We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Axa Insurance Complaint

Options
2»

Comments

  • rs65 wrote: »
    The FOS deal with specific complaints and ask

    How do you want the business to put things right for you?

    You seem to accept that the claim outcome is not going to change. Your complaint seems that you wouldn't have bought the policy if you had known that AXA don't cover undamaged items.

    Do you want them to accept a belated cancellation because it didn't meet your needs?

    No I want them to accept that they should have had matching items cover excluded in their policy wording. As there isn't a single bit of wording in there for it, I only find out I'm not covered when I need them most. At claim stage.

    I think most people not clued up on insurance would expect if part of a set is damaged and they can't find a match they should replace it all. I fully accept Axa's right not to cover that. But I don't accept that it was not listed as an exclusion in their policy wording.

    It is impossible for me to make an informed decision during the 14 day cooling off period if I am unaware of facts materially relevant to my continuation of the policy.
  • Rossim1985 wrote: »
    AXA do cover this but certainly not under the product you've bought. As the poster above said, this sort of cover is more at the 'Lamborghini' end of the market. Or alternatively on policies sold by brokers.

    AXA's PIPP wording which is one of their most comprehensive property wordings includes reinstatement to match on page 20. (Google "axa property investors protection wording" - I can't post links being a new MSE user). I've checked the Landlord document to and it's definitely not in there. That policy will only cover damaged areas so I'm afraid I think it's unlikely you'll win the argument here. Worth a try though.

    This is the problem, I'm a residential landlord, so I logically choose residential landlord insurance. There is no option at quote stage to upgrade to include matching sets insurance, and there is no mention of it not being covered in the policy wording.

    How am I supposed to know it's not covered if it's not listed as an exclusion in the policy wording? I only found out it's not when I made a claim. If it was in the policy wording I wouldn't have continued with the policy and would have bought better cover.
  • In their Home Insurance policy they have:
    Matching sets, suites and carpets
    We treat any individual items of a matching set or suite of furniture, sanitary ware or other bathroom fittings as a single item. We will pay you for individual damaged items but not for undamaged companion pieces unless they are part of a bathroom suite or fitted kitchen and the damaged parts cannot be repaired or a replacement found.

    For any other sets or suites not part of a bathroom suite or fitted kitchen, we will pay up to 50% of the undamaged part if the damaged parts cannot be matched or replaced.

    If a floor covering is damaged beyond repair we will only pay to have the damaged floor covering replaced.
    We will not pay for undamaged floor covering in adjoining rooms.

    The "problem" is that insurance provides cover if it says it does. If it is silent on the matter then basically you dont have cover for it. Insurers state exclusions either to remove cover for specific events/ perils/ items which would have been caught up by one of their inclusions or as a real belts and braces to ensure you know if you throw your mobile at your partner that you cannot claim it as "accidental damage" etc but strictly this second set isnt necessary.

    Landlord insurance is not personal lines but commercial lines, as they are intended to be sold to "intelligent" businesses rather than the "stupid" general public the language in policy wording doesnt tend to be as user friendly nor have as many of the second type of exclusions called out.

    If you read exactly what they say they cover they most likely will say the damage caused by an insured peril, on the basis the rest isnt damaged then there is no grounds to say it should be covered. The fact you assumed it would technically isnt sufficient.

    The difficulty is you actually fall inbetween the cracks of it not being a personal policy but neither really a commercial one. As such the FOS will consider a complaint from you and so ultimately log the complaint with Axa that their wording is unclear and escalate to the FOS if you are unhappy. I would suggest you have a moderate chance of success which will heavily depend on which negotiator you get assigned to.
  • In their Home Insurance policy they have:


    The "problem" is that insurance provides cover if it says it does. If it is silent on the matter then basically you dont have cover for it. Insurers state exclusions either to remove cover for specific events/ perils/ items which would have been caught up by one of their inclusions or as a real belts and braces to ensure you know if you throw your mobile at your partner that you cannot claim it as "accidental damage" etc but strictly this second set isnt necessary.

    Landlord insurance is not personal lines but commercial lines, as they are intended to be sold to "intelligent" businesses rather than the "stupid" general public the language in policy wording doesnt tend to be as user friendly nor have as many of the second type of exclusions called out.

    If you read exactly what they say they cover they most likely will say the damage caused by an insured peril, on the basis the rest isnt damaged then there is no grounds to say it should be covered. The fact you assumed it would technically isnt sufficient.

    The difficulty is you actually fall inbetween the cracks of it not being a personal policy but neither really a commercial one. As such the FOS will consider a complaint from you and so ultimately log the complaint with Axa that their wording is unclear and escalate to the FOS if you are unhappy. I would suggest you have a moderate chance of success which will heavily depend on which negotiator you get assigned to.

    I consider part of a damaged kitchen to affect the whole item if they can't match the damaged part. If I were to replace only the damaged part, it would be a 100% certainty that the house would be devalued if trying to sell it.

    Therefore by that logic I don't consider the insurer indemnifying me against my loss as I still have a loss to value if only replacing the damaged part of the kitchen.

    The ombudsman also must think this or they wouldn't have ruled insurers should pay 50% the cost of undamaged items in a set. The question is, why they've taken the decision that the insurer (a) only has to pay 50% of the cost of replacing the rest of the set. And (b) why they haven't ruled that the insurer must include an exclusion if they're not funding the full replacement to put the customer in the same position they were in prior to the loss happening.

    A significant number of complaints about this must have been made in the past for the Ombudsman to have a general approach to it. Therefore it's still an area people disagree with, and as such I personally think this is such a significant exclusion that it should be put in the policy document of all insurance policies not covering it.

    Kitchen, 3 piece suites, bathroom suites, real wooden flooring split between rooms are just a few of the very expensive scenarios I could see this hitting customers very hard financially with.

    It's clear many people consider a set of anything as one item, and therefore incomplete if the damages part of the set is not replaced like for like. To not have that as a significant exclusion, and for the customer only to find out the hard way at claims stage is totally unacceptable.
  • rs65
    rs65 Posts: 5,682 Forumite
    Ninth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    love2learn wrote: »
    The ombudsman also must think this or they wouldn't have ruled insurers should pay 50% the cost of undamaged items in a set. The question is, why they've taken the decision that the insurer (a) only has to pay 50% of the cost of replacing the rest of the set. And (b) why they haven't ruled that the insurer must include an exclusion if they're not funding the full replacement to put the customer in the same position they were in prior to the loss happening.

    I think the ombudsman is trying to strike a balance between strict interpretation of the policy and consumers interests.

    The policy covers damage. You are asking them to replace undamaged items which goes beyond insurance.

    A court would likely interpret the wording strictly that it covers damage. The ombudsmans expectation of 50% has probably been accepted by most as there doesn't seem to be a court ruling on this. A court case could be detrimental to consumers.

    If all policies automatically covered matching sets I have no doubt they would be abused. Anyone wanting a new kitchen etc could damage a small part and save thousands in home improvement costs. End result, increased costs for all.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 350.9K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.6K Spending & Discounts
  • 244K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 598.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 176.9K Life & Family
  • 257.2K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.