Scammed by PetPlan. Anyone else?

Herongull

The Petplan webside https://www.petplan.co.uk/dog-insurance/ does make it very clear how 12 month cover differs from Covered for Life.

For 12 month cover it says: "Covers new illnesses or injuries for 12 months, following which the condition becomes excluded from the policy
We’ll cover up to £3,000 in vet fees for 12 months from when the illness or injury was first noticed."

So it doesn't look as if they just added random exclusions to your policy each year due to the dog getting older - it is just the nature of this type of insurance. It is significantly cheaper than Covered for Life precisely because the cover is much more limited and therefore the insurers pay out much less in claims. So not a scam - just a policy with much less cover and lower premiums.

Did the insurers not make it clear to you in the paperwork the difference between Covered for Life and 12 Month cover? If it wasn't as clear as the website what you were buying and a reasonable person might have thought 12 Month Cover was the same as Covered for Life, you might have a basis for complaint.

The other basis for challenging their decision might be whether or not there is a link between the single episode of UTI two years ago and kidney failure now. If the scan does effectively prove that her kidneys were healthy two years ago you may have a case - it may turn on whether a scan would really pick up early stage kidney damage and the likelihood that the UTI is caused by caused by something other than kidney damage. Also exactly what did they put in the exclusions for the renewal of your 12 month policy?

I hope this helps.

sheramber

JR_Ryan wrote: »

It's a 12 month policy, as I have always had to be thrifty with money, but even if I wanted to switch to lifetime coverage, I needed to do so before her 8th birthday as they won't allow you to begin a lifetime policy after that, effectively excluding elderly dogs from full coverage.

So being thrifty with the premiums you paid has now cost you in vet bills.

When you change to another type of policy you are in effect taking out a new policy with all the restriction on cover that that has.
Petplan do have an age cut off for taking out a lifetime policy whether you are an existing customer or a new one.
These conditions are explained in their policy documents. Petplan are one of the few who do write their policy conditions clearly and simply.

I am afraid it is a case of ensuring you know exactly what you are covered for before you take out a policy.

You now know the terms and conditions of the policy you took out. Unfortunately, you do not seem to have understood them when you took the policy out.

JR_Ryan

If I had understood the future exclusions that would be added to my policy, and what they would be, I would never have taken the policy out. Equally, I might have played the winning lottery numbers before the results were known.

Many of the exclusions are essentially the result of old age, and therefore leave the customer paying more for less cover. Also, as the exclusions protect the insurer, the argument for the cost increases is moot. Yes, it is statistically more likely that a claim will be made the longer an animal lives, but if the cover is increasingly limited with exclusions, then why also increase the premiums?

Sheramber suggested that I had incurred costs later because I had tried to save money throughout, well, that is a straight-up acknowledgement that the protection offered for this level of cover is inadequate, making it a worthless product sold at an unjustified high value.

onwards&upwards

JR_Ryan wrote: »

And like every good scam, it's a two-party grift. Not to paint the whole industry with too broad a brush, but some vets won't even treat an animal without insurance, and if they do, there is so much guilt and pressure to be insured.

That’s not true.

If you want good advice just stick to facts not conspiracy theories and smears.

Fire_Fox

JR_Ryan wrote: »

Also, the 12 month clock doesn't start from diagnosis, it starts from the first point any symptoms of the condition were noticed. So, if my dog was diagnosed with arthritis and I said "she's been stiff for 3 months now" the insurance company will start the clock retroactively from the specific number of months prior to diagnosis that I or my vet would list in the case notes/claim form. And if I said, just as an example, that she has been stiff for over a year, but not enough to warrant veterinary care, then the claim would be rejected outright.

Not stiff enough for what type of vet care, as determined by whom?

For osteoarthritis in a canine options for treatment include food supplements, veterinary acupuncture and hydrotherapy. AFAIK these are suitable from the earliest days, may slow disease progression and are covered by good pet insurance policies.

On that basis why would a responsible pet parent wait after noticing a symptom?

JR_Ryan wrote: »

Many of the exclusions are essentially the result of old age, and therefore leave the customer paying more for less cover. Also, as the exclusions protect the insurer, the argument for the cost increases is moot. Yes, it is statistically more likely that a claim will be made the longer an animal lives, but if the cover is increasingly limited with exclusions, then why also increase the premiums?

The exclusions are to limit claims on chronic health conditions. Chronic health conditions become more frequent with age, but are not necessarily the result of old age.

Genetics and lifestyle (eg. weight/ diet/ physical activity) play a huge role in many common chronic conditions in pedigree dogs and in humans.

sheramber

JR_Ryan wrote: »

If I had understood the future exclusions that would be added to my policy, and what they would be, I would never have taken the policy out. Equally, I might have played the winning lottery numbers before the results were known.

Many of the exclusions are essentially the result of old age, and therefore leave the customer paying more for less cover. Also, as the exclusions protect the insurer, the argument for the cost increases is moot. Yes, it is statistically more likely that a claim will be made the longer an animal lives, but if the cover is increasingly limited with exclusions, then why also increase the premiums?



Sheramber suggested that I had incurred costs later because I had tried to save money throughout, well, that is a straight-up acknowledgement that the protection offered for this level of cover is inadequate, making it a worthless product sold at an unjustified high value.

That is the choice you made when you chose the cheaper 12 month policy.
Cheap policies are cheap for a reason.
They provide less over than a lifetime policy which would have still covered these conditions.
But it would have cost you more.
You can't expect tog et the same cover as someone paying more expensive premiums.

Some people are content with 12 month cover only.
You are not but unfortunately that is what you paid for

JohnDorian

You weren't scammed. You just suck at admin. Get over it.

elsien

JR_Ryan wrote: »

If I had understood the future exclusions that would be added to my policy, and what they would be, I would never have taken the policy out. Equally, I might have played the winning lottery numbers before the results were known.

Many of the exclusions are essentially the result of old age, and therefore leave the customer paying more for less cover. Also, as the exclusions protect the insurer, the argument for the cost increases is moot. Yes, it is statistically more likely that a claim will be made the longer an animal lives, but if the cover is increasingly limited with exclusions, then why also increase the premiums?

Sheramber suggested that I had incurred costs later because I had tried to save money throughout, well, that is a straight-up acknowledgement that the protection offered for this level of cover is inadequate, making it a worthless product sold at an unjustified high value.

Even if you auto renew you get a policy document in the post or online that lists any exclusions that have been added. It's down to you whether you read them or not, but if you don't then I don't see how you can complain when they are then taken into account for subsequent claims.