Aviva Medios Healthcare - are we being treated fairly?

Jean819

Also haven’t heard yet.

Interestingly there were 2 reports in last week’s industry paper, Financial Adviser, on Aviva’s trickery and FOS’s helpfulness AND naivety.

The first concerned how the FSA failed 4 million consumers over an Aviva blunder. Eventually the FSA was nudged into action by a FOS decision. The case concerned Aviva having kept quiet about errors that went back to the CGU and Norwich Union merger. Particular terms and conditions in contracts were not applied correctly and caused incorrect payments for life insurance, pensions, and whole-of- life plans. Apparently, Aviva was forced to set aside £323 million of compensation. So well done FOS on that one.

The second was a front page item. The report claimed that FOS wilfully ignored Northern Irish Law to reject a building insurance claim - yes - involving Aviva. Apparently a FOS employee had told the claimant to “play ball” and accept Aviva’s offer of £10,000 despite an independent valuation of some £200,000 of claimed damages. Eventually Aviva coughed up £189,000! FOS declined to comment. Obviously, FOS messed up badly on that one.

The common theme seems to be Aviva keeping quiet on what really went on in order to oppress claimants or to otherwise get out of its obligations.

We all know Aviva misled Mr D according to the Ombudsman. The question is when will FOS work out that it has also been misled and Aviva is partying and having a laugh?

davidstone

Key information on how Aviva conducts its business is to be shared with 2 of its rivals with whom we have close professional relationships.

They are keenly interested in how Aviva 'uses' the system to gain advantage.

Our campaign on behalf of policyholders is now moving forward with real force.

standon

In response to my email I have been told the Sakagwea submission happened. Effectively it kills the Mr D decision although apparently FOS people are currently running round in some confusion.

Seems rising levels of action are planned. The davidstone one appears to be the first one.

I know little else as our experts seem to be orchestrating a tightly controlled campaign on our behalf. We are incredibly fortunate that they exist. Without them it is certain Aviva would have been allowed to walk away from its obligations.

PMW2012

I have just looked at the latest update entries made and I am delighted at the progress that has been made since the "Mr D" decision. AVIVA argued that each case had to be treated individually and they are getting what they deserve.
Since my offer was made, I have managed to obtain copies of all the letters sent to the FOS by AVIVA dealing with it. As mentioned in an earlier blog the initial correspondence was very revealing however, their latest letter was clearly written by a member of their legal department on behalf of the person who signed it, and changed the whole emphasis of the final ruling of my case I felt.
I am delighted that the latest actions taken by other effected policyholders are apparently causing the FOS to rethink on the alleged basis that they have been "misled".
I was also pleased to see the article in last weeks Financial Adviser "How FSA failed 4 Million consumers over Aviva blunder" referred to by Jean819 and believe it is pertinent to add that "by last April 358 errors had been discovered with AVIVA products" . The Medios product is yet another one to be added to the pile of evidence building up at the FCA following the merger of Norwich Union and Commercial Union it would appear?

how_2

An increasing number of policyholders have approached various original complainants who grouped together to respond to questions from others over the last 2 years. The present question increasingly put to us is what to do now. In particular should policyholders change their complaint and should they take the opportunity to make a further submission.

Please excuse the fact that the following comments reflect the need to protect sensitive information.

All analysis work over the past 2 years has been focussed upon the Aviva policy sold to us from 2001onwards. No original complainant has complained about the OHRA policy.

Mr D took a different direction for personal reasons and complained solely about the OHRA policy. He considered the Aviva policy to be the same policy – a continuation of the OHRA policy. The consequence was to invoke Article 8 of the OHRA policy, which gave OHRA the power to do anything. Unfortunately, that suggested the same power be given to Aviva no matter that the Aviva policy said otherwise. In fact, that’s exactly what happened because of the Mr D decision. Consequently, almost everything Mr D claimed did not succeed. Since, Mr D has contributed to our efforts. However, you should disregard anyone hawking around an old OHRA policy and encouraging you to use it for your claim.

If policyholders wish to make the point that the Aviva policy was a new policy, unrelated to and a different sort of policy to the OHRA policy, they need to send FOS the Aviva 2001 offer documentation with as much explanation as is possible. The same goes for all the things Aviva has since done to them – again with explanations regarding how that has impacted upon them. Key 2000/2001 document required is headed “Offer Terms from Norwich Union Healthcare to the current OHRA Policyholder named in the attached letter”. If you want a copy send an email address to me and it will be provided.

Who you are complaining about is another issue to consider. Aviva Health UK Ltd is merely an administrator for Aviva Insurance Ltd. Aviva Health UK Ltd is a small intermediary company with few assets relative to those owned by Aviva Insurance Ltd and certainly does not possess the equity funds to afford the sort of compensation being requested in aggregate by policyholders. Also any Ombudsman decision can only be enforced by the FCA, which is unable to do that if the award is against the wrong company – remember policyholders want their Aviva Insurance Ltd policy put to rights not a policy from any other organisation. Consequently, policyholders need to complain about Aviva Insurance Ltd (that automatically embraces anything done by its agent, Aviva Health UK Ltd). Stand firm on this point as adjudicator will seek to convince you otherwise. Appreciate from the many complaints communicated to our group that adjudicator has been unfairly bullying and not acting even-handedly but you need to stand firm on this point as Parliament gave FOS no enforcement powers.

The Sakagawea submission is presently being reviewed prior to moving onto the second stage - the Ombudsman. The adjudicator’s sole interest is to impose the Mr D decision; he has stopped thinking about the Ombudsman’s reasoning for various conclusions – instead he can only focus upon the conclusions.

Good luck.

Braden_2

Now it is starting to become clear how FOS was misled

claremont

Yes I agree.

Still cannot understand why any adjudicator doing his work properly would not have worked this out. Instead he seems to be expending his energy bullying complainants and otherwise being unhelpful.

Noakes

Its right about adjudicator being unhelpful from what I have heard but I am much more upset that Aviva has misled everyone and if FOS might be protecting Aviva from being found out.

We must all make sure we complain as many of us have been holding back to see what happens.

Somebody previously suggested a Freedom of Information request and I would be interested to know whether FOS has been forthcoming or has stopped us putting forward our best case.

Guardog

Guys, I appreciate we have a bad adjudicator but our problem is Aviva and that is where our focus must be.

Have not previously tried to turn screw on ensuring we get all information as we wanted to avoid appearing aggressive.

Things have changed for reasons you all refer to and I am told we are now going all out to ensure we get full information so our case covers all relevant points Aviva has claimed. This is especially important due to concerns regarding Aviva having misled everyone. Also, Aviva has been involved throughout the past 2 years and we have been excluded and are therefore at a massive disadvantag. It is FOS's duty to ensure that that is put right.

PMW2012

Ref Noakes post of today I can advise that I have used the Freedom of Information act to obtain from the FOS copies of all correspondence between the FOS and AVIVA relating to my personal case. This clearly shows a change of attitude by AVIVA from their initial to final response as is also apparent from the final judgement issued by the FOS and comments made in that regarding Mr D's case.
I would urge all complainants to pass on to the FCA details of any unsatisfactory offer made through the offices of the FOS as I have done so myself and the FCA, who rarely acknowledge anything have indicated that "there are a number of other policyholders who are unhappy about how the firm has conducted its business and the subsequent decision taken by the FOS". It has been bought to the attention of the Chief Executive Martin Wheatley, I understand.
When writing to the FCA I suggest you highlight the fact that the FOS have indicated that "continuation of the policy" and Aspects relating to the management of the policy" fall outside the remit of the FOS (as they are the remit of the FCA) and request them to follow this through.
We really need to lodge as many complaints and provide as much information as we can to the FCA now particularly in view of the considerable number of complaints being lodged with the FCA (over 358 errors) as reported in the Financial Adviser recently so that our case receives priority treatment.