much as I can before Oct this year and cancelling. I will also be cancelling the youngsters policy if I find out this is another insurance scam that we all seem to find when we are unfortunately have to make a claim for our pets.

fizzymywestie2002

Have been with Animal Friends since 2009, my Westie was taken ill with Pyometra and nearly died we had to have an emergency spay to remove her infected womb so she didn't die. Our costs came to £700.00, we put in our claim and Animal Friends are refusing to pay it, as in her notes at the surgery it was suggested 10 years ago to spay her which we refused because we were going to let her have puppies, they are now using this as an excuse not to pay even though Pyometra only effects 2% of girl dogs. If every girl dog was spayed just in case they'd be no dogs left. Just to let them know Watchdog is my next port of call.
Please read other reviews it will open up your eyes to Animal Friends they shouldn't be allowed to get away with this.

holly6

We also have been refused payment when our dog had to have an emergency operation for pyometra - their excuse was that the vet had advised us to have her spayed - trust me we did try - but she was either a 4 month season or a six month season, with phantom pregnancies in between. On one occasion I had an appointment to have her spayed, and was told that it had to be 3 months after her season or phantom pregnancy. I carefully logged the dates and never got a 3 month window, from March 2012. We are not done yet as we intend to fight this, but we certainly won't be renewing with animal friends!!

Tt123

This company will do anything to avoid paying out on a genuine claim. I wish I had read these reviews before taking out my policy. Animal Friends have recently rejected my claim and taken my vets written comments completely out of context as the grounds for the rejection. 2 separate vets have informed me that this company has a reputation for being difficult. I fail to understand why they are able to continuing to trade and mislead the public when offering such poor customer service. AVOID this company.

littlewolf75

Hi,
we are with Animal Friends (or were until today when we cancelled all of our policies) for our 5 pets. Recently our beautiful Persian girl got ill and subsequently died. The vets bill was for over £630. After 2 months of toing and froing with Animal Friends we were given a final settlement of less than £25.
They have managed this by breaking the illness down and settling each "problem" separately, with a £99 excess for each problem.
Horrified by how appalling the insurance cover has proved to be I asked to cancel all of our policies, so that we can insure our precious pets with a "proper" insurance company. It then became clear that the cat who had died was still insured with "animal Friends" who were also still collecting money, by Direct Debit from our bank, for a cat that has been dead for 2 months!
Is there any point of insuring a pet when this is the level of cover that will be provided?
If their prices look too good to be true there is a good reason for that.

dacouch

littlewolf75 wrote: »

Hi,
we are with Animal Friends (or were until today when we cancelled all of our policies) for our 5 pets. Recently our beautiful Persian girl got ill and subsequently died. The vets bill was for over £630. After 2 months of toing and froing with Animal Friends we were given a final settlement of less than £25.
They have managed this by breaking the illness down and settling each "problem" separately, with a £99 excess for each problem.
Horrified by how appalling the insurance cover has proved to be I asked to cancel all of our policies, so that we can insure our precious pets with a "proper" insurance company. It then became clear that the cat who had died was still insured with "animal Friends" who were also still collecting money, by Direct Debit from our bank, for a cat that has been dead for 2 months!
Is there any point of insuring a pet when this is the level of cover that will be provided?
If their prices look too good to be true there is a good reason for that.

Have you discussed the Insurer rating each problem separately with your Vet and if this is medically correct?

CharlieDog50

I appreciate that pet insurance is a contract and that those of us taking out a contract have a responsibility to know, and to understand, the terms. I therefore am not surprised that some claims are rejected. My first browse under Animal Friends brought up someone complaining that the company would not pay out for a pre-existing condition. That customer obviously does not understand what insurance is.

At the same time, Animal Friends appear crafty compared to other insurers and I wonder how they are still in business.

I have had three policies with them since 2009 and made my first two claims this year. One they rejected on the grounds of a pre-existing condition. Although some of the symptoms (seizures) of the pre-existing condition (epilepsy) are shared with or illnesses, they had worded the original exclusion widely to exclude, as they interpret it, anything that involves a seizure. Our dog contracted meningitis for which the initial symptom was a series of seizures, so the claim has been refused. If we had realised that the net was cast so widely to include anything that involved a seiozure, we would not have gone with them.

We have since claimed £150 for a different dog's infected anal glands and they have declined (for the time being) on the grounds that the vet did not forward a complete medical history. They clearly have a right to see this but, for such a small amount after the £99 excess, their efforts to check the position do seem disproportionate. But someone else would say that they are not obliged to pay out if their conditions are not met and that checking for prior medical history is reasonable, so why shouldn't they check?

Unfortunately, we now need to fund treatment in the region of £3,000 for a crucial ligament. We are taking the precaution of requesting pre-authorisation to be as sure of settlement as we can be, although we note from another contributor that they could still refuse to pay if they found something that they do not like. I also note from others that the complex, and masked, structure of the policy (described by others) will ensure they have a way to decline much of the claim, if not all of it.

Whatever the contractual rights and wrongs, though, Animal Friends is old-school in being 'legally' correct, bit not 'morally' correct. They should be much clearer with policy-holders, especially if it is the case that they the older dog 35% co-payment to the maximum benefit, rather than to the bill. So, for example, as indicated above, if a bill was £4,000 and your stated maximum benefit was £3,000, the £1,000 would be ignored. They would pay 65% only of the £3,000 (less excess).

CharlieDog50

The John Lewis may have misled you, too. My reading of their terms is that they also have a 'co-payment' policy for older dogs, albeit at 20% rather than 35%. So 20% of what? Surely of the bill? It seems entirely fair for insurers to either keep premiums low and ask claimants to pay a share when claiming, or to increase premiums for every owner of older dogs whether they make a claim or not. Also, you blame the insurer for making its original decision based on notes written by your own vet. Why shouldn't they? They are insurers? I note that they overturned their own decision when your vet corrected their own (vet's) mistake. So where is the problem?