MSE News: Fury as Lloyds insurance cull puts pets' lives 'at risk'

melbury

Did they mention Petguard Insurance? Lots of people, including me, got dumped on last year when they stopped insuring pets with pre-existing conditions because they changed underwriters.

So although I have my dog insured with another company, his ongoing illness is not covered:mad:

ashleypride

meher wrote: »

very sad, why is it that we don't have an nhs for animals

Why should other people pay more tax because I choose to own pets? Pets contribute nothing to society, and consume vast amounts of resources.

Even an argument of higher animal welfare is on shaky ground. Free pet care, would almost certainly increase pet ownership. Increasing the amount of farming needed, and increasing the amount of unsuitable pet owners out there.

selbylass

BBC Radio 4: Money Box programme re: Halifax & Loyds-tsb pulling pet insurance can be downloaded to i-pod or MP3 player. You can also download the transcript in pdf format.

The whole purpose of 'life-long' and 'continuous' pet insurance is for owners to purchase peace of mind. We all hope our pets will never get sick, but, by purchasing a premium 'life-long & continuous' pet policy, should the worst occur, then we have the 'peace of mind' that everything possible can be done to help them. I accept some claims run into £1000s, however, the majority of people never trigger their policies by making a claim. Personally, my policy premiums far out cost my pet's medication fees, but I am now left with a stable (and otherwise healthy dog) that all the underwriters will not cover because he has a slow heart rate. I bought the policy (before my vet picked up the heart irregularity; 2 years into the policy) after doing thorough research and from the marketing/advertising on the Halifax web-site.

If any one bought the policy from the Halifax website that advertised it as -'Life-long and continuous cover for their cat or dog' - then the Compliance expert on Moneybox, who scrutinised all the T&Cs and policy booklets, stated on air 'that Halifax are in Breach of the original contract and there is no way they can get out of this one'. It doesn't matter what the T&Cs or small print states. They cannot advertise a 'promise' so publicly and then take it back in the small print. The law specifically covering this goes back to a High Court ruling in the 1940s.

Any one effected by Halifax's withdrawal should write to the Halifax (even if their policy was cancelled 6 months ago when all this started), the Financial Services Authority, and the FOS. If we just sit back and take it - other insurers WILL follow - and Loyds-tsb and Halifax's decision to withdraw has wider implications for ANY type of insurance policy.

The Halifax & Loyds-tsb were happy to 'promise' this type of cover when the economy was all flowers and sunshine. Just because we're in a credit crunch (that they helped create) doesn't mean they can drop their customer commitments. If they don't want to take on new policy holders then that's fine; but they should honor the ones they've already committed to. Where not talking the life expectancies of tortoises here!

mystic_trev

Fury as Lloyds insurance cull puts pets' lives 'at risk'

It's not Lloyds Insurance, they are the oldest established Insurers in the World!

https://www.lloyds.com/Lloyds/About-us/History

It's Lloyds Bank Insurance!

gadgetmind

We've got five moggies, mainly rescue animals including one feral who's slowly coming around, and we've never bothered insuring any of them, or any of our previous pets.

Over the long term, and particularly if you have multiple pets, then you're better off keeping the money safe and using it as and when required.

Chesntoots

My vet has a facility whereby you can pay any amount you like by DD per month and it goes into a "savings" account for treatment. You also get 5% off any treatment. I have been doing this a while now (as well as pet insurance) and it is a great idea. I just trundle my cats along for their jabs and don't have to worry about a big bill.
Sorry it's a bit off-topic but thought I would share...

gadgetmind

Chesntoots wrote: »

Sorry it's a bit off-topic but thought I would share...

I'm not sure it is off topic as many kinds of insurance are a difficult call. House/car insurance are no-brainers, but critical illness is expensive, and pet and vehicle mechanical breakdown insurance seem to be "we'll get you in the end" insurance as lots of people will make claims, so you either lose because they don't pay out, or because the premiums nearly always exceed what you'll ever be able to claim.

What is important is that you be able to pay when necessary, either out of cash flow or savings.

We spent £600 on one cat over Christmas when it got a nasty flu that nearly killed it, and just spent another £350 paying for a thyroid operation on another. This year, we'd have been better having insurance, but both of these cats are 15 years old and we're still winning on both.

one_hot_minute

The last time I looked these were businesses not charities. They can pull the plug on any product they like at any time!

Laconic

That is quite a terrible situation. While I can just about see the insurance company's point (pet bills have been going up stupidly between padding of veterinary bills, overuse of said vets and people continuing to buy dogs which depend on vets to live a life of any quality), I don't think that the way they've done it is legal. Shouldn't be surprised to see some very decent compensation claims filed.

There may not be an NHS for animals, but veterinary billing and standards of care have little to no oversight and this results in costs that can be extortionate. There are real problems with a mercenary attitude and conflicts of interest:
http://www.terrierman.com/javma.238.12giftstoveterinarystudents.pdf
http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/may01/s050101e.asp
http://pacvet.livejournal.com/2007/06/21/

A vet who charges reasonably, does not mark up drug and specialty food costs by 200%+, does not do unnecessary 'routines' (a healthy adult dog that has had its full course of vaccines generally does not need another, nor regular tooth cleaning unless it has jaw problems {like being pug faced}) and who recommends the simplest treatment first rather than extraordinary ones will make a very decent living. A vet who does these things will end up rich. The dog will live just as long and as well with Vet A as with Vet B. However, pet owners don't have the knowledge nor consumer protection to separate Vet A from Vet B. This is a major reason insurance companies are less willing to pay.
A case study (American) for just how widely vet care can vary within a single area, see this one: http://www.terrierman.com/dcvets.pdf
You don't necessarily get what you pay for.

Two good articles for pet owners who aren't already up the creek without a paddle, on saving significant amounts of money and heartbreak:

http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2009/10/so-you-want-dog.html
http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2011/10/how-to-go-to-vet.html

There is not one single organisation interested in the transparency, quality or ethics of animal care provided to consumers (save for some limited standards for food animals), so you owe it to yourselves to educate and help yourselves.

callum9999

oldvicar wrote: »

Pet owners are used to getting better standards of service for the medical treatment for their animals than is generally delivered by the NHS.

And that is part of the problem - for most people nothing but the very best (read most expensive) will do for their beloved pet. So I can see why Lloyds wants to be out of this business. But if ever there was a case of mis-selling then this is surely it. "When we said 'lifetime' we didn't mean it". The bank will have an awful lot of disgruntled (former) customers. This won't be readily forgiven/forgotton, and will damage their reputation for a lot longer than the lifetime of any pet currently covered by their insurance.

No they REALLY aren't...

And of course "nothing but the best" will do when it's covered by insurance. If an insurance company offered a better, more expensive treatment for your pet but you turned them down because you'd prefer they got sub-standard treatment, there is no way in hell you should be allowed to have a pet.