Any insurance experts?

[happypig]

If it were me, I'd complain to the FOS just to further annoy HB&B.

 

[drew]

It wasn't on the application form, and it wasn't on the policy either. But it was on a new policy when the policy was automatically renewed. It's not on the current policy either, it was only there in the year I made the claim.

Did you check the renewal info properly though. I suspect a lot of people just let it renew. When they do make changes they will normally draw your attention to it in the renewal literature. If they didn't then you may well have a case. You may also have a case if you can show an annual vet check wouldn't have made any difference to the claim you're making.

As for returning premiums, not a leg to stand on. You entered a contract and if you didn't fulfill your side of the deal then that's your problem. Same as if you didn't bother getting your car MOT'd and insurers rejected a claim!

 

[drew]

No. If you take you CAT to the VET to have it LOOKED at. The VET might notice a problem. Then the likelihood of an insured peril becoming prevalent will be lessened.

That's not what you said though. You implied that if you had your pet checked by the vet the perils covered would be lessened. That is incorrect. The policy should provide more cover if you are complying with the conditions, not less. What you seem to be referring to is that the risk is lessened if you go to the vet.

 

[Buzzer]

If you take your cat to the vet does the insurance company offer you a replacement moggy whilst the other one is being looked at?

 

[dejavuatbtn]

It wasn't on the application form, and it wasn't on the policy either. But it was on a new policy when the policy was automatically renewed. It's not on the current policy either, it was only there in the year I made the claim.

Like others have said, if the change wasn't made clear when they changed the rules, then you have a case. If they have again changed the rules, back to where they had been previously, I would have thought you have a case as it almost looks like they are discriminating against you - they must have changed back for a reason. I would certainly first put your case to them and threaten them with the ombudsman to see if that changes their minds (although it may seem a trivial threat, companies will avoid being reported if possible) and if you don't get a response within your time target, go to the ombudsman with a detailed acoount of what your grievance is. Good luck.

 

[Triggaaar]

Did you check the renewal info properly though.

Of course not.

I suspect a lot of people just let it renew. When they do make changes they will normally draw your attention to it in the renewal literature. If they didn't then you may well have a case.

I still have the email, they didn't mention anything specific, they just said please read etc. It was only sent 2 days before renewal, I have no idea if I even say it before the renewal, let alone read it all.

You may also have a case if you can show an annual vet check wouldn't have made any difference to the claim you're making.

Agreed, but that would be quite tricky.

As for returning premiums, not a leg to stand on. You entered a contract and if you didn't fulfill your side of the deal then that's your problem. Same as if you didn't bother getting your car MOT'd and insurers rejected a claim!

Fair enough.

Like others have said, if the change wasn't made clear when they changed the rules, then you have a case. If they have again changed the rules, back to where they had been previously, I would have thought you have a case as it almost looks like they are discriminating against you - they must have changed back for a reason.

Well I don't think it's discriminatory, as it would be for everyone. But I think I have a case, so I shall scream for a policeman.

Good luck.

Thank you.