insurance purchased through employer - cost higher than advertised 26 November 2022 at 11:19PM edited 31 January at 11:28PM in Consumer rights 7 replies 347 views

London95time

hi, i hope the post is in the right section, if not please feel free to move it. I looked on the forum but could not find anything similar to my case.

I purchased extra level of insurance cover for many years through my (now former) employer (a major international company), but in the last few years the tax benefit was no longer available and this was not clear at all (and i suspect even HR did not know). 

The benefit platform indicated the correct cost Before tax, but an incorrect one after tax (basically the value indicated on the platform was much lower than the actual value I paid through my salary (salary sacrifice). HR kind of confirmed in writing an issue with the platform.

Considering that I would definitely not have purchased the additional level of cover if I knew the true cost (i.e., without the inexistent tax benefit indicated by the benefit platform), I consider my former employer liable for the cost.

I has been very hard to discuss the matter with them (opened tickets that were not addressed for 1 year, raised a SAR in late 2021 that took 2 months to be replied to, got some screenshots of the platform but not for all the relevant years) and this week I prepared a draft letter before claim. 

Do you think my claim is reasonable? Should I claim the whole amount of after tax cost (approx a total of £900 for the 4 years) for the additional level of cover (maybe discounted by 50% if paid quickly and with apologies)? or should this be just for the difference between the advertised on the benefit platform and actual cost?

any suggestions much welcome!

thanks

user1977

Might find better knowledge on the insurance board: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/categories/insurance-life-assurance

As for what to claim, bear in mind that you did in fact have the cover, so you weren't paying for something valueless - so at most it's going to be the difference in price between what you paid and what you thought the net cost was meant to be.

London95time

ok, makes sense! thanks

London95time

a quick update. I initiated a small court claim and, after a few weeks, asked for a county court judgment.

The defendant now offered to settle for the whole amount claimed, however the condition is that I sign a very long (15 pages), probably standard, settlement document + Tomlin order, where I am asked to withdraw a subject access request (they lost my personal data), I will not make complaints to the ICO about this, no admission of liability will be made, any claims will be released (from the current dispute and any future known dispute), full confidentiality of the negotiations and current agreement.

Do you think such a long document is reasonable? I have no objection on the release of claims, but not about imposing upon me the withdrawal of SARs (I will withdraw it anyway if we go to court and I no longer need the evidence) and full confidentiality.

I am happy to accept the settlement, but not to accept so many clauses. If I don't sign because of this reason, will the court think I am not cooperating? If we go to court and I win, will they admit liability or this will never be confirmed (by them or the court)?

Any ideas? I am definitely not an expert ... trying to understand the best course of action. The claimed amount is also not a priority, it is mostly for principle. thanks!

DullGreyGuy

15 pages is relatively short, have dealt with agreements over 100 pages.

They've offered to pay you in full and given we are talking now lapsed insurance what more do you hope to gain? Sure you can't sell your story to the tabloids but 1) so long after and 2) with you not being on minimum wage, how much interest do you think they'd have?

If its principle then £900 is go away money... its cheaper for them to settle than pay for a barrister to defend the claim. You may decide its better to lose and have to make a small payment for their defence than accept their cash and hope to win the same sum which is likely to be verbal judgement that's reported no where.

London95time

thanks very much for the quick reply. I have no interest in selling my story to the tabloids

it is less than half the amount you suggest, but what bothers me is not the amount (this is what i asked, including court fees) is that they will get away with it that easily (as you said, it is a very cheap way to settle for a giant company), and by imposing a number of restrictions on me. it is more the attitude. if I do not sign, can they tell the court that an offer was made for the full amount but refused for xxx reasons (or is this confidential even when not signed?). If we go to court, will I have the chance to present the evidence I got?
sorry for my silly questions....thanks!

DullGreyGuy

London95time said:

thanks very much for the quick reply. I have no interest in selling my story to the tabloids

it is less than half the amount you suggest, but what bothers me is not the amount (this is what i asked, including court fees) is that they will get away with it that easily (as you said, it is a very cheap way to settle for a giant company), and by imposing a number of restrictions on me. it is more the attitude. if I do not sign, can they tell the court that an offer was made for the full amount but refused for xxx reasons (or is this confidential even when not signed?). If we go to court, will I have the chance to present the evidence I got?
sorry for my silly questions....thanks!

The courts are the place of last resort, they aren't intended to be for principle etc. 

My area of experience isnt this, but injury cases and then its dated. In those they have the option of making a Part 36 offer which effectively means if you dont accept and continue the action then you become liable for costs if you dont secure a better outcome. In my days no claim would be in small track as even the smallest neck twinge would be over £1k and this was before the new whiplash reforms. 

You'd need proper legal advice of rejecting their offer but there is a risk that if you reject it and then the court determines it was reasonable then you cannot claim the additional costs incurred post the offer.

London95time

thanks. I read about Part 36, but if i am correct it does not apply to small claims, but i understand the example, thanks.
Could they offer a settlement without involving a complex legal document? or this simply does not exist in legal terms? basically, i am open to settlement, but without having to sign a long document (I would like an offer, i accept the offer and the claim is closed). am i just naive?