How can you trust Pet Insurance Reviews !

smallzoo2

Looking at first pet insurance for my daughters 1yr old dog

She went on the usual sites and came up with a few ones she was interested in but then finding coherent reviews is impossible

e.g. Two companies she liked Animal Friends  and Bought by Many

When she looked on trust pilot Animal Friends has very positive reviews so she thought great but then when she looked on review.com, and perform.com to quote just two they came out with 1 star

She's only 20 so how on earth does she choose a good company with so many conflicting reviews ,If she makes the wrong choice it could be very costly

Any advice ?

dunstonh

How can you trust Pet Insurance Reviews !

Let's make it easier.  You cannot trust any insurance reviews.  Relying on reviews is a bad way to buy insurance or most financial products for that matter.

smallzoo2

well if you cant trust reviews how can you find out the truth

elsien

A starting point is to read what the reviews actually say. Those who give 5 stars because the policy was cheap or easy to set up, but have never made a claim, can be discounted. 

One star reviews by people who haven’t read their policy then get claims turned down for things that are clearly not covered, can also be discounted.
Then remember that people are more likely to post negative than positive reviews.
Which rules out most of them, which was DunstonH point. 

She needs to properly read the t&c - covered for life for example has different meanings with different providers which can lead to a lot of confusion.
Check the exclusions and whether she’s happy with them.
Remember that any pre-existing conditions aren’t going to be covered, whoever she is insured with. 

Ask around with people who’ve made claims and what their experience is. Does her vet have a “avoid like the plague” list.

FWIW I’ve always been happy with Petplan but they can be more expensive because of the wider cover - there’s not many that offer dental cover for example. Which may not be an issue for your daughters 1 year old dog, but is for my idiot bull terrier.  

SaverRate

I used to be with M&S now Tesco Bank. Same underwriter (RSA) but Tesco include dental whereas M&S is only dental as a result of an accident so I switched. 
I chose the above over the likes of BBM and Petplan because of the price and M&S/Tesco included the same things/better things but for lower price/excess. 
If I reviewed both M&S and Tesco Bank then I would give 5 star as never had an issue when needing to contact them etc. However I have not made a claim - this is the issue with many reviews!

dunstonh

well if you cant trust reviews how can you find out the truth

Why do you think the reviews are the truth?

You tend to find the traditional companies dont give two hoots about review sites.  So, they do not manipulate them either way.   That means they have a heavier number of negative reviews.
The newer companies tend to bully their new customers into giving positive reviews despite having only just signed up with them.   People nearly always give positive reviews at purchase despite not being in a position to really review the company properly.

Then you people that blame the company for not paying out when the policy they bought didn't cover it in the first place.  e.g. a company has a budget plan, standard plan and comprehensive plan.  Someone buys the budget plan and then suffers an event that is only covered on the comprehensive plan.  They post a negative review about the insurer despite the insurer doing nothing wrong.

Then you have the people who have a product from say 1986 giving a bad review because they cannot do something with their product that the law changed to allow in 2015.     A bit like buying a black and white TV and then complaining its not ultra HD widescreen.

And finally, those serial complainers that post again and again and again with the intention of bringing the score down.

Sandtree

You simply can't trust them... already covered above really but worth repeating... someone buys a cheap policy that doesnt cover X they will then post a 1 star review when their claim for X is declined. Someone doesn't post a 1 star view of a 208 GTI when a 911 beats them off the line but they leave a 5 star review because it "nearly" kept up.

Unfortunately they wont tell you it got declined because it wasnt covered but instead will just rant about how they are a rip off merchant etc. Just today someone was complaining in the Motoring section that Direct Line will deny liabilities to Third Parties who want to claim directly, obviously ignoring the fact that DL is there to represent their customers interests not the TPs.

The problem with Pet insurance, as with any "health" type cover, is that lock in gets created as soon as a claim is made because if you try and move again that gets excluded as a pre-existing condition. PetPlan is expensive but they dont consider claims experience so you know they won't double your premiums if you make a modest claim, unfortunately for the majority that do rate on experience its a bit harder to know who you want to be with the day your pet is diagnosed with cancer or arthritis etc 

youth_leader

The test of any insurance is when you claim, ldo ook at the 'bad' reviews.

I was with an insurer for about ten years when my dog developed a tumour in his mouth - luckily benign - and they rejected the claim as he had had a bout of gingivitis two years earlier. 

I left them and went to Petplan and three years later, have had to claim for a liver condition, they paid out. 

Do Which have any recommended providers?  They do for home insurance.   

Annemos

Good afternoon everyone


I am not sure I could trust WHICH for home Insurance. I am not convinced that WHICH can keep up to date quickly enough. 


There is often a rotation going on amongst the following.....

Insurance Company .......  MGA Delegated Authority Underwriter.......    Arranger.......    Broker ........shifiting Panel members.....  etc etc.      (Many eternal thanks to Sandtree for this realisation on my part!) 



Sometimes 1 star reviews do have some useful detail, for example when a claim has gone on far too long after a water leak claim has been accepted. I believe they can be useful reviews. Also ones about lack of communication channels where it seems to be more than just "we are in a busy period". 

The additional problem is that we all seem to need to be Insurance experts and Policy experts for reading and writing reviews. As homeowners, we are not. But the more we do learn, especially after being unfortunate enough to have a claim, the more we are all able to filter the reviews. 


(5 star reviews are often useless re claims....."oh the website was so easy to use when I bought my policy! Oh I saved myself 20 pounds, I am so happy!" ) 

====================================


Please see the attached which I came across yesterday which seems to be specifically for flood homes. Now that is something great. If it can be properly implemented.

I don't know how it would be done in practice within those complicated distribution chains that fall apart. (Subsidence has similar Good Practice guides.) Also if the homeowner does not look for this, how would they ever know about it? 

https://www.abi.org.uk/products-and-issues/topics-and-issues/flooding/recovering-from-a-flood/guidance-on-continuation-of-buildings-insurance-cover-while-a-property-is-undergoing-repairs/


My personal belief is that this should apply to any claim with major damage, like fires and bad water leaks, too.

It can be just cruel how homeowners are dumped without a renewal in the middle of a clam. 

Sandtree

Annemos said:

I am not sure I could trust WHICH for home Insurance. I am not convinced that WHICH can keep up to date quickly enough. 

My issues with Which? personally went further than simply their speed of update... back in my claims days I worked for an insurer and whilst Sales & Service was separate depending on which brand you called the claims department dealt with all the brands (your headset said which brand name to use in the salutation). For Motor the differences in policies were tiny from a claims perspective.

We had one brand aimed at mass-exclusive, one for mass-market and one for budget... difference was marketing and pricing only.  If you looked at Which? however and their scores on claims (they did it at the time, havent looked if they do any more) consistently the brands were scored differently and ranked in order of their target market. Either their testing wasnt thorough enough and they were lucky that they got a better handler on the mass-exclusive brand and a bad one on the budget or they were buying into the psychology that if you are buying better you think you are getting better.

That said, there was the issue the other year with their Supermarket rankings where (I think) Asda was rated lowest by their members despite respondents admitting they hadnt actually been to one. 

Annemos

Yes that makes perfect sense. I saw a daft piece of wording in my least favourite Company's policies recently. (A very well-known company for the elderly with 5 stars!)

The underlying insurance company was a consortium of two companies, one of which was not British! ........


Please note that the liability of Insurers is several and not joint and is limited solely to the extent of their individual proportions. The Insurers are not responsible for the subscription of any cosubscribing Insurer or any other Insurer or co-Insurer who for any reason does not satisfy all or part of its obligations. Details of each Insurers proportionate liability will be provided upon request.


Lord knows how you would ever implement the Subsidence Good Practice Guidelines in such a set-up. 

Am I missing the point, or is this an absolutely terrible set-up for any homeowner?