How to protect yourself. Home Contents Insurance policy holders, please read!

HappyFish2021

The problem with your statement is that "reduce your claim" means you have set a value for it. You are therefore ignoring the real possibility that you have over valued your claim rather than your insurers are under valuing it.

It is rather patronising of you to say I am ignoring the "real possibility" I over valued the claim, when as as a former accountant I knew exactly the minimum amount I was due, being fully aware of the policy small print. I stated here matters of fact as per my life experience. I was short-changed, I was diddled and I was very prudent with my claim. Every insurer in my experience has sought to reduce my claims, in some cases, as with Axa, attempted to wriggle out entirely, and they have never increased claim amounts. Furthermore, had I the evidence I suggest for people to collect and keep in a third party drive (photos of contents etc), I would have been able to claim for much more than I did (as when faced with losing so much, I forgot a lot of the stuff I had. All the little things add up.)

I've only made two personal claims on home insurance, both with Aviva. 

I am glad you had such a positive experience with your insurer (perhaps because they knew you worked in claims they did not try it on with you?) I didn't with my insurers nor have many others I personally know. Sometimes I have just been out a small percentage relative to my whole claim so I have gone away not happy exactly, but accepting of the situation. In some cases, as with Axa, the insurer has resorted to lies and bully boy tactics to evade answering questions, considering themselves above the law, breaking the law in a number of different areas. They have been criminal. And yes, I absolutely mean that word. I have been traumatised by my experience with them. 

As a former claims handler, I have both increased and reduced settlement from what was claimed. 

If you were a decent handler working for a decent insurer that's great. Don't mean all claims handlers or all insurers do this. Also what era was this, as companies have definitely got much worse in recent years.

decreasing was more common but thats inevitably because people a) dont understand their policy and so their claim isnt supported by their terms and b) people "know" insurers reduce settlements so intentionally overstate their claim to give wriggle room. 

That's rather patronising. No doubt there are people out there who don't understand the small print. No doubt there are people who over-egg their claim and say the fake Rolex they bought on a Greek beach for a few Euro was the real deal. But not me (or other members of the diddled club I know). I am studying a MA so not stupid. I know how to read my t & cs and know how to interpret them. I know how to listen to an insurer's arguments and go back to the fine print to check if actually they are right or not. If they are right I would accept it. I did not over egg my claim (I wouldn't out of conscience anyway), and using accounting prudence I always under estimated my figures each time. But despite my scrupulous honesty and detail I was still diddled. Therefore the reason was "inevitably" because insurers and/or their loss adjusters have an interest to reduce and/or refuse claims, even if that is unfair and at the claimant's expense. If that were not the case, loss assessors working on behalf of the claimant would not exist, would they?

Is that the nasty insurance company settling the item for £25 because we can see the same item being sold on Argos' website rather than the £1,500 they've claimed for it?

Oh you'd love to think everyone bitching about their insurer diddling them is in this boat, wouldn't you? You're deluded if you honestly believe this is the reality of modern insurance.

Sandtree

HappyFish2021 said:

Oh you'd love to think everyone bitching about their insurer diddling them is in this boat, wouldn't you? You're deluded if you honestly believe this is the reality of modern insurance.

The key point is the "everyone".

All people make mistakes at times and some companies are better than others and this has a moderate correlation to price but that doesnt mean that all companies are trying to underpay claims as you state any more than it means that no one is ever underpaid. If nothing else look at the Financial Ombudsman results where only 31% of complaints escalated to them do they feel the financial institute was unfair or incorrect. So 69% of people saying their company had diddled them are wrong according to the FOS. Unfortunately the split by sub-industry isnt immediately obvious on the FOS website but from the insurance companies I've worked with have an even better success rate with the ombudsman.

Insurance is a heavily regulated industry by both the PRA and FCA and so you simply don't get company wide policies promoting reduced settlements etc. All claims handlers have KPIs on adherence to procedures and making correct settlements not low settlements. Your bonus is probably docked more for underpaying claims than for overpaying which at least may improve your customer satisfaction scores.

Fundamentally people often dont read or understand their terms and expect discretion to be applied. Take a random travel policy that happens to be on my desk it states you get £20 per full 12 hours of delay on your scheduled flight out... I've looked at complaints from people from previous companies who had very similar wording and most were complaining that they were delayed 11 hours 45 minutes and that the claim had been declined but thats not an insurer diddling them just applying the terms and conditions... I mean the insurer wouldn't say that a 12 hour 14 minute claim should be declined as it was just over the minimum threashold and so why should they show discretion when its just under? 

There were a lot of good points in the original post as many people do undervalue their possessions, particularly on new for old policies, but it came from an incorrect initial stance that insurers will try and fleece you. 

HappyFish2021

All people make "mistakes"? Well, yeah, sure of course they do, nobody is perfect, but if you have a lengthy battle to get an insurer to look at their repeat 'mistakes', they repeatedly evade doing it and answering key questions on these mistakes despite claiming they have done full investigations, they lie, distort, misreport fact, they make lots more 'mistakes', ignore you, aggressively abuse you, bully you  etc etc, and have a habit of doing it to others too (I am far from alone), you have to conclude it's more than "mistakes" at work particularly when the mistakes are all conveniently in the insurer's favour.

As stated, every insurance company I have known has tried to fleece me to some degree, and this has been the exact same with everyone I know who has made a claim on their buildings or contents. Furthermore even when companies don't necessarily fleece, they won't go out their way to increase the claim with all the items you will have omitted claiming for due to forgetting about them. However, as I have not personally used every single insurance company in the UK, and nor have the diddled people I know, I am happy to retract my wording 'every' and make it 'many' instead. There may be some good companies. I do not know them yet and if there genuinely are some out there, I would be delighted to give them all my future business.

You say it's a heavily regulated industry, yet I know Axa so far has got away with all what they have done to me. What internal procedures there are in place to genuinely stop this, I do not know. It is easy to pay lip service and go through the motions of investigating complaints yet not doing it. I only got cover ups. I know my complaints to the top have all been ignored. I have only seen consistent behaviour indicating to me it is intentional and endemic in their company. This is currently the subject of ongoing complaints to the financial ombudsman and to the FCA so it remains to be seem what these bodies will do. However, I have been told by a loss assessor the ombudsman is relatively powerless to force insurers to give up evidence. If Axa claim they have lost the key evidence proving they are lying then he has no powers to force them to hand it over. He is only reliant on what the company chooses to handover. (Whether this is true, I don't know, this is what I have been told.) Seeing as Axa have broken the law not properly complying to three of my data requests and all they do is evade, I don't see how they will play ball with him. But we will see.

I accept many people do not read the wording or feeling themselves entitled, want themselves to be the exception to the rules but in the cases I know of where people complain of being diddled by their insurer, this has really not been the case. Everybody I know save one has NOT taken their complaint onto the financial ombudsman as either they did not know or they could not be bothered. The complaints that reach the ombudsman are but a small reflection of the cases out there that could go but don't. Even less get to the FCA. You know yourself many people will not have the knowledge, ability or fight to take things all the way to the ombudsman. There will be lots of people (as I was with my previous claims up until Axa) who feel a bit diddled by the smaller settlement than expected but will let it go, who accept their insurers' lies  (or 'mistakes') saying they are not covered, who do not know they have been underpaid etc. There will be people who will be so relieved to get something after months/years of the insurers' BS they accept anything as a settlement just to move on.  The insurer will try to wear you out. There will be many so beaten down by the whole process they can't fight any more. This is exactly what the insurer wants, and in Axa's case, they target the vulnerable. In my case, they knew how ill I was at the time and that I was unable to fight them so they tried it on. I do not think for one second they would have tried the same thing on with an able bodied person able to fight. This is disability discrimination of course.

I do not know enough yet about the ombudsman process personally to know how complete, fair or balanced the final decisions are. But if that figure of a third you have stated is correct, I imagine it will not include all the claims settled mid process. As I have been told by the ombudsman that MOST claims are settled mid process, then that indicates to me that many MORE people are right than wrong.

Sandtree

HappyFish2021 said:

I do not know enough yet about the ombudsman process personally to know how complete, fair or balanced the final decisions are. But if that figure of a third you have stated is correct, I imagine it will not include all the claims settled mid process. As I have been told by the ombudsman that MOST claims are settled mid process, then that indicates to me that many MORE people are right than wrong.

It only covers the complaints that are escalated to them; it doesnt opine on anything other than that. You can draw your own speculation as to if those that think they are chancing it are as likely or less likely to escalate a complaint to the FOS or not.

It is a legal requirement that any complaint that takes more than 48 hours to settle is resolved with a final response communication and that communication must advise them of their right to escalate the matter to the FOS.

Where you wont see anything from the FOS is in relation to third party claims as only customers have rights of escalation but given we are talking about home insurance I am guessing you are talking of first party/customer claims as TP claims are relatively rare in comparison to the likes of Motor insurance

swingaloo2

HappyFish2021 said:

1. First, I will state what I hope is the obvious. When taking out a policy, reveal every single relevant detail. Do not withhold information or exaggerate. Do not claim someone is at home all the time if you're an acrobat in a travelling circus away for half the year, to be a brain surgeon if you're unemployed, etc. etc. Do not withhold telling them about any previous claims/insurance refusals, however small. Do not not tell them about bad debts or your partner's criminal record if they ask. Do not not tell them about someone living with you. Do not give your insurer an 'out' at the start by claiming your policy is void or fraudulent.

Its always a good idea when producing a 'helpful' thread like this is supposed to be to make sure you give the correct information in that thread. Your advice here will result in peoples insurance being voided.
To be fair I'm always dubious when people talk about making multiple claims and then say insurance companies have been awkward with them. Im in my late 60's, have had home and contents insurance all my life and have yet to need to make a claim.  

HappyFish2021

I'm well aware that complaint letters when they eventually do come (and if people do get that far in the arguing process) have to have the blurb about having the right to go to financial ombudsman etc. However it doesn't mean that the receiver of these letters has the knowledge and/or ability or strength of will to take that step. Many do not. Plus many will have given up the fight long before. Nothing to do with thinking they are chancing their arm by going further.

I wasn't saying the ombudsman should opine on matters beyond the matter escalated. But IF the insurer withholds key evidence and the ombudsman is relatively powerless to investigate properly/compel them to hand it over where the suspicion is it is not 'lost' at all, then he is effectively working with one hand tied behind his back and it is an incomplete investigation without all the facts on the table.

No doubt there are vexatious and chancing your arm claims that do go to ombudsman among the many others. But the facts are only a small percentage of the justifiably  aggrieved fight their insurers all the way to the ombudsman. The facts are most claims are settled prior to his final decision. Therefore the implication only a third of the claims going to the ombudsman have  any justification is disingenuous. Many more cases have substance than don't. I don't know what 'most' means for cases settled mid process  but it has to be more than fifty one percent to be most. Could be as high as ninety I don't know. Add on the third of the remainder that go all the way to win on top of this fifty one percent or more and this is indicative there are many people out there diddled by their insurers every year that can prove it.

HappyFish2021

swingaloo2 said:

HappyFish2021 said:

1. First, I will state what I hope is the obvious. When taking out a policy, reveal every single relevant detail. Do not withhold information or exaggerate. Do not claim someone is at home all the time if you're an acrobat in a travelling circus away for half the year, to be a brain surgeon if you're unemployed, etc. etc. Do not withhold telling them about any previous claims/insurance refusals, however small. Do not not tell them about bad debts or your partner's criminal record if they ask. Do not not tell them about someone living with you. Do not give your insurer an 'out' at the start by claiming your policy is void or fraudulent.

Its always a good idea when producing a 'helpful' thread like this is supposed to be to make sure you give the correct information in that thread. Your advice here will result in peoples insurance being voided.
To be fair I'm always dubious when people talk about making multiple claims and then say insurance companies have been awkward with them. Im in my late 60's, have had home and contents insurance all my life and have yet to need to make a claim.  

Sorry, but to be clear what advice have I given that is incorrect or will result in policies being voided? You have bolded a certain section - did you not read it properly,  perhaps, in your  rush to criticise me? Did you not understand my use of a double negative? I am advising people to reveal everything to their insurer. 

Jeez, I am trying to help people but with posters like you having a pop at me,. I wonder why I bothered making any effort.

You've been very lucky not to have had to make a claim in your life. I'm in my fifties and have made maybe three or four claims to date on building and or contents. Just because fortune has smiled and favoured you regarding storm,  fire and flood and burglary etc don't you DARE criticise me or try to insinuate that any of my claims have been in any way unsubstantiated or illegitimate. You're not being 'fair' at all so don't use that wording. Don't demonise or abuse the claimant - that's exactiy what some insurers like Axa do - and don't you dare have a pop because I'm trying to help others avoid heavy future losses. 

By the way,  it's more than the insurer being 'awkward'. Not that you apparently seem to care in your high castle.

Weighty1

OP, you have gone from the appearance of someone trying to provide a helpful post to aid others to someone with a real axe to grind and something of a know-it-all, which is apparent you are not.  (If you did you wouldn't say that ALL insurers try to fleece you.  I've made 2 B&C claims in the last 12-years both were settled fully without hesitation and stats will show that this is more often the case than not).

swingaloo2

Wow, chip/shoulder!

HappyFish2021

Weighty1 said:

OP, you have gone from the appearance of someone trying to provide a helpful post to aid others to someone with a real axe to grind and something of a know-it-all, which is apparent you are not.  (If you did you wouldn't say that ALL insurers try to fleece you.  I've made 2 B&C claims in the last 12-years both were settled fully without hesitation and stats will show that this is more often the case than not).

I don't claim to be a know-it-all. Far from it. But I do know some things and have every right to state them in response to answer incorrect or disingenuous responses. (I also have every right to be embittered by my experiences with Axa. You would be too.) However, what makes ME a know-it-all but you not?!

I did not actually say ALL insurers are out to fleece you. I did say initially 'every' insurer would look for reasons to reduce a claim or not pay out which I have since changed to 'many' as I and those who I know do not know or have had experience with every single insurer there is. Finding reasons to not pay out or reduce is not necessarily the same as fleecing insurance customers hence my advice to protect yourself from this as much as possible with these simple stepss. Also, the real value of lost stuff not claimed for due to forgetting  about it and missing it from the claim is something else that can be protected for by keeping records of all that you have.

Over and above this there ARE insurers who fleece their customers, fact. Which gives all the more reason to try and protect yourself from this eventuality.