Aviva Medios Healthcare - are we being treated fairly?

Daker

The FCA do not deal with individual complaints unless toxic product or unfair terms etc are involved. They are big game boys. FOS is the right destination for the likes of each of us.

PMW2012 is encouraging complaints to be sent to FCA because he must be Mr D whose claim was mainly rejected. Parts of his complaint concerned management aspects. Obviously the rest of us want to avoid that if we want our claims to be relevant to FOS's remit.

Like me, I suggest you leave it to the big boys who know what they are doing when dealing with FCA. If I have it wrong, PMW2012 will correct me and provide address.

Whether we win or lose will probably depend on the big boys anyway.

alanjg1

In response to manser's post on 21/01/2014:

"Probably, most of us have no choice as we have no new argument and/or no new evidence, so we must go with the big hitters who have brought everything to our attention and made us realise what Aviva has done to our policy.

If we go with them we do not want our cases reviewed by the Ombudsman first, otherwise we will have burnt our bridges.

We have to be upfront with the adjudicator and tell him we want the big hitters to present on our behalf through their case going first".

How would we tell the Ombudsman that?
He is pushing for settlement as soon as possible and it would be a great help if anyone with experience in these matters could suggest the correct wording in order to delay our case.
Thanks.

burtwood

Email adjudicator and tell him you want the same issues to be taken into account as are being put by Sakagawea.

One of our number will also email adjudicator to identify relevant claim with that same code name once you post further message saying that is what you want to do.

Stand firm. FOS has taken 2 years to deal with this matter and it is mainly being determined by a decision it reached over 9 months ago but did not communicate until Christmas through the Mr D decision concerning a Medios Optional policy.

alanjg1

Burtwood,
Many thanks for the reply and just to confirm, that is the way I will respond to the adjudicator. I will do that tomorrow sometime.
Much appreciated.

Honourable

Burtwood advises:
"Email adjudicator and tell him you want the same issues to be taken into account as are being put by Sakagawea."

Who is Sakagawea and why him, he has not posted anything ?

julian2

Hello Honourable

The name Sakagawea is the code name for a case before FOS and referring to it enables you to make the same points as made in that case. I find you sometimes need to read Posts a couple of times as this is not the sort of stuff one deals with every day.

Burtwood is the guy that has done most with one or two others to make this claim happen. We will not get a better offer. It's like getting into first class without paying.

I would still like to know from alanjg1 how it worked out and whether pressure from FOS was let up.

Honourable

If it of any use I do have the original OHRA marketing material clearly showing Medios was a policy for life not a year. I can email it if you like.

Honourable

Strange the press are silent on this. Does anyone know why? Has anyone contacted the press? What of the MP's help?

The Telegraph published an article some years ago obviously believing the policy was for life. It can be found by Googling

"Inject the right policy and you might just beat the inflation bug"

The guarantee is obviously worth a hugh sum of cash due to compounded age related increases

Barry_Man

Please can somebody post the precise details as being presented by / under the code name Sakagawea in order that anyone following the suggestion in this thread (of asking for "the same issues to be taken into account as are being put by Sakagawea") is fully aware of what they are going for?

AdamsP_2

My experience is that burtwood has got me more time from adjudicator who wants me to accept Aviva's derisory offer. Even worse, FOS has already given Aviva more power to terrorise me more.

If others reckon they can advance their own case then they should do so. But they should listen to adjudicator's reasoning first so they do not waste their time on the impossible. Remember this is a massive uphill battle because of the Mr D decision - having said that, one I must fight for.

The rest of us, like me, want to avail themselves of top expertise. Read burtwood's comments and work that one out for yourselves. Do not expect to be told arguments or evidence as he is not going to pre-arm Aviva - surprise, surprise.