MSE News: Proof Lloyds advertised 'life-long' pet insurance before axing cover

Former_MSE_Guy

This is the discussion thread for the following MSE News Story:

"MoneySavingExpert.com today provides evidence Halifax and Lloyds TSB advertised pet insurance policies promising "life-long" cover before axing the products, meaning they were anything but life-long ..."

Read the full story:
Proof Lloyds advertised 'life-long' pet insurance before axing cover

SnowMan

I see a need for some complaint temp(urr)late letters

It does illustrate the need to always take screen prints of advertisements and terms and conditions when buying on-line, especially when something as important as your pet's life is at stake.

zzzLazyDaisy

M&S did something similar in 2008

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=800263

Butti

Well lets see what a dictionary says;

lifelong - definition of lifelong by the Free Online ...


life·long (l f lông, -l ng) adj. Continuing for a lifetime. lifelong [ˈlaɪfˌlɒŋ] adj. lasting for or as if for a lifetime.

I'm sorry, I'm reading that as if it lasts for the lifetime of the pet. This has got to be ripe for someone taking them to court.

corbyboy

Butti wrote: »

Well lets see what a dictionary says;

lifelong - definition of lifelong by the Free Online ...


life·long (l f lông, -l ng) adj. Continuing for a lifetime. lifelong [ˈlaɪfˌlɒŋ] adj. lasting for or as if for a lifetime.

I'm sorry, I'm reading that as if it lasts for the lifetime of the pet. This has got to be ripe for someone taking them to court.

Or does "lifelong" refer to the life of the policy rather than the life of the pet? Are there any examples of "lifelong" being used in a sentence rather than just as part of a headline? I think that might help.

To be honest if phone companies can get away with advertising "unlimited" internet then I can't see this going very far.

bigbarryobama

Having worked for Lloyds I know that part of their product range is called 'Protection for Life', offering various types of insurance, critical illness cover etc. It's not a statement that the protection you are taking out is for the whole life of the pet! It's simply the commercial name for the product.

Agree on the Halifax case though, that's much more obvious and misleading.

callum9999

bigbarryobama wrote: »

Having worked for Lloyds I know that part of their product range is called 'Protection for Life', offering various types of insurance, critical illness cover etc. It's not a statement that the protection you are taking out is for the whole life of the pet! It's simply the commercial name for the product.

Agree on the Halifax case though, that's much more obvious and misleading.

Utterly irrelevant. "Life" as a standalone word cannot, using any definition, apply to an inanimate object/scheme. For it to apply, it would have had to specify "Protection for the Life of the Policy". While they may be able to squirm out of any legal culpability, surely that is false, misleading advertising and the mis-selling of a financial product? I know I'd personally be suing them if my pet was affected. As Martin said, at the very best, this is morally bankrupt (yes I know Lloyds is a bank and they don't always operate to the highest moral standards, but this is something else).

From my view, this is akin to a bank creating an account called the "Interest free borrowing Current Account" then telling customers who complain about being charged interest that "the t&c's allow us to charge you".

opinions4u

I really don't think they have a leg to stand on from a regulatory perspective, morally or legally.

And I'm not talking about the poorly pets.

beamerguy

bigbarryobama wrote: »

Having worked for Lloyds I know that part of their product range is called 'Protection for Life', offering various types of insurance, critical illness cover etc. It's not a statement that the protection you are taking out is for the whole life of the pet! It's simply the commercial name for the product.

Agree on the Halifax case though, that's much more obvious and misleading.

The question must be "why do they call a product Protection for life when in reality they don't mean it ???

VERY MISLEADING FOR THE CONSUMER. Just like the PPI scandal Lloyds have again sold a product that does not work.

Just like the PPI scandal where the majority did NOT have the product fully explained, there is now a case for Lloyds to answer

"DID LLOYDS FULLY EXPLAIN THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS and that
there logo/front page contradicts there T&C"

If not then claim all premiums back from them in full.

MIS-SELLING BY LLOYDS IS A WAY OF LIFE FOR THEM.

Azari

Would it not be possible to bring a claim for damages as the product was 'not fit for purpose'.

If it is advertised as 'life-long' and it does not last that long then surely it is not fit for the purpose for which it was bought.

Or is our legal system really so screwed up that companies can promise anything to induce you to buy a product and then renege within the terms and conditions?

zzzLazyDaisy

Azari wrote: »

Would it not be possible to bring a claim for damages as the product was 'not fit for purpose'.

If it is advertised as 'life-long' and it does not last that long then surely it is not fit for the purpose for which it was bought.

Or is our legal system really so screwed up that companies can promise anything to induce you to buy a product and then renege within the terms and conditions?

I think the problem is that it is an annual insurance that is (was!) renewed each year. So at the end of each one year contract either party can choose not to renew for the following year. So yes, in that sense, LLoyds/Halifax has kept their side of the bargain for THAT year - but has chosen not to continue offering the product.

Yes, it is totally immoral, but I doubt that it is unlawful (though I would love to be proved wrong).