Bike crash insurer won’t pay for my cycling gear – because it’s too good
WHILE cycling to meet friends for lunch on a trip to Lake Geneva in June, I had an accident and required treatment at a local private medical centre.
I hit the road three times quite heavily with my head (I was wearing a helmet).
My Lloyds current account includes worldwide travel insurance with Axa, so I submitted a medical claim. I was also advised to claim for my damaged clothing and the cracked helmet.
I was not expecting to be reimbursed for the full clothing value, because of wear and tear and lack of some receipts.
Axa asked for photos, which I tried to send by email several times, but its computer system appeared to be blocking them so, eventually, I posted them.
Axa then told me I had been taking part in a sport and, therefore, was using sports clothing that was not covered.
I asked for a definition of ‘sports clothing’. The response was that if I had been wearing jeans and a T-shirt, I would have been covered. Axa said it would only cover the medical expenses.
I have wasted time and money trying to send photographs to Axa when it knew from the application submission that I had put ‘cycle’ clothing on the list of damaged clothing.
A. R., Surrey. Your letter left me speechless. By this definition, a dad who dons a £50 replica football shirt for a kickabout with his kids could be deemed to be taking part in a sporting activity.
Similarly, the cover might pay out to someone who goes swimming in evening dress and pearls, but not if they were wearing Speedos.
And what of Theresa May on her walking holiday in the Alps? Would she not be covered if she slipped and broke a walking pole because it’s ‘professional’ equipment?
The exclusion that has caught you out is buried on page 45 of the policy document. It refers to ‘loss or damage due to breakage of sports equipment or damage to sports clothing while in use (other than golf equipment)’.
I have no idea why there is an exemption for golf equipment, which is surely more expensive than most other sporting equipment. Perhaps the senior executives play.
The nub of Axa’s argument is that your clothing and equipment were worth around £1,000.
It could be argued that some items, such as clip-on cycling shoes, could tip the definition from recreational activity to sport.
But I think there’s a line between doing something for fun with friends or family and taking part in an organised or competitive activity. You were cycling to meet friends. To me, that is recreation — not sport.
Your claim included a base layer, cycling jersey, gloves, shorts and a helmet. Many of us would feel these are perfectly reasonable things to be wearing for a long bike ride.
But Axa does not agree. It says your equipment went beyond shirt, shorts and helmet, so it constitutes professional cycling gear.
Again, I disagree — in sporting terms, a professional is someone who gets paid to do something.
Axa says its travel policy is designed to cover ‘people who hire bikes and wear all the appropriate safety equipment, not professional cycling gear’.
In your case, it is not inconceivable that the quality of your helmet prevented you from suffering more serious injuries. I asked Axa and Lloyds if they were seriously suggesting that someone going on a bike ride should compromise safety by buying a cheap helmet rather than a professional quality one.
A recent Cycling Weekly article for those new to cycling rated the best helmets in terms of safety and comfort. The top recommended one cost £194.99 and the cheapest £27.99. Several were around £100. So while your £169 helmet was on the high side, it was not taking the mickey.
An Axa spokesman says: ‘The travel policy Mr r held excludes coverage for sports clothing when in use and, as such, we are unable to pay the claim for his clothing when damaged in his cycling accident.’
Axa has, however, agreed to pay you £250 compensation for the various service issues you suffered when registering your claim.
Your letter should be a lesson to anyone who enjoys active holidays to check the policy wording carefully — or take up golf instead. MY FATHER, from whom I’d been estranged for 16 years, died in March. As his next of kin, I was left to deal with his affairs.
He had a private pension with Aegon. Three days after his death, I told them by phone and in writing that he had died and to stop further pension payments.
Once I had looked into my father’s affairs, it become apparent he had left insufficient funds with which to pay his funeral expenses.
His bank wrote, advising me that there were more funds in his account than anticipated, though this still meant I had to use all my savings to make up the difference to settle his funeral bill.
I then had a letter from Aegon telling me that, after my father’s death, it had made a pension payment of £499.90 in error, which it asked me to repay. I wrote to Aegon advising it of the situation and that these funds had been used to help pay for the funeral.
It insisted that if I can’t pay back the full amount, I can repay it monthly — or it will refer the matter to its legal department.
I have reluctantly offered £10 a month and await a response. I am worried Aegon will take me to court, but I don’t want to get into debt for my father, who did little for me during my life.
Mrs A. J., Bedfordshire. TECHNICALLY, the funeral bill (or at least part of it) will have been paid by your father’s estate, not you. Further, this payment was made to his estate, not you. So the debt would be owed by the estate — and there’s no money in it.
however, as the administrator of the estate, you could be held responsible for any mistakes.
But Aegon agrees that, under the circumstances, it would be unfair to hold you responsible. You quickly told them of your father’s death and, judging from your letter, you wanted to resolve the issues surrounding his death with minimum fuss.
Aegon has written off the money and sent you £75 compensation in recognition of the distress its letters caused. A spokesman says: ‘Due to an administrative error, a hold on further payments was not put in place. We apologise for the error and any distress caused. We are undertaking a review to establish why payments continued and have written off the overpayment.’