Aviva Medios Healthcare - are we being treated fairly?

burtwood

Many thanks to Maytops and Jean 819 for their useful inputs. The possible date disparity is probably not that important because, as stated, premium overpayments are a minor aspect of policyholders’ claims.

What could have happened is that Aviva played FOS for a fool, just as it played policyholders for fools. As with policyholders, Aviva could have responded solely to the overpaid premium point and pretended there was no problem with its Guaranty.

You’ll recall Lawton previously reported that Aviva had explained that “we (Aviva plc) have been advised that we should not be responding to (questions on the Guaranty)”. Policyholders couldn’t do anything about that, hence their complaints to FOS. However, unlike policyholders, FOS was able to insist it had “not received a satisfactory response to this case”.

As with all matters involving justice, credibility is crucial. Yet Aviva’s provision of at least three varying reasons for its premium increase demonstrated a total lack of credibility. Then getting caught out lying to a Member of Parliament, and Government Minister, to stop him contributing to the FSA’s investigations took Aviva’s dishonesty to a new low. As that lie was a misrepresentation of FOS’s position, Aviva’s lack of credibility dropped even beyond that new low. Not providing a satisfactory response reinforces that total absence of credibility.

In any jurisdiction where justice is meted out, once a defendant is caught lying and misrepresenting facts then every statement the defendant makes must be viewed as unreliable. That is Aviva’s situation; it cannot be trusted.

Davidson and Lawton are both absolutely right that Aviva will continue with its mischief (whether lies, misrepresentations, or key omissions through half-truths or misapplication of word meanings). However no credibility can attach to any new, previously unseen ‘evidence’. One can only fairly conclude that Jean819 has it spot on when she says “Aviva can no longer tell right from wrong”.

PS Policyholders have to sympathise with FOS’s inability to trust Aviva. After all they have suffered: its deceptions when the policy’s Key Features were removed, including all parts of their Guaranty; its repeated misrepresentations and concealments when stopping New Entrants; its refusal to provide Guaranty information when pushing them to discontinue their policies; and its continuous falsifying of authorities. It is this extreme and persistent misbehaviour that stresses the need for protections in any ongoing policy.

fsLegal

On this site policyholders have been told how Aviva breached all the Key Features of its Medios policy, namely:
- to provide lifetime available cover,
- for the Guaranty to be incapable of being lost,
- for New Entrants to be the basis of its Guaranty, and
- for annual choice of Excess.

Various breaches of authority by Aviva to change other than the policy’s Standard Terms have also been detailed.

Also given are details of the complaint that Aviva breached its obligation not to make Age-Related Increases for 2012 and 2013.

In all of this, it seems that policyholders cannot comprehend how Aviva’s behaviour has not been criminal and therefore how its Directors and other Key Managers have escaped criminal sanction.
To many policyholders there seems no bounds or limitations to Aviva’s countless and never-ending deceptions.
From 2009 they believe Aviva improperly manipulated them to keep paying exceptionally high and, at certain times, unauthorised premiums for a Guaranty that it was already in the process of ‘stealing’ from them, through subsequent cover-ups and earlier improper acts it had misled upon.

The confusions that resulted from Aviva’s wrongful actions must be expected to have prevented policyholders from being able to decide upon suitable action with respect to their policies.
Apparently, others stayed with the policy in the sole hope that FOS would sort out Aviva’s persistent contract breaches.

Almost all leading Complainants on this site have already called for protections against the complained about unending, relentless onslaught of Aviva contract breaches to void Guaranty obligations and to impose excessive unauthorised premiums.

My 16th May Post explained how these complaints could be put right.
It also affirmed the need to protect existing benefits and rights over the remainder of the term of every relevant policy.

In the face of Aviva’s past refusal to detract from its objectives, protections must also deal with Aviva’s 2011 declared avowal “to ensure that the income we receive will cover the cost of any potential claims and the administration of the policy”**.

Suitable protections that need to be included with the other measures detailed in my 16th May Post are as follows:

All rights, option and other benefits made available to policyholders under Terms & Conditions sanctioned by the Financial Ombudsman Service in 2013 shall be at least maintained and shall not be removed, reduced or otherwise limited and this provision shall be unchangeable.

No limitations, obligations, or other adverse change shall be imposed upon policyholders other than those required by Terms & Conditions sanctioned by the Financial Ombudsman Service in 2013 and this provision shall be unchangeable.

These necessary protections assume the condition changes set out in 2013’s Terms & Conditions are already reversed.


** Avowal was part of Aviva’s last written explanation for 2012’s premium increase.
It excluded all mention of Aviva’s offer and marketing of its unique Guaranty so as to cause policyholders to pay premiums some 40% higher than standard premiums. Nor did it state whether Aviva had taken those premiums immediately to profit instead of setting aside sufficient provisions for related costs impacting in following years.

PMW2012

I have recently been provided by the FOS with copies of the correspondence between them relating to my complaint which make very enlightening reading.

In respect of pricing they have now admitted that;
"AVIVA Health became responsible for the Medios product in 2000 when we took over the book from OHRA, a Dutch firm, as a result of a number of corporate mergers. We do not have the original pricing basis or reports for the business which would set out the original assumptions around likely claims cost, expenses and tenure. Therefore our pricing analysis considered the costs of the Medios book had we priced the contract from outset."

What an admission.

I find this somewhat surprising as up until the end of 2012 they have been using OHRA's IT staff to maintain this product whilst a number of the staff involved with this product when it was operated by OHRA in the UK now work for AVIVA Healthcare.

The papers passed to me also contain details of Medios pricing and results for the portfolio for the period 2005-2012. I have asked the FOS to obtain the figures back to 2000 at least as I believe these will show even more profitable results for insurers.

Back in 2012 when I first raised with the insurer the reasons for the significant increase at the beginning of 2012 I received a letter from their Finance Director who stated that
"The combined operating ratio was 98% in 2010. This is similar to the ratios achieved by our major competitors and represents a profit margin before tax of 3% of premiums, including investment income. We do not believe this to be excessive"

Guess what, their profit over the combined period 2005-2012 was abut 4.3%, almost 50% higher than they expected to achieve.
The figures also reveal, not only a deteriorating experience since 2010 when they closed the book on new business and a further deterioration since the beginning of 2012 when they substantially increased premiums. It also shows an expense ratio (Commission and expenses) of 25% each year. This is rather surprising given that they have indicated that 91% of their business "in the last 5 years has been renewed"on which the usual commission is only 5% whilst on new business (which they have not written since 2010) is 15% yet expenses have not reduced at all since 2010.

It would seem to me that AVIVA need to accept that their results are somewhat better than expected or perhaps they have been taking too much profit in earlier years by not reserving funds to cover the GLB, indeed there is no evidence of accrials for this in the accounting information provided.

My recommendation to the Ombudsman as a result of this review is that AVIVA need to accept responsibility for incorrect pricing and, with the book now closed to new business,they need to maintain pricing in the future based on the experience of their whole portfolio and not just the remaining aging OHRA clients left on the books. For the future policyholders need to know that there will not be any further "sudden shocks" in terms of substantial increases above medical inflation although i for one would perhaps be prepared to pay a small premium increase each year (say 1 or 2% above medical inflation) to achieve this but only after AVIVA can demonstrate to me that they have used up all the reserves that they should have been accruing.

I will keep forum members informed of developments.

davidstone

Thank you PMW12 for sharing with us parts of your FOS correspondence.

My purpose is to provide a few tips that you might find helpful. To the extent you already have them on board or they have already been relayed to you by others, that’s fine.

Provisions for future costs out of past premiums etc
Your interest in proving that Aviva made inadequate provision for Guaranty costs is understood. However, there is danger in focussing upon Aviva produced figures. Whether they relate to the past or future, those figures will not be audited. They could contain intra-group charges and transfer prices that skew the figures. Effectively, Aviva could make them say whatever they wanted; this is the problem the Inland Revenue has when taxing multi-national companies and we all know who wins those contests. There is no disadvantage continuing with the effort to show earlier accounting problems. The easiest way forward is to ask the direct question whether annual provisions were made and if so ask that they be quantified and provision basis detailed (it’s the best type of question to ask as you have been previously told that none was provided – see your Post 9 November, 10:31am). However, continuing with that theme for post 2009 figures (after which New Entrants were stopped) is what Aviva wants, as it could then “create” the figures to tell whatever story it desires.

Impact of New Entrants’ breach
Aviva’s breach of the Guaranty when it stopped New Entrants means that future costs will constantly increase due to an aging policyholder population. Only Aviva should suffer those costs as they are solely caused by Aviva’s breach. Certainly, they are also Age-Related, so there is a double reason Aviva should pick-up that tab. The message is that figures for periods after New Entrants were stopped (whether past, present or future) have no relevance to the current situation as they are post breach matters.

Basing inflation etc on the experience of Aviva’s whole portfolio
Aviva is presently downsizing to focus upon core profitable activities. Consequently, it could cut-out the health insurance activity at any Board review of activities, especially as health insurance becomes increasingly less attractive due to cost, cover and claim issues. That could mean stopping it, selling it and so forth; Boards of Directors do those sorts of things. That is the key reason for others on this site having focussed upon the need for third party reference points.

Future premium increases other than for medical inflation
Underwriting a specific risk and then walking away from it when costs mount defeats the principle of insurance. Admittedly, that is what many insurers attempt; for instance none of us will forget the Equitable Life saga. However, when insurers get caught they cannot be allowed to evade and jettison their responsibilities. Consequently, I cannot think that many would go along with your idea to pay above the medical inflation rate charged by the likes of BUPA and AXA. Policyholders have already paid a handsome premium for their insurance and have got little or nothing back, as most have only recently qualified for Guaranty benefit (being 10 to 20 years after policy commencement).

Any other figures produced by Aviva
Aviva is adept at producing figures that support its objectives. However, Aviva's self-interest has already proved its actions have no bounds and none of its figures can therefore be relied upon. Aviva's sole objective is to reduce any policyholder awards.

Other matters
You do not write about putting right the other breaches mentioned in fs Legal’s recent Post – and laboured by many others throughout this site. Presumably, those matters are already being dealt with by you.

The suggestion is to keep it simple and focus upon Aviva’s contract breaches plus its breaches of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Aviva must pick-up the entire cost of removing all measurement references and must not be given the option to reinvent ones that mitigate the effect of its current, self-made predicament. Policyholders are the victims and Aviva is the unbridled oppressor that has shown no conscience even after having been caught-out. A pyrrhic victory is of no interest to any other Policyholder.

Jean819

I am really disappointed to hear about a possible intent to use Aviva’s experience of the whole of its portfolio for future pricing.

I too am an insurance company professional of many years standing and recognise instantly that this drags us into Aviva’s tactic of confusion and diversion. It’s the tactic every losing litigant adopts as that’s all that’s left to them. Rope a dope as it became known after Muhammad Ali's famous exploits. Almost every other leading Poster on this site has warned us of this certain Aviva tactic.

I ask what differentiation is made for the fact that Medios policyholders are responsible for an enormous element of their own claims. The formula used causes policyholders to pay the first part of any claims that’s equivalent to around 85% of their premium.

Also what differentiation is made for the fact Medios policyholders paid premiums some 40% higher than standard, in order to benefit from lower premiums some 10 to 20 years after the commencement of their policies. Seemingly, everything to do with Age-Related protection has gone by the wayside. It’s like the original policy has disappeared from sight.

Also why include the results of a Medios portfolio that Aviva’s actions have caused to be skewed. Doubtless that will result many times over in Avia’s product portfolio when it prefers one product over another as time passes, even assuming the Aviva Board does not stop the health insurance activity after this debacle.

Yes, Davidstone is correct in that Aviva can produce figures by the second. They will share one thing in common, in that they will all be ‘created’ to present Aviva’s preferred view of the world – one that benefits only Aviva. Can one imagine Aviva producing figures that showed it was materially wrong! Any figures that showed that effect would be submerged and would never see the light of day. Remember even Aviva’s advisers told it not to respond to questions on the Guaranty and we can all work out the reasons for that advice. Heaven help us as to what figures Aviva might use if given the opportunity.

Just writing in this way annoys me because I am falling into the Aviva trap of confusion and diversion.

The simple answer has been given many times over. Premium increases must be restricted to inflation (measured by others) as Aviva has caused no other measure to be relevant or viable after it killed-off New Entrants.

I hope Davidstone’s advice is followed to the letter. Keep it simple. It’s all about contract breaches that have removed all reference points and Aviva must not be allowed to benefit from its own wrongdoings or from its dubious but expected tactics. Yes, the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 does impact upon the situation, as does the Misrepresentations Act 1967. However, one only needs to deal with an industry pariah once when its sins are so dire, as the same conclusion is reached whichever route is taken.

AdamsP_2

Please can one of the main Posters on this site tell FOS (for everybody but PMW12) that any linking of price to the performance of Aviva's other products is inappropriate.
Some 18 months of effort would be wasted if we keep quiet at this critical time.

Why should we suffer the same premium increase as Aviva's other policyholders who
(a) have not paid 40% above standard rate year after year,
(b) did not buy into the risk cover offered and promoted by Aviva, and
(c) did not commit to a long term contract that only provided benefits some 10 to 20 years after the commencement of their policies?
Also, as another has said, we already directly share risk through an enormous Excess that deters many claims until one gets to organising hospital admission.

We already know Aviva did not properly account for provisions to cover claims arising from its past risk commitment.
The result is no provisions are available to cover Guaranty costs as they fall due.
Another effect was exceptional profitability for Aviva during 2005-10.
The same could be said for the earlier 2000-5 period.
Unsurprisingly 2000-5 figures did not see the light of day and they will get ‘adjusted’ if produced.

Nor is it surprising that Medios financials from 2010 onwards are awful.
That's because Aviva breached its New Entrants' obligation plus, of course, claims were inflated by past risk commitments and an absence of provisions.

The motive for Aviva causing this fiasco is that its Guaranty liabilities were then gargantuan, especially due to the absence of provisions.
Worst still, it was getting much worse as those liabilities were crystallising, due to policyholders starting to receive the benefit they had been paying for over the preceding 10 to 20 years.
Hence the 20% premium hike to cause policyholders to transfer to Aviva’s Healthier Solutions.
That replaced an earlier Aviva decision to stop the policy because of brokers’ reactions.

As important as all the above issues are, they are not the most crucial.
Those are Aviva's breaches of every single one of its Key Feature Product obligations:
- to make lifetime cover available,
- for the Guaranty to be non-losable,
- for New Entrants to be a cornerstone of its Guaranty,
- for choice of Excess, and
- for the Guaranty to protect against Age-Related Increases.

Aviva's unauthorised changes to its own authority can also be added to the above list.
Aviva couldn't even work out the right ultra vires authority to invent, as demonstrated by its belated effort to broaden that improper authority in 2013's Terms & Conditions.

The common feature in all of the above is Aviva's deception.

There's now nothing left of the original policy and contract we entered into.
Aviva caused our policy decisions to be taken without provision of critical information.
Aviva even refused to tell us anything when we asked about our Guaranty.

Aviva’s breaches removed most measurement aspects of the policy.
Except for one, no measure could operate as intended as a result of Aviva’s breaches.
Only the provision for medical inflation increases remained unaffected.
Consequently, it must be the only factor that can now cause a premium increase as Aviva’s breach in stopping New Entrants is incapable of remedy.
As Aviva has persistently demonstrated its intent to clawback whatever it can from policyholders
(a) any medical inflation increase needs to be referenced to third party increases (BUPA and AXA have been suggested by others), and
(b) protections are needed to guard against reductions in flexibility and benefits - another Poster has already drafted suitable provisions.

Others have also pointed out, that Aviva's breaches of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and the Misrepresentation Act 1967 get to the same answers. Whichever route is chosen, the remedy needs to include reversal of all the above breaches (albeit that's not possible for New Entrants).

Against all of the above, it’s extraordinary that Aviva has defended its wrongdoings.
As previously said by another, it just takes ones breath away.

Please mark your Thanks to this Post to urge a main Poster to inform FOS of our views on remedy.

PMW2012

Further to AdamsP's post I am sure that the FOS are keeping a watchful eye on this site.
Ref my comment on AVIVA increasing by medical inflation "at the same rate as their other products" the point here is that this figure can be easily monitored by your intermediary. It is only the medical inflation portion of any annual change involved, not the GLB element or claims experience on the Medios portfolio(now closed for new business) that is taken into account and consequently stops AVIVA from trying to slip through any further unfair increases in premium from the remaining policyholders.

02Jim

Have the yearly premium increases since Norwich Union/Aviva took over all increased in line with medical inflation as measured by others in the industry I wonder? Will the FOS be looking at this? I just can't trust anything Aviva does anymore.

Lawton

It’s an excellent idea for policyholders on this site to present FOS with a unanimous view of the remedies they seek. Otherwise their voices might never be heard in time.

Particular remedies have already been raised by PMW12 and we thank him and others for sharing crucial information and views. Without that we would make little progress.
PMW2012’s subsequent clarification allayed certain rising fears on one aspect.
He also heavily qualified his willingness to pay ‘extra’ by asking for something that doesn’t exist (provisions).
Only exchanges of this kind can inform policyholders and bring them together.
A resultant outcry has been a plea for third-party verification of future premium increases, and a must for those increases to be limited to medical inflation.

The following proposal will be forwarded to FOS if sufficient numbers of policyholders assent through marking this Post with Thanks. And my own actual thanks to Posters from whom I have ‘borrowed’ comments. And yes, Aviva will also be reading this Post, just as it read PMW2012’s Post.

Concerns on adequate provisioning stem from the belief that Aviva took the benefit of Medios premiums (being some 40% above standard rates) without making proper provision for claims arising in the future.
Aviva needs to evidence and detail the level of provision at each year end (including all annual movements) and related accounting bases.

Unsurprisingly, figures produced by Aviva for 2005-2012 demonstrate a golden meteoric performance for 2005-2009 because of the apparent absence of provisioning as well as the absence of any barrier to New Entrants.
That’s also unsurprising as it’s the picture Aviva wants to portray to demonstrate the demise of the Medios book of business from the beginning of 2010; albeit, a demise self-created by Aviva’s breach of its New Entrants’ obligation and by non-existent provisioning (worsened further by an increasing number of policyholders’ becoming eligible to receive Guaranty benefits).
Confirming the obvious, that the golden meteoric performance extended back to 2001, is probably pointless as Aviva will now be aware of the request purpose and figures are easily adjusted or easily ‘not available’ for any spurious reason.

Prior to thinking through its cover story effectively, Aviva’s initial letters to policyholders admitted the extra cost of underwriting an ageing population group was the reason for 2012’s premium increase. Yet all that extra cost should have been automatically covered by released provisions had Aviva performed its duty to affect proper provisioning (if one puts aside the fact that any and all impact of Aviva’s New Entrants’ breach was solely Aviva’s responsibility anyway).
Unsurprisingly, that initial reasoning degenerated into a more and more meaningless explanation by the time Aviva was embarrassingly forced to move on to its third written reason.

Already known implications of inadequate provisioning are:

- Aviva planned an escape for ITSELF by causing Medios policyholders to transfer to its Healthier Solutions Policy or otherwise causing them to relinquish their Guaranties
(the stopping of the policy was also considered and broached with certain brokers for that same escape purpose),

- policies became increasingly eligible to receive Guaranty benefit by 2012, being the 15 year mark from when the policy was first marketed (the average period required to be able to receive Guaranty benefit), and that combined with a lack of provisioning meant Aviva’s ESCAPE PLAN had to be implemented by 2012,

- the potential impact upon policyholders was to deprive them of a lifetime of Guaranty benefit they had just started to become entitled to, at around the time of or recently before Aviva’s improper 20% premium hike,

- Aviva wrongly felt secure in retaining premiums as its improper actions made it impossible for policyholders to obtain any significant Guaranty benefit, irrespective of them having paid some 40% above standard rate over an average of 15 years for what has become a false promise of lifetime risk protection.

Premium increases need to be referenced and limited to third-party produced figures as:

- Aviva cannot be trusted by policyholders because (a) it persistently breached its contractual obligations through the removal of all Key Features and concealed same through both deception and misrepresentation, (b) it invented improper authorities, in the form of Unfair Terms, for the purpose of covering-up the impropriety of its actions, and (c) it made no provision for the Guaranty benefit they had paid for;

- the Medios book of business is skewed to losses due to
(a) Aviva’s breach in stopping New Entrants, and
(b) an apparent absence of provisions for claims arising from past risk commitments;

- the impact of future claims arising from Medios’ past risk commitments is gargantuan and, as such, would have a material detrimental effect upon the future performance of other parts of Aviva’s health business, as would immediate provisioning costs.

Premium increases must be solely for medical inflation as:

- Aviva’s breaches removed most measurement aspects of the policy,

- except for one, no measure could operate as intended as a result of Aviva’s breaches,

- only the provision for medical inflation increases remained unaffected and, consequently, it must be the only factor that can now cause a premium increase due to Aviva’s breach in stopping New Entrants being incapable of remedy.

Policyholders note they already share risk through a unique and enormous Excess that deters many from claiming until hospital admission.

Key Features improperly removed should be reinstated, namely:

- lifetime available cover,

- the Guaranty not being losable, and

- annual choice of Excess.

Aviva’s authority to change solely Standard Terms needs also to be reintroduced.
This reflects Aviva past deceptions to reinvent it in various improper forms, albeit the belated 2013 effort demonstrated the ineptness of earlier misbehaviour.

The provision stipulating protection against Age-Related Increases needs to be clarified with the addition that premium increases must solely be for medical inflation limited to the average charged by the top 2 industry participants for their respective top selling health insurance product.

In arriving at the above views, it has been accepted that Aviva’s improper stopping of New Entrants is incapable of being remedied.

Inability for policyholders to make informed decisions clearly resulted from improper changes to Key Features, various improper authority creations, denial of Guaranty information, and the paucity and conflicts of explanations given.

Resulting losses require compensation that depends upon the circumstances pertaining to each policyholder.

Premium and Excess overcharges for 2012 and 2013 need to be reimbursed.
The extra cost of an ageing population group was Aviva’s responsibility as (a) it caused the fiasco when it breached its New Entrants’ obligation, (b) protection against Age-Related Increases is provided by its Guaranty, and (c) the cost should have been covered anyway if Aviva had been making proper provision for costs arising from its Guaranty, which is a Statutory and Regulatory obligation.

Other matters
Aviva’s last given written reason for its 2012 premium increase was “to ensure that the income we receive will cover the cost of any potential claims and the administration of the policy”.
That act formed yet another part of Aviva’s constant war of attrition against policyholders to remove or claw-back whatever it could from them, by ‘hook or crook’.
Changes to 2013’s conditions further evidence that same wrongful intent.
Consequently, reversal of 2013’s condition changes is sought as are the following protections:

All rights, options and other benefits made available to policyholders under Terms & Conditions sanctioned by the Financial Ombudsman Service in [July] 2013 shall be at least maintained and shall not be removed, reduced or otherwise limited and this provision shall be unchangeable.

No limitations, obligations, or other adverse change shall be imposed upon policyholders other than those required by Terms & Conditions sanctioned by the Financial Ombudsman Service in [July] 2013 and this provision shall be unchangeable.

Policyholders that have not or are not continuing their policies due to Aviva’s contract breaches and/or misrepresentations seek the full value of the Guaranty that they have lost.

The enormity of value lost is easily understood from the Association of British Insurer’s publication ‘Are you Buying Private Medical Insurance? 2012’. It provides a ‘Comparative price by age’ graph. Readers do not even need to look at the graph to understand the magnitude of their loss, as the Association tells them in that publication that a 70 year old must pay a premium 3 times greater than that for a 35 year old. One can quickly work out that a lifetime available Guaranty, offering protection against such increases, will have a humongous value, especially when a policy premium already costs thousands of pounds.

In the event of there being no continuing viable policy that offers equivalent Guaranty benefits to the original policy, then policyholders also seek cover from Aviva at no cost for illnesses uninsurable with other insurers at their respective standard rates, where those illnesses have occurred during their policy term and after Aviva’s first substantive contract breach.

Other claims
Compensation is sought for distress and inconvenience.
The distress and inconvenience suffered is ‘the stuff of nightmares’ as there can be nothing more important and worrying to policyholders than the protection of their families’ health.
Aviva’s actions throughout this whole process have exacerbated policyholders’ suffering.

Interest is sought on each and every claim from the applicable date of loss.

THE ABOVE REMEDIES, SOUGHT BY MEDIOS POLICYHOLDERS, HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO FOS AND I THANK USERS FOR THEIR UNANIMOUS SUPPORT FOR THIS COLLECTIVE EFFORT

PMW2012

I agree entirely with your post (Lawton). Indeed my full response to the FOS mirrored, pretty well, all the points you have raised and I have also discussed these on the telephone with the FOS meber of staff dealing with this now.
The more constructive comments like yours that are put on this blog the better as it adds consideraby to our case which, as you say is being read by the FOS, leading industry figures and I suspect also the FCA who are looking to Insurers providing "a satisfactory outcome to policyholders in the resolution of complaints" as part of their recently announced priorities.