Pathetic Aviva Scrape the Barrel

mikey72

See post #2. I suppose if that's the level of fine you expect, RSA should be due to be paying a few billion £ back shortly.

Dangermac

mikey72 wrote: »

See post #2. I suppose if that's the level of fine you expect, RSA should be due to be paying a few billion £ back shortly.

It wasnt a fine. The claim was declined in its entirety because of fraud. From what I understand, the court agreed.

As I said above, if the legitimate part of the claim was paid, there would be no incentive to deter fraud, and you would be bleating on about the insurers' lack of action.

And before that you think that my comments are insurance-biased, yes I work in the insurance industry, however, I work on behalf of the policyholders (most of the time), not the insurers, and I can honestly say that in 20 years, I have seen very few unfair decisions that havent been resolved with my intervention.

Sometimes insurers give themselves a very bad name, as does the industry in general. However, there is also a responsibility on the policyholders.

DM

mikey72

So you do agree then, any other insurer that has had an inflated bill from RSA should simply decline it in entirety?

Dangermac

mikey72 wrote: »

So you do agree then, any other insurer that has had an inflated bill from RSA should simply decline it in entirety?

I think that the insurer in question here was Aviva.

And, yes, I agree. If you receive an inflated (incorrect) bill from the insurer, then you should decline it in its entirety and vote with your feet (move your business to another insurer).

Mikey72. For once, admit defeat. The court made a judgement. If you dont like the judicial process, and that they may not always side with the policyholder, I dont know why you advocate the FOS/FSA/Police/Army/Crown Court/European Court of whatever to every person who has a gripe!!

As I said before, the insurers dont always get it right. That's why we have courts and the FOS. But you need to wake up and realise that they will look at fairness and intent.

DM

mikey72

Guess you've missed the RSA fiasco then?

dunstonh

The insurer could and should have simply said we are not paying the project management fees as are they are not recoverable. The fee was around 3% of the entire claim so to have an issue with something so comparatively small and use it to not pay out on the rest of a genuine loss is unreasonable.

You cannot reward fraud. Remember that the claim is one insurable event. They were committing fraud with that one claim and should not be financially rewarded for doing so.

The court agreed and most posters on this thread do.

RobertoMoir

mikey72 wrote: »

Guess you've missed the RSA fiasco then?

This is dragging this discussion off topic.

I want to hear more about how you know the defendant in the case being discussed here was fined. Losing a £170k payout and having a £170k fine on top does seem a bit steep to me, if that is what you are saying happened.

Quentin

RobertoMoir wrote: »

I want to hear more about how you know the defendant in the case being discussed here was fined.

You have been mislead.

No-one has been fined.

mikey72

RobertoMoir wrote: »

This is dragging this discussion off topic.

I want to hear more about how you know the defendant in the case being discussed here was fined. Losing a £170k payout and having a £170k fine on top does seem a bit steep to me, if that is what you are saying happened.

No, I'm saying the defendant has lost the £170k, which has been awarded to the insurers, which was initially a valid payout on a valid claim, which wasn't in dispute. If the defendant had committed fraud, it should have dealt with as any other fraud case, in that the legitimate payments were made by the insurer, and a realistic fine imposed by the courts. If it was a fine, would you expect a fraud case of £12k to carry a £170k penalty? And fraud wasn't proved, as it was a summary judgement, and the project management never appeared to be disputed either.

antrobus

RobertoMoir wrote: »

This is dragging this discussion off topic.

I want to hear more about how you know the defendant in the case being discussed here was fined. Losing a £170k payout and having a £170k fine on top does seem a bit steep to me, if that is what you are saying happened.

That's not what happened.

Mr Yeates formed Pro Man Restorations Ltd as a front for his insurance claim and eventually submitted an invoice to Aviva for £220,245 plus VAT inclusive of a project management fee of £12,150

Aviva, who had made various payments on account, eventually twigged that PMR was a front and declined to make any further payments, and also argued that the whole claim was now forfeit.

Mr Yeates sued Aviva (presumably for the balance of his claim). Aviva counterclaimed for £169,923 (presumably the amount they'd advanced). Mr Yeates lost, Aviva won, and were eventually awarded £148,027.

So Mr Yeates has to pay back the £148,027 to Aviva.