Aviva Medios Healthcare - are we being treated fairly?

Guardog

If you look on the policy you will see the definition of "we, us etc" is Aviva Insurance Ltd which underwrites and provides your contract of insurance. Aviva Health is a relatively small intermediary company with few assets and zero profitability that is not authorized to enter into insurance contracts. It is an agent for Aviva Insurance Ltd.

Be up front with adjudicator and tell him that Aviva's documentation confused you and you are now aware of actual situation and also aware of present high level discussions on this point between FOS and Sakagawea case presenter. Consequently, tell him you have no choice but to complain against Aviva Insurance Ltd.

I would put it in writing so there is no mistake. Also because you want to avoid confrontation with him, especially as he seems to enjoy bullying policyholders to get his own way.

Cannot see how he can ignore your request on the basis it is an issue being discussed at higher level within FOS. Do not accept him making some file note of your request as he must follow whatever his more senior people ultimately decide, whether that be confirmation or denial of his existing position.

pmq

Do we know if the Sakagawea case is being put to an ombudsman or going round the loop at an adjudicator level (before getting escalated), or even something else? As I understand it, individual cases are already being referred automatically to an ombudsman after a given time if the adjudicator's proposal is not accepted.

Also, what have others done about the Aviva Health UK Ltd / Aviva Insurance Ltd matter. And what has then comeback from FOS. Or am I the only one to have broached this so far?

Jenny1983

Health insurance is just a money making scam, they al just thief

how_2

Jenny's position on this is noted and maybe deserves consideration!

On Sakagawea discussions the presenter continues with circulation of all correspondence but there's nothing to report other than FOS continues to be engaged on what can best be termed as 'house keeping'. The cynical amongst us might think that is more for FOS' benefit rather than for our good but we must await the outcome and then act accordingly.

Other discussion areas are advancing to plan and everything should hopefully come together as key information spreads.

Letwin

The truth will ultimately come out.

It always does when so many people complain.

There will be no hiding place.

gresham

Every time I see an Aviva ad on TV I yell never again for me and any of my family.

I am 67 years old and have never been misled to the extent Aviva misled me with its 2001 offer.

Aviva is not to be trusted and nothing it has done will surprise me.

Stewards

I do not understand why there was no lead case that focused on the 2001 Aviva offer.

Is it just me confused about this and has FOS got misled?

PMW2012

Ref stewards comment about the 2001 wording the changes made by AVIVA at that time were headline news in the Financial Press and the appropriate articles have indeed been presented to the FOS and FCA. At that time there was of course no FOS or indeed FSA in place.
Action has also been taken to ensure that the FCA have been made aware of policyholders being prejudiced by the actions of AVIVA in respect of changes in policy wordings.
In addition AVIVA have advised the FOS that
"Aviva became responsible for the medios product in 2000....We do not have the original pricing basis or reports for the business......."
It then took them ten years before addressing the issues although there were staff originally working for Medios and computer systems in place which they had been using for those 10 years which should have been able to assist them in the "alleged" management of this portfolio properly.
This information is also with both the FOS and, more importantly with the FCA whose responsibility it is to oversee such areas of operation which fall outside the realms of the FOS.
We await some evidence that the FCA's supervisionary role will resolve these issues shortly.

Jean819

PMW2012 please understand the Ombudsman did not uphold your complaint as it was made against the OHRA policy – and OHRA had power to do almost anything. Complaining about changes Aviva made to an OHRA policy assumes the OHRA policy continued. It did not. Only a purchased brand name, Medios, was the same. Anyone can purchase a brand name and launch their own product with it – that does not make it the same product.

Aviva formally offered a NEW policy when OHRA discontinued its policy. You seem not to want to recognise that a formal offer is what it says it is – and what Aviva’s documentation clearly stated.

You could have complained in 2001. However that would have been pointless as no loss was suffered as Aviva made a comparable offering of a NEW policy. Agreed Aviva’s NEW policy was not the same as the discontinued OHRA policy – but it did not need to be as Aviva owed no obligation to you – only OHRA owed you any obligation.

You might have complained in 2001 that Aviva’s documentation was not clear but you’re a little late with that although you still seem to be having problems comprehending what took place.

Like you, I have a broking background but I still recognise and did recognise that a NEW policy was offered by Aviva and that OHRA discontinued its policy.

Everyone else seems to understand what happened and is complaining about their Aviva policy and how its terms have been breached. You, however, keep following a direction Aviva is all too happy to adopt as it means it wins and wins as the Ombudsman has already told you.

You are correct that today’s regulatory system did not exist in 2001 but there was one that did then exist. Equally important, laws about offers are pretty much unchanged. Hopefully the FCA will also follow through on this with the Aviva policy. Please accept what the Ombudsman said to you about the OHRA policy as it is not helping everybody else’s efforts.

burtwood

I have just been passed a copy of a FOS response to our presenter’s Sakagawea submission.
Funeral arrangements for a close family member has left us little time to discuss.
Consequently, I will refrain from providing detail – watch for a Mr G decision on FOS web site.

However, the essence of the response is we cannot get away from the Mr D focus on the OHRA policy.
On other matters, either support for decisions are omitted, issues are ‘ducked and dived’ on, views are reversed to support previously rejected points, or complaints are totally ignored.

Repetition of previously given wrong analysis provides a dateline that indicates letter already written even before submission was supposedly passed to ombudsman.

Unfortunately FOS is rough justice and this time we are its victims.
Getting an ombudsman’s decision reversed is exceedingly difficult if not impossible, irrespective of mistakes - as is apparent from the ducking and diving and so on that’s readily apparent.
Getting a decent and strong enough ombudsman is also like rolling dice.

Whether there is another option is unknown at present – much effort has been applied in that direction.
Whether policyholders accept the Mr D compensation will be a personal decision.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of this, FOS was determined that nothing would change its Mr D decision and therefore nobody else was ever going to get a fair hearing – that’s rough justice in action.