Aviva Medios Healthcare - are we being treated fairly?

Draker_2

Having learnt and checked out what has gone on I am going to continue to pay premiums for this policy until we get justice. For 2015 that will cost me an extra £1,000 or more if I have to make a claim. However, I cannot stand-by when faced with such extreme financial crime. Doing nothing will only encourage others to do the same. Then we might all as well give up.

What Aviva has done reminds me of the Wrappers used to sell the known non-performing loans that have brought austerity to every one of us.

Aviva used its Wrapper of guaranteed protection to disguise its rip-off of charging twice for ZERO protection from the policy’s start. Aviva’s persistence, accompanied by its constant ducking and diving, enabled it to misappropriate more than a £100,000,000 of our hard earned money. Worse Aviva made us believe we had bought protection for life for our families, so they could always have the best available medical treatments – that really hurts as it impacts directly upon our wives and children.

As with the non-performing loans that created havoc for our financial system, the day of reckoning had to come. Aviva sought to hide and ‘get out from under’ through lies about the promises it had put in its 2001 product launch documentation. Aviva re-ordered, deleted and added to the words from its launch documentation to create a cocktail of total deceit. Aviva then re-presented its falsified wording as the wording used to market the policy. Equally as bad, it did the same for the change authority it had put in its 2001 product launch documentation. Aviva was so arrogant it even put that deceit in a letter to one of the supposed cornerstone of our financial system. Its audacity was encouraged by its belief that its lies had obliterated its 2001 product launch documentation. Yet, instead of remaining undiscovered and collecting dust, those written lies were uncovered through a Freedom of Information Act application. The truth will always come out as some might say.

There is only one place for these Aviva villains and that is my reason for hanging-in and paying for the privilege of seeing Aviva and relevant personnel brought to account.

Like the non-performing loans that caused our austerity, Aviva’s persistent dishonesty is something I will never forget.

manser

I will also pay 2015’s premium. Not because I want to but because of the cost of getting alternative cover for existing illnesses, suffered whilst holding the Aviva policy.

I would never have been in this situation had Aviva been honest from the start and told us its policy provided ZERO protection, as it was always charging for Claims Experience. Nobody else would have either as no reasonable person would pay once, never-mind twice as happened, for ZERO protection. Instead, Aviva deceived us all for14 years and made sure this problem was imposed upon many, without any of them knowing. Only because Aviva maintained that deception for 14 years are we and others now stuck with our Aviva policy. Consequently, Aviva must be made to take responsibility for its abuse.

Like the preceding Poster, I am astounded by Aviva’s repeated and persistent dishonesty. It certainly did not stop with the main issues identified by the preceding Poster. There are many lesser instances of dishonesty, as we all know. The stand-out lesser issue for me was Aviva’s January 2010 stopping of New Entrants as:

Aviva’s 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 Terms dishonestly deceived policy buyers by representing New Entrants as ongoing. Of course, Aviva knew the resulting consequence of stopping New Entrants was an ageing population that would push-up Claims Experience costs. However, Aviva had to hide that until after it had invented its ‘forged’ marketing statement – the one Aviva represented had been given from the start, despite its product launch documentation stating the opposite. Only after affecting that deception could Aviva admit to having pushed those costs onto policy buyers from the start.

Aviva’s Guarantee and its resulting product pricing were entirely based upon New Entrants. However, the consequential challenge of creating and hiding a substitute pricing device was nothing compared to the already mentioned ‘forged’ marketing statement. The existence of this substitute pricing device was only revealed to policy buyers, years later, when Aviva sought 2014’s premium. Even then, Aviva solely acknowledged that the substitute pricing device had been applied to 2013’s premium – no mention was made of what had happened in earlier years when the device was invented and immediately concealed. As far as Aviva was concerned, the Guarantee and its resulting product pricing could be chopped about and changed at will. Similarly, Aviva could tell policy buyers as little and as much about the alterations as and when it wanted. In effect, nothing stated in Aviva’s product launch documentation could be relied upon, irrespective of the product having been “clearly marketed as a long-term policy”.

Aviva seems to treat responsibilities and ethics as a joke. Everything about the launch documentation for this “clearly marketed ... long-term policy” seems to have been a complete scam. The damage done in human terms is vast. There may be only 25,000 policy buyers involved but each policy covers a family. My policy covered 5 family members and many others must be in a similar position. That means some 100,000 people are likely to have been abused by Aviva to enable it to amass its ill-gotten gains of over £100,000,000.

02Jim

Will pay up; have no alternative. How many people originally took this policy out with Aviva in 2001? Did they lose many subscribers from OHRA or manage to retain most of them?

Everybody have a Happy & Prosperous 2015, & stay well!

InvestmentBanker

The other day Aviva issued a prospectus for its proposed Friends Provident deal that included obligatory information on actual, pending and threatened claims. In particular, Aviva represented that nothing exists which significantly affects its financial position or profitability through the following statement:

There are no Governmental, legal or arbitration proceedings (including any such proceedings which are pending or threatened of which the Aviva Group is aware) during the 12 months preceding the date of this Prospectus which may have, or have had, a significant effect on the Company’s or the Aviva Group’s financial position or profitability.

The conclusion can only be that Aviva remains determined to conceal the prima facie fraud that duped buyers into paying exorbitant amounts for a non-saleable product over a 14 year period. That’s despite Aviva having admitted to FOS some 12 years later that its offered cover never actually existed – although that crucial admission was kept concealed from policy buyers. Visitors to this site also know that a key part of Aviva’s prima facie fraud involved it misrepresenting and lying about crucial marketing wording from its 2001 Offer. They also know that for the period 2010 to 2014 Aviva misrepresented the existence of New Entrants when it extracted premiums for those years. Additionally, they are aware of all the other dishonesty that took place over the 14 years of Aviva charging twice for cover that never actually existed – that’s because as they are all victims of such dishonesty.

It is possible Aviva represents itself to be ‘claim free’ on the basis it believes the consequences of its actions cannot have a “significant effect” on its “financial position or profitability”. However, that does not seem viable as over a £100,000,000 of premiums were gained by Aviva that could never have been gained if the truth had been known. More negatively, that downside could be multiplied many times over through the consequences of Aviva having caused acceptance of its dishonest Offer through the threat that existing illness cover would otherwise be lost.

What is especially incredible about Aviva’s assertion of being ‘claim free’ is that the whole of its business relies upon trust. Yet that seems likely to suffer significantly because of its prima facie fraud and the complained about massive dishonesty. A significant downward share price movement is likely to cause a tsunami reaction from institutional shareholders.

The reality is that Aviva had to deny the existence or significance of the issues evidenced on this web site in order to be allowed to proceed with its planned Friends Provident deal. Whilst that might/must be wrong, that action is consistent with Aviva’s willingness to mislead FOS, a cornerstone of our system. It’s consistent with Aviva’s willingness to make an uninvited approach to a Member of Parliament and Government Minister in order to deceive him with lies so the Member of Parliament would stop interceding with the then FSA for a complainant. It’s consistent with the prima facie fraud and dishonesty practised upon policy buyers over a 14 year period. No wonder there appears to be increasing criticism of Aviva from within its own Industry.

The change brought about by Aviva’s prospectus is that Aviva has now caused all the advisers of the Friends Provident deal to be brought into the firing line. Possibly they could be saved if this matter becomes fully known about prior to Aviva’s 26 March AGM and the related same day Court Hearing – except for the consequences of any false market that happens in the intervening period.

Already, a significant part of the Insurance Sector is aware of what has happened. That same information is increasingly seeping into other parts of the financial community – my post is testimony to that. All eyes are on the Financial Conduct Authority as it is being made to look increasingly weak as every day passes without any sanction of Aviva.

mwng

Very confused about the various posts from "industry" types who are new to this forum but who in one or two cases through their writing styles bear a strange resemblance to previous posters.
Also rather depressed by lack of any further substantive movement. It is not right or just that Aviva should be able to get away with this fraud on the 2001/2 policy buyers, but in the absence of an FSA which has higher profile priorities, it seems as though this is what will happen.

alanjg1

Some months since any comment on here.
I wondered if no news is good news or bad news!

02Jim

Yes, is there anybody out there with any info at all, or has everybody run for the hills! If that's the case maybe someone would just have the decency to let us know.

Barry_Man

02Jim wrote: »

.........or has everybody run for the hills! If that's the case maybe someone would just have the decency to let us know.

If they've run for the hills, they won't be answering.

Have to say that I've been dubious about some of the posters (e.g. mwng's "industry" types) for a long time (e.g. who they really are and what their motivations / vested interests are).

If I were a betting man, I'd say the chance of anything ever coming of this is probably less than 10% - time to move on. I realise that it could be painful for some, but, surely, for all of us our years are passing by - time to enjoy as best as poss.

mwng

I'm afraid I agree with Barry Man.

The FCA and FOS have both proved ineffective in holding Aviva to account in what should have been a simple case of blatant breach of contract, or failing that, a case of very cynical misselling.

Aviva has proved that it operates by its own rules. Sadly this sort of behaviour is likely to continue until a more effective regulator imposes some swingeing penalties and some very senior insurance executives' heads roll.

A proper regulator should be gripping this type of behaviour. The FSA is clearly not functioning properly in the insurance area and indeed appears to be frightened of the industry.

Pending the arrival of an FCA executive with some backbone, I have cancelled all my other Aviva policies - I had several - and will be encouraging everyone I know to do the same thing. I personally shall never deal with Aviva again.

Regarding Aviva, like Equitable Life before it, and sadly a number of elements of the UK insurance industry, it really is a case of Caveat Emptor.

Xplosion.

What a spectacular this is turning out to be. Money Savings Expert readers are spellbound.

WHY DEADLY SILENCE?
Often deadly silences are a prelude to ambushes.
Everything unearthed by investigations shouts savvy people with great contacts.
They do not appear to be quitters and seem to have given the FCA plenty of rope to hang itself.
The new guard at the FCA seems more at risk than ever.

WHO WILL PRESS THE BUTTON?
It’s now like a tinder box as any one policyholder can launch an action in the Small Claims Court to claim for overcharged premiums. Success would mean the Court did not believe Aviva’s apparent misleading claim that it had marketed the policy on the basis of buyers having been told premiums would increase with Age-Related costs. That could only mean Aviva had lied to and deceived FOS. Also that consumers had relied upon a marketplace based upon and continuing to be based upon lies. An incredible situation given the FCA’s duty to protect consumers and to ensure market integrity.

Seems like old pals have been preferred to consumers. Not only have consumers’ rights and interests been trampled on but continuing non-action by the FCA must be seen as sanctioning Aviva’s apparent lies. Maybe the new guard at the FCA will have no choice but to follow the old one!

It is unacceptable to sanction the distortion of a market, in order to aid an insurer avoiding its liabilities. Such action cannot go punished. Nor can justice continue to be blind. Whatever the FCA does or does not do, these savvy investigators seem to have all the right contacts and to have demonstrated an unwillingness to roll-over for anyone. Offending parties must worry equally about the ease for any policyholder to take their case to a Small Claims Court and then share the resulting story with the public.

A Court judgement against Aviva would be the catalyst for the roof falling on top of Aviva as well as the FCA if it continues not to act.

EXPLOSIVES
A Court will easily be able to see through what has happened. Aviva’s 2000 Offer not only denies Aviva claims about premium increases but makes clear premiums would not increase with Age-Related costs. The 2000 Offer even guaranteed that premiums would not increase with Age-Related costs – any denial of that goes against common sense.

Aviva will not be able to cover this up by pretending its 2000 Offer did not exist as it did with the first Ombudsman. Aviva then claimed the benefit of authorities from a predecessor’s offer even though none of those authorities were contained in or referred to in its own initial 2000 Offer. Aviva only got away with that through hiding the existence of its 2000 Offer - the reality is that the 2000 Offer stood on its own, AND SAID SO, whatever the preceding history. The single lead complainant to that decision was either unaware of Aviva’s changed evidence on premium increases, wrongly focussed on non-relevant issues, or naïve to the extreme. Not surprisingly the complete absence of Aviva’s claim being argued led to the first Ombudsman’s misinformed decision. The second Ombudsman was then left with having to support the first Ombudsman’s 2 years of otherwise wasted work. Therefore the second Ombudsman had to ignore all the documented contradictions of Aviva’s false claim and had to avoid all mention of them in his decision. He also had to ignore his own conclusion that the policy had been marketed as a long term policy - not something even he could avoid as apparently guarantee benefit only became available after 10 years plus - as well as ignore the first Ombudsman’s ruling of over-arching commitment over policyholders’ lifetimes. No Court is likely to follow any of this folly.

Aviva’s own documented premium increase explanations between 2000 and 2012 confirmed that Age-Related costs had not been the reason for premium increases. That forced another cover-up story from Aviva as it then claimed that premiums had always been increased for Age-Related costs. Yet again that Aviva claim was not argued by the single lead complainant so the same injustices re-occurred. All this nonsense will be cut through by any Court on the basis of evidence rather than Aviva’s non-contested and non-supported false claims.

The Court will not be impressed by Aviva’s arrogance when it declared its own policy pricing had nothing to do with any predecessor’s pricing. Aviva had been so confident its 2000 Offer would never come to light that it felt it could pick and choose whatever it wanted from a predecessor’s offer. Again the single lead claimant contributed to this injustice as he seems to have been besotted with a past 1990s business relationship to the extent he was unaware of what had subsequently taken place.

It seems inevitable that a Court will put all these Aviva false claims to the sword.

COURT FOCUS
In making its case reliant on an apparently false marketing statement of charging for Age-Related costs, Aviva emphasised the importance of the marketing statements actually contained in its 2000 Offer. That Offer not only protected against Age-Related increases but identified the premium increase reason as medical inflation - the same explanation given in all its written premium increase explanations. The Court will thank Aviva for making its consideration so straightforward.

Aviva’s initial focus concerned the annual renewal or continuation of the policy. Whilst that was replaced by Aviva’s false marketing statement, obvious failure to convince on that false statement must cause a return to the policy’s annual renewal or continuation. However, not even a misled first Ombudsman was taken in by that as she determined that the policy provided an over-arching commitment that extended over policyholders’ lifetimes. That was backed-up by the second Ombudsman who determined that the policy had been marketed as a long term one. Oops again Aviva.

FCA
Maybe the FCA prefers not to get involved in disputes about CONTRACTUAL premium levels. Perhaps it does not want to interest itself in policies changed by insurers to avoid insurers’ commitments - despite its Rulebook specifying otherwise. However, knowingly sanctioning the misleading of FOS and knowingly maintaining a market based upon lies hardly seems consistent with the FCA’s ongoing existence. Resulting damage from this fall-out can only be self-inflicted

This is not a problem that will seemingly go away and disappear. Who does what and when, and who is shamed will be fascinating to us all. Patience seems the by-word.