Preparing small claims court case against Axa travel insurance

stoem

Westin said:

Would the court (small claims or otherwise) still not expect you to explore and possibly exhaust other prescribed settlement routes first?  I would think this would strengthen your case if you have been to the Ombudsman and they found in your favour. Equally not perhaps be perceived well by the court process if you went straight down that route (wasting court time/process?).

There is no such thing as a prescribed settlement route. I’ve filed a complaint, they’ve not acknowledged it. 

The ombudsman route is entirely optional. 

stoem

sheramber said:

You are claiming for ‘no show’ as you did not cancel.

Does your policy cover no show, which may be separate cover to cancellation? 

The cancellation point isn’t disputed. They denied the claim based on me not providing a ‘cancellation invoice’ which their own terms don’t prescribe. 

stoem

Anyways, letter before action has been sent now by post and email. 

XRS200

Westin said:

stoem said:

NoodleDoodleMan said:

Regardless of the timescale involved, is the Ombudsman process not the prescribed procedure before going to litigation ?

No, you can choose to take your complaint to court instead of the ombudsman at any time. There's no legal requirement to use the ombudsman. I feel it drags things out unnecessarily but I guess it's less intimidating (and less costly) than the court option.

Ombudsman is fine if you want a free, no-risk option and don’t mind waiting.
A court judgment carries more force for my personal outcome and is more easily referenced publicly.

I guess I feel a bit more in control using the court process. If Axa aren't completely moronic they'll just apologise and pay now, however given they didn't even acknowledge a formal complaint or followed their own complaints procedure they may need to be forced to the table. 

Would the court (small claims or otherwise) still not expect you to explore and possibly exhaust other prescribed settlement routes first?  I would think this would strengthen your case if you have been to the Ombudsman and they found in your favour. Equally not perhaps be perceived well by the court process if you went straight down that route (wasting court time/process?).

If the ombudsman found in your favour, why would you be in court?

user1977

Westin said:

stoem said:

NoodleDoodleMan said:

Regardless of the timescale involved, is the Ombudsman process not the prescribed procedure before going to litigation ?

No, you can choose to take your complaint to court instead of the ombudsman at any time. There's no legal requirement to use the ombudsman. I feel it drags things out unnecessarily but I guess it's less intimidating (and less costly) than the court option.

Ombudsman is fine if you want a free, no-risk option and don’t mind waiting.
A court judgment carries more force for my personal outcome and is more easily referenced publicly.

I guess I feel a bit more in control using the court process. If Axa aren't completely moronic they'll just apologise and pay now, however given they didn't even acknowledge a formal complaint or followed their own complaints procedure they may need to be forced to the table.

Would the court (small claims or otherwise) still not expect you to explore and possibly exhaust other prescribed settlement routes first?  I would think this would strengthen your case if you have been to the Ombudsman and they found in your favour. Equally not perhaps be perceived well by the court process if you went straight down that route (wasting court time/process?).

You need to make some attempt rather than go straight to court, but I'm not aware of any principle that it needs to be more than a letter before action.

sheramber

stoem said:

sheramber said:

You are claiming for ‘no show’ as you did not cancel.

Does your policy cover no show, which may be separate cover to cancellation? 

The cancellation point isn’t disputed. They denied the claim based on me not providing a ‘cancellation invoice’ which their own terms don’t prescribe. 

Pa ge 34 of policy document


Cancellation • Original cancellation invoice(s) detailing all cancellation charges incurred and any refunds given. 

stoem

sheramber said:

 Page 34 of policy document

Cancellation • Original cancellation invoice(s) detailing all cancellation charges incurred and any refunds given. 

Good find, but I'm not losing sleep over it.

I already

• Provided proof of payment

• Provided medical evidence

• Explained in writing that cancellation invoices are not issued by the provider and that the services were not refundable 

If AXA relies solely on that policy wording to reject my claim, the court is likely to find that unreasonable — particularly given that the loss is clear and well documented.

My position is that it is unreasonable and disproportionate to deny a valid claim on the basis of documentation that was never issued.

Guess we will find out soon.


 

stoem

user1977 said:

Westin said:

stoem said:

NoodleDoodleMan said:

Regardless of the timescale involved, is the Ombudsman process not the prescribed procedure before going to litigation ?

No, you can choose to take your complaint to court instead of the ombudsman at any time. There's no legal requirement to use the ombudsman. I feel it drags things out unnecessarily but I guess it's less intimidating (and less costly) than the court option.

Ombudsman is fine if you want a free, no-risk option and don’t mind waiting.
A court judgment carries more force for my personal outcome and is more easily referenced publicly.

I guess I feel a bit more in control using the court process. If Axa aren't completely moronic they'll just apologise and pay now, however given they didn't even acknowledge a formal complaint or followed their own complaints procedure they may need to be forced to the table.

Would the court (small claims or otherwise) still not expect you to explore and possibly exhaust other prescribed settlement routes first?  I would think this would strengthen your case if you have been to the Ombudsman and they found in your favour. Equally not perhaps be perceived well by the court process if you went straight down that route (wasting court time/process?).

You need to make some attempt rather than go straight to court, but I'm not aware of any principle that it needs to be more than a letter before action.

Remember also that a complaint was filed yet unacknowledged let alone resolved. That in itself is a breach of FCA rules 

(1) send the complainant a prompt written acknowledgement providing early reassurance that it has received the complaint and is dealing with it; 

Westin

XRS200 said:

Westin said:

stoem said:

NoodleDoodleMan said:

Regardless of the timescale involved, is the Ombudsman process not the prescribed procedure before going to litigation ?

No, you can choose to take your complaint to court instead of the ombudsman at any time. There's no legal requirement to use the ombudsman. I feel it drags things out unnecessarily but I guess it's less intimidating (and less costly) than the court option.

Ombudsman is fine if you want a free, no-risk option and don’t mind waiting.
A court judgment carries more force for my personal outcome and is more easily referenced publicly.

I guess I feel a bit more in control using the court process. If Axa aren't completely moronic they'll just apologise and pay now, however given they didn't even acknowledge a formal complaint or followed their own complaints procedure they may need to be forced to the table. 

Would the court (small claims or otherwise) still not expect you to explore and possibly exhaust other prescribed settlement routes first?  I would think this would strengthen your case if you have been to the Ombudsman and they found in your favour. Equally not perhaps be perceived well by the court process if you went straight down that route (wasting court time/process?).

If the ombudsman found in your favour, why would you be in court?

Non settlement or on action by the insurer.

XRS200

Westin said:

XRS200 said:

Westin said:

stoem said:

NoodleDoodleMan said:

Regardless of the timescale involved, is the Ombudsman process not the prescribed procedure before going to litigation ?

No, you can choose to take your complaint to court instead of the ombudsman at any time. There's no legal requirement to use the ombudsman. I feel it drags things out unnecessarily but I guess it's less intimidating (and less costly) than the court option.

Ombudsman is fine if you want a free, no-risk option and don’t mind waiting.
A court judgment carries more force for my personal outcome and is more easily referenced publicly.

I guess I feel a bit more in control using the court process. If Axa aren't completely moronic they'll just apologise and pay now, however given they didn't even acknowledge a formal complaint or followed their own complaints procedure they may need to be forced to the table. 

Would the court (small claims or otherwise) still not expect you to explore and possibly exhaust other prescribed settlement routes first?  I would think this would strengthen your case if you have been to the Ombudsman and they found in your favour. Equally not perhaps be perceived well by the court process if you went straight down that route (wasting court time/process?).

If the ombudsman found in your favour, why would you be in court?

Non settlement or on action by the insurer.

That would be an enforcement case, rather than a decision on cover or policy indemnity.