Policy Expert - beware!

MrB123

This story also applies to Insurance in general and responsibilities that you'd never think of ;-)

Long story short, reported a claim that ultimately we knew that we wouldn't claim for - small amount and likely wear and tear, which it was. Policy Expert notified us the next day that our policy would be voided as we hadn't declared our Son's CCJ - we knew nothing about this, CCJ was incorrect as my Son's name was not spelt correctly so he didn't open any of the letters back in 2020.

Policy Expert were very unsympathetic and ultimately while not having to pay out for a claim, they have to refund premiums and we now have to declare a voided policy to future Insurers at additional cost. What ever happened to "Commercial Decisions" - just let us cancel it, Policy Expert keep the premiums and it costs nobody any money!

The point of this post is to be aware when both applying for or renewing Home Insurance, the question "has any resident got a CCJ" (and other questions) applies to older children living with you and if they are aware of a CCJ then you have to ensure that you know all about their private life (something they may not want to tell you) even if they are not a Policyholder, don't have any financial interest in the Insured policy, not asking or them not telling you could have serious financial implications.

Thankfully we found out due to a claim that wasn't a claim, but any expensive claim would have put us in severe financial difficulty.

DullGreyGuy

Who doesn't open post because there is a misspelling in their name? It's not like court papers look like advertising junk. I'd be suspecting they knew all about it but didn't want to admit to their errors. 

As a resident in the home then they do have a financial interest in the policy as it was insuring their possessions, you may have decided to limit it to in the home only but must have included their value when calculating the total value to insure. Another expensive mistake people make is under insuring as they only include things they want insured but that isn't the question you are asked.

MrB123

I believe your username sums up your response perfectly! Many thanks for your assumptions which are incorrect - his possessions are irrelevant when it comes to a claim on a Buildings policy! Therefore I'm not sure whether your comment about under insuring is relevant to this post.

I'm sure you and probably I are a little more switched on when it comes to things like CCJs, the point is our Son was in his early 20's, not wordly wise like you and I and the CCJ referred to a £160 debt. Obviously you and others would choose not to believe him, that's your prerogative, but equally you are not aware of how badly the name was misspelt.

Also the main point of this post is that younger people may be 100% aware of a CCJ (or other material facts) but may still choose not to tell their parents - like I said, not asking them or them not telling you could lead to serious financial consequences.
 

DullGreyGuy

MrB123 said:

Also the main point of this post is that younger people may be 100% aware of a CCJ (or other material facts) but may still choose not to tell their parents - like I said, not asking them or them not telling you could lead to serious financial consequences. 

Its not just children, have dealt with cases where partners have hidden CCJs from their spouses

MrB123 said:

I believe your username sums up your response perfectly! Many thanks for your assumptions which are incorrect - his possessions are irrelevant when it comes to a claim on a Buildings policy! Therefore I'm not sure whether your comment about under insuring is relevant to this post.

If it was Building only policy then true... 90% of people however buying Home (ie Building & Contents) as a single policy (and that doesn't ignore those in Leasehold properties where the freeholder buys the Buildings).  Thanks to CIDRA 2015 the non-disclosure doesn't have to have anything to do with the claim in hand so yes if your policy required all items over £1k to be declared and the loss adjuster had gone into his room and seen 3 Apple MacBook Pro laptops sitting there of which none had been declared then that too could have resulted in either the policy being cancelled or a claim being reduced proportionate to the under insurance even if the claim was only on the buildings section. 

jjeejjx

I agree, BEWARE Policy Saving Expert. They avoid paying out. I had a burst pipe under my bath that was gushing out as I returned from a weekend away. I rang and whoever they requested to come out, didn't turn up!! I had switched my water off and proceeded to try and make a claim for repair. I had the pipe fixed, which should have been covered under the emergency home insurance. Nothing. They said due to the water leak  excess under my normal buildings insurance being £400 I was not entitled to anything.After much haggling they sent a surveyor out who said the pipe burst due to wear and tear and I should've maintained it??! It was behind the bath out of sight! Diabolical. 

aba175

Steer clear from this insurer

I am shocked to read many of the stories above, although unfortunately not surprised. I would like to share my recent experience with Policy Expert.

Please be aware that you may be asked to provide multiple documents during the policy verification process. The insurer appears to have access to the answers submitted via comparison websites, and any changes made during the quoting journey may be closely scrutinised.

In my case, a representative contacted me to question why certain answers had changed (specifically annual mileage and level of cover required). The questioning was detailed and, at times, delivered in a rude and accusatory manner, implying dishonesty. Ultimately, my policy was cancelled without notice because I was unable to provide a letter from an employer—despite having paid the full annual premium in advance. Based on this experience, it is reasonable to question how claims would be handled and how customers might be treated at a critical moment.

As a result, I was left uninsured the same day and while away from home. I consider this unacceptable and discriminatory towards individuals who are unemployed or between roles.

Based on my experience, I strongly advise exercising caution and considering well-established insurers with clearer underwriting practices and more transparent customer processes.

My feedback to the insurer is that it must be made explicitly clear during the purchasing process that cover is conditional upon the customer’s ability to provide multiple post-purchase documents. I have held policies with several insurers, and this is the first time I have been asked to provide such an extensive list. While most documents were not an issue, requiring an employer letter—particularly when the policy is paid in full and the customer is transitioning between contracts—is unreasonable and should be clearly disclosed before payment.

I regret proceeding with the policy and should have cancelled it immediately following the initial unprofessional call.