Aviva Medios Healthcare - are we being treated fairly?

Barry_Man

No one is asking for anything that (presumably) hasn't already been presented to the FOS under the auspices of Sakagawea (and therefore, one has to assume, passed on to Aviva), merely that one can see precisely what one might be signing up to.

AdamsP_2

Seems you won't be signing up, Barry Man.

We all have choices. Obviously you have more choices than me.

Let's hope that between you and burtwood the answer will be found as I committed to policy and my alternatives are limited.

Neilson

Thanks burtwood to you and your group.
I already had decided I was not going to be bullied to accept a derisory offer.
Aviva has a lot of reckoning to do.
It has dug some big holes for itself.
I get the feeling the real issues will now get to be looked at.

laureli

Neilson wrote: »

Thanks burtwood to you and your group.
I already had decided I was not going to be bullied to accept a derisory offer.
Aviva has a lot of reckoning to do.
It has dug some big holes for itself.
I get the feeling the real issues will now get to be looked at.

This says it all.
I just can't thank you enough.

ianb24

Burtwood,
Thank you for your advice and help.
I too was offered £659.71.
I have replied with some copies of original literature to try to take my complaint further based on differences from "D".
I have asked also, as many issues are the remit of the FCA, how can I refer to the FCA as I cannot access the FCA as an individual. Do they do it on my or the groups behalf?
Further to your post I have in my letter told him I want the same issues to be taken into account as are being put by Sakagawea.
I would be very grateful if you could arrange to email adjudicator to identify relevant claim with that same code name. Do you need a reference number or name of the adjudicator?
I hope that our complaints will not be brushed aside again.
Thanking you again for all your help and advice, without which I think we all would be in despair.

02Jim

I have spoken to The Adjudicator who was very pleasant & reasonable. He said a lot of people wish 'to go' with Sakagwea & that was not a problem, so don't hold back you have nothing to lose & possibly a lot to gain. Just follow Burntwood's post 184.

heathcote_2

[FONT=&quot]I was origianlly offered about £550 by Aviva based on my original complaint to FOS. FOS referenced Mr D which I did not considered matched all my circumstances. I appealed this decision a few weeks ago asking for other aspects to be taken into consideration.

I received the following reply and decision.........

..... I have reviewed the further comments you have made, but remain of the view that Aviva’s offer is reasonable in the circumstances of your complaint. I do acknowledge that ‘Mr D’s’ complaint does not address your full concerns, however I consider that it broadly sets out our service’s position on this type of complaint. [/FONT]

Your primary concern is that Aviva has changed the underlying principles upon which this insurance was based. Within the decision for Mr D the ombudsman concluded that the increase in premium, and any change of policy terms, did not amount to a fundamental change in the nature of this insurance. This was because Aviva has evidenced that it has always calculated the premiums for the policy in the same manner, and has always had the right to use its claims experience when determining the premium, as well as looking at medical inflation. Without being able to use claims experience to calculate premiums there would be no way an insurer would be able to ensure any particular scheme would remain commercially viable.

[FONT=&quot]With regards to the policy providing lifelong protection, I understand that you consider Aviva to have removed this aspect of the policy. However, as Aviva has not attempted to withdraw the policy, and I have seen no evidence to support that it intends to do so, I am unable to conclude that it has changed the nature of the policy regarding this element either.[/FONT]

Although Aviva has closed the policy to new entrants, I am satisfied that it has demonstrated that your premiums have been calculated in line with the policy terms and conditions. This is because it has it has correctly applied you to the appropriate age band, and only ever applied one age-band increase. As this is the case, I am unable to conclude that it has acted unreasonably.............

I have the right to have the complaint once again reviewed but without further relevant evidence I am not sure what to say.

I do not know anything about the Sakagwea . Please can someone provide clarity on the exact deatils of the points being asked to be taken into consideration.
I am not going to let this rest. I know when something is wrong, unethical and unfair and £550 is nothing to me in the overall scheme of things. I also am reasonably healthy so could go and get another policy elsewhere. But I actually like the idea of a policy with no age related increases, so I will push further. Ironically i have had no trouble with claims on this policy over the years and recently which makes me evn more determined to get Aviva to provide some certainty to us.

heathcote_2

FCA Complaint

I have complained to the FCA and here is their reply...........

[FONT=&quot]..............I am sorry to hear of the problems you have encountered and can appreciate the frustration you must be feeling. Although the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) does not prohibit a firm from making legitimate commercial decisions, including changes to the terms and conditions of policies, we do expect firms to provide consumers with information about the changes in a way which is clear fair and not misleading, and in sufficient time to allow the consumer to make an informed decision.

Because of the nature of your concerns I have passed a copy of your email to the department within the FCA that supervises the conduct of Aviva for their consideration. They will determine whether the firm is in breach of our rules, and if so, what action it may be appropriate to take. Please be aware that due to confidentiality restrictions placed on the FCA, I will be unable to provide you with any feedback about how we use the information. If we do take action against a firm, we will issue a press release and publish the details on our website. I have attached a link to our website which gives details of recent press releases we have issued:


I hope this is helpful to you.

Yours sincerely


Customer Contact Centre
Financial Conduct Authority
Consumer Helpline: 0800 111 6768 [/FONT]


I was specific about the issues of changing the terms of the contract when Aviva bought out the OHRA book. I thought that this was unfair and not in the spirit of treating customers fairly.

In my view it is with the FCA that Aviva will be held to account.

mwng

At last one of us has done something concrete with the FCA. Well done Heathcote.

If the FCA can now be persuaded to look at the Medios product one suspects they will see straight through Aviva's smoke and mirrors to the basic issue, which is that:

Aviva is trying to compensate for the costs of its absolute commitments on the Guaranteed Loyalty Bonus (one or less age related increases) by....

1. Isolating the increasingly ageing (ageing because Aviva themselves have barred new entrants) Medios portfolio, then...

2. Claiming that Medios has to be profitable as a standalone entity (where did this idea come from? Aviva are a huge group and can easily absorb the losses of one modest line of business). Then...

3. By citing their "Claims experience" in this newly isolated, and rigged (no new entries, therefore ageing) portfolio, they can then hike prices well above medical inflation, and..

4. By citing "commercial judgement" in their reference to their new "claims experience" (in this newly rigged portfolio), they can also neutralize the Ombudsman, because "commercial judgement" is beyond his remit!

Cynical beyond belief, because...

Surprise surprise, if you have this self-inflicted ageing Medios portfolio (no new entrants allowed) you are going to have an increasing (age related) "claims experience". Who do they think they are kidding?

Aviva have thus engineered the "claims experience" performance to allow themselves to claim that the "claims experience" justifies increases in premiums.

They then claim, in an assertion which beggars belief, that the premiums have nothing to do with compensating for the costs of the GLB (which prevents them from increasing premiums relating to ageing), despite the following....

Remember that......

The first narrative from Aviva simply said that the Medios GLB was costing them too much and they were hiking premiums to cover it.

Of course that was an obvious breach of their GLB commitments to policy holders and they were told this in no uncertain terms, so...

The FOS over the last two years have kindly allowed them plenty of time to change their tune to the new one above, whilst not communicating anything of substance to the policyholders who have complained.

The whole thing stinks to high heaven.

The Ombudsman's ruling with Mr D was the price Aviva is having to pay for being allowed by the Ombudsman to change their tune and thus avoid the basic issue entirely by moving it outside his terms of reference. The ruling is blood money.

In my opinion this behaviour (by Aviva, not the Ombudsman who - and I state this charitably - is only after a quiet life) actually borders on criminality. I hope that the FCA take a close look. They will be astonished. I am personally astonished that Aviva have so far got away with it.

Neither does it reflect well on the FOS. It makes them appear to be a creature of the industry, not a representative of the industry's customers.

how_2

Aviva has created utter confusion for policyholders.
Many of them have ended up chasing their tails not knowing which way to turn.
They know something is wrong but cannot put their finger on what it is.


Mr D chose his complaint route for reasons to do with his past. Others took that same route because of Aviva's created confusion.
Reading heathcote's comments, this confusion shouts out.
Unfortunately, his route is identical to Mr D's route but I understand his anger and frustration at what had been done to him.
However, the adjudicator had little leeway but to respond in the way he did.

Much of mwng's analysis is correct but it does not take this case one step further.

The FCA will take an interest when appropriate.

Doubtless other policyholders will make submissions and hopefully patience will bring its reward to others.