Aviva Medios Healthcare - are we being treated fairly?
Options
Comments
-
This whole saga looks pretty big and I have just sent our own file to the Insurance Ombudsman. But as others have noted here the Ombudsman only represents individuals.
Aviva's conduct is so appalling that they should really be made to account for it, and pay compensation and costs, in a very public way. I am not a lawyer, but is there no way of getting a class action going on behalf of all Medios "Loyalty" related policy holders, present and past (i.e. including the ones who have already left because of Aviva's behaviour)?0 -
I am new to this site and also subject to the Aviva action with their Medios Healthcare scheme. I share the many and varied views expressed by other respondents to this forum about the arrogant and unreasonable and illegal attitude of Aviva to their Medios customers. The fact that they refer complainants to write direct to the Financial Obudsman (FO) suggests that they are concerned at putting anything relating to this issue in writing because it will be used in evidence against them. So, how can we escalate the action against them? Does anybody have experience of similar situations and using the media and new technology communications (blog sites, twitter, petition sites, dedicated web site, etc). Is there a legal view as to whether it should be a joint legal action against Aviva or is it best to pursue individual action through the FO?? Large corporations should not be allowed to get away with this type of customer treatment; they need to be shamed in the media about this subject.0
-
Relevant FSA team already alerted - the FSA reaction is an unknown as is FSA's investigation time.
However, the FSA could be exposed if policyholders can demonstrate they have been adversely affected by wrongful FSA action/inaction/delay (ie if Medios policies are now worthless, policyholders would want to cancel their policies a.s.a.p. in order to take-out an alternative policy that avoids any exclusion of a new illnesses – an issue the FSA should be aware of due to the promulgated factors of rising age and increasing risk used by Aviva as a flawed defence for its 20% premium rise).
Whether or not relevant, policyholders’ are currently being compensated for FSA’s failures with respect to Equitable Life’s Guaranty.
In theory one could follow FSA's website on the unfair contract terms page – unfortunately, publication could be well after the event.
FSA interest will focus upon continuing TOXIC PRODUCT aspect, as compensation matters are dealt with by FOS (as indicated in earlier Posting).
The Association of Medical Insurance Intermediaries cannot enter into a fight with a main provider of its members’ commissions. However, members (like previous Poster PMW2012) can join together to pressurise the Association to make additional overtures to the FSA.
Relevant Police Fraud Unit could be informed with respect to alleged fraud but this could be a negative as criminal action takes precedent over civil action.
Prime victims are those that relinquished Guaranty due to Aviva misleading with a cheaper Healthier Solutions offering without providing crucial information on lost Guaranty value (an Aviva duty in the circumstances that then prevailed).
A Court action is expensive but there is at least one obvious law firm suited to this action. Proceeding against a ‘deep pocket’ has both sensitivities and attractions. Besides case facts, the critical issue for law firm would be value of overall claim and that would depend upon number of claimants, the premium amounts they paid, and their ages. Preferably, it would seem relevant claimants should have purchased Medios policy prior to 2005.
Newspapers can hurt any target badly but that might best await any FOS decision so relevant newspaper can write an effective article for its readers. Any relief Aviva achieves through such delay would be overtaken many times over by greater article impact and any connected domino effects.
Domino effects often result from a Defendant digging a deeper hole for itself through delay in not putting matters right and/or through wrongful defence.
Medios policyholders misled into taking-up a Healthier Solutions policy are also able to complain to FOS.0 -
I seem to be getting targeted quite personally, so this will probably be the last contribution that I make.
My background is in the health insurance industry, not in contract law, and I don't have a copy of the pre-2011 Medios T&Cs, so its difficult for me to comment on whether any changes were made in the past that would represent a breach of contract.
So yes, I am setting that aside and any paper trail indicating possible fraud as a separate issue. I simply don't have the information to comment.
What I will say again is that using the new wording, I believe the prevailing interpretation of "no age related increases" on this thread is incorrect. The intuitive interpretation (you will never see a premium increase because you or your fellow Medios policyholders age) is not what is written in the 2011 policy terms.
I'm also not convinced that the Guaranty has any explicit value, because the promise is to keep customers in the price charged to a specific age band. There are no rules I can see that lay out how age bands are priced, or how age band price increases at renewal are determined, aside from previous comments that they will be "market-related". I can't spot this in the 2011 terms, so this may be a phrase which has since been removed (not sure it was very meaningful in the first place).
Medios is an insurance product and not an investment product. Overpaying in the early years doesn't actually build up a pot of value that is owed back to the customer in future. It just means you overpayed in the early years, in the hope that you'd underpay in future due to the product design.
As a result, there is nothing stopping Aviva from piling the age-related risk costs into the base price of the age bands should new business not provide the right mix of new entrants for a stable cross-subsidy at around market-level rates.
Which appears to be exactly what Aviva has done. Immoral and duplicitous? Probably. Completely at odds to what people thought they were buying into? Probably. Illegal? Probably not.Wozearly just does not appreciate that policyholders invested in Medios because of its Guaranty and its crucial characteristics of life cover and being market related (through New Entrants).
I appreciate exactly why people would have bought into the Medios policies. However, Medios as it stands now is not the policy you're describing, nor is it providing those guarantees.
If it was that kind of policy in the past, and you can show that Aviva acted illegally in changing it, then you should have a very strong case.0 -
Wozearly, the thrust of your point is spot on.
The product purchased is the opposite of what we bought into.
Your worst thought of an Aviva representation that we would
“never see a premium increase because you or your fellow Medios policyholders age”
is even exceeded by actual policy wording
“In our eyes you grow no older”.
The remainder is a similar story. All you are doing is confirming policyholders’ worse fear of a horrendous fraud perpetrated upon them, which only came to light because of the 20% premium hike that caused people to look back at prior documentation.
One point you miss is the abandonment of New Entrants despite the present Terms representing otherwise. Three years of renewals were based upon that misrepresentation, a misrepresentation that’s also repeated in the latest terms!!
Most of the 20% premium hike was also as a result of that same Aviva breach – how Aviva ever had the temerity to ask us to pick the costs of their breach is beyond belief!!!
Knowingly overpaying in early years would be financial madness if it was done on the basis of ‘a hope and a prayer’. Perhaps that should also cause you to question whether policyholders bought the policy on a different basis. Just think, they also knew they could not get that benefit for 11 to 19 years after they bought the product. An awful long time to rely upon anything but a solid insurer Guaranty!!!!
This product is has gone COMPLETELY TOXIC as recent Posts say.
It’s unbelievable that people can be left in a product where one cannot work-out what the product provides. That’s even more unbelievable when one factors in the risk of new illnesses which can’t be covered when policyholders eventually discover the Regulator’s findings.
It’s inexcusable that Aviva is not being forced to bring clarity to this situation rather than continuing to engage in ducking and diving policyholders’ questions – worst still concealing any and all value information.
Everyone and anyone that possesses any influence in this matter should be ashamed of themselves if they leave the market in this state of total uncertainty.
What we seem to have here is not a regulated market but one dominated by 'cowboys' and 'fraudsters' where law and order is no where in sight.0 -
Got it - we need to cut through this mess and resolve all uncertainties.
That's because it can't be allowed to drift and, therefore, bring disrepute to all market participants.
Each of us must do what we can.
I will speak to my MP to put question in House of Commons
Others should do same.
Mine's from appropriate party and he'll jump at opportunity.
All those who are failing policyholders will be given a reminder of who they are answerable to.
As for Aviva, it will get what it deserves from Regulators, Commentators, and existing and future Customers.0 -
Got it - we need to cut through this mess and resolve all uncertainties.
That's because it can't be allowed to drift and, therefore, bring disrepute to all market participants.
Each of us must do what we can.
I will speak to my MP to put question in House of Commons
Others should do same.
Mine's from appropriate party and he'll jump at opportunity.
All those who are failing policyholders will be given a reminder of who they are answerable to.
As for Aviva, it will get what it deserves from Regulators, Commentators, and existing and future Customers.
Dream on..!Hi, we’ve had to remove your signature. If you’re not sure why please read the forum rules or email the forum team if you’re still unsure - MSE ForumTeam0 -
Slight redirection because of boundary change.
Need to await Ministerial response.0 -
FOS has swung into action - compensation is a slow process.
Aviva has already been asked to put its side.
12 week window now follows and then an adjudicator makes contact with complainant.
Much bigger immediate issue is status of current insurance (including wrongly excluded New Entrants), premium level, and whether cover remains available for life.
Thousands of us are being left in limbo by FSA.
Shame on FSA.
The Policy issued by Aviva in 2000 was straightforward as are Aviva's subsequently documented shenanigans aimed at avoiding liability.
Doesn't take much time to work those matters through.
Don't see point of FSA if justice is not seen to be done.
According to Hector Sants
“The FCA (the FSA’s replacement body) will build upon the FSA’s new proactive consumer protection strategy”.
Proactive doesn't seem consistent with what's happening now!
Hector, you're having a laugh!!
As How said
"What we seem to have here is not a regulated market but one dominated by 'cowboys' and 'fraudsters' where law and order is no where in sight"0 -
The FOS now have our paperwork. An Adjudicator will call us in the next few weeks, having looked at the paperwork. They have teams dealing with specific areas so in theory the chances are all our cases will be dealt with by the same team(s). everyone who is at this stage needs to check this is correct with the FOS.
The Adjudicator, after reflection, ...adjudicates!! But on individual cases only. So we need TO COMPARE NOTES on outcomes...just to check the adjudication is consistent! For example we have a policy which dates back to 2002 so we are in the same awful boat as several others on this thread.
If we don't like what the Adjudicator proposes we can appeal to the Ombudsman. I strongly suspect that we will not like what the Adjudicator says.
If as a number of people have suggested this whole sorry saga amounts to fraudulent behaviour on the Insurer's part, and IF ENOUGH PEOPLE COMPLAIN, it MIGHT make it to the FSA.
SO EVERYBODY WHO HAS A COMPLAINT, DO SO, to the FOS, now! Its a very easy process. Just call them. If not, Aviva will divide and conquer and we will have nobody to blame but ourselves.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards