Aegon left email mess unaddressed

I am 89 years old and, at Aegon’s request, have got a second email address for my wife, which we were able to use for a while. Now though

access is being refused

be returned from France. The repair company then collected it and you got it back three weeks later. The work was unsatisfactory, with broken glass on the floor and at the rear of the car in crevices. Some of this you have never been able to extract. The tailgate was rubbing on the rear bumper sill. You took it back for adjustment but it was still in that condition afterwards and the door is now flaking. You gave up fighting this.

Then another battle began with the insurance claim. The premium went up significantly from the previous figure of £579. Your no-claims bonus had gone.

Peugeot Insurance is underwritten by UK Insurance and in the same without explanation. I use an adviser who handles our investments, but I like to keep a regular eye on our two accounts.

I have spent many hours trying to get Aegon/ Cofunds to understand the situation. The last two communications though have got me tearing my hair out in frustration.

stable as Direct Line, over to which you now moved your insurance. The cost for the first year with Direct Line was £677. The next year, by which time you had acquired a year’s no-claims bonus, it was £719.

There was still little progress with the claim, even after you had taken the matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service, but a cheque for £300 was paid in recognition of poor service and the excess of £250 was refunded to you.

Two years after the incident, you had still hardly made any progress, although another £100 was paid for goodwill.

You wrote to me and the insurance company arranged to inspect the unsatisfactory repairs Each time I email, a different person replies.

We have telephoned three times, sent innumerable emails and a letter from my wife to head office giving permission for me to deal with this and we are no further forward. What more can we do? KR, WEST MIDLANDS

to your vehicle.

Unfortunately, by then, while reversing a trailer, you had jackknifed and damaged the nearside light and nearside bumper. Additional damage to the car had occurred when the vehicle slid sideways on the snow and caught a wheelbarrow handle. There was further damage to the front nearside when you misjudged a very tight corner in the lane when manoeuvring.

The original claim is still ongoing, but the insurer has adjusted the no-claims discount so it no longer factors in the disputed incident as it completely believes your version of events.

Peugeot Insurance has now additionally refunded Several readers have reported how they have been affected one way or another following Aegon’s acquisition of the Cofunds platform in May.

You had complied with the request to have separate email addresses. Then, while you could access your account on your email address, your wife could not access hers.

Then your wife’s account was blocked and Aegon took no notice of your appeals to sort this out.

Further to my involvement someone from Aegon called you straight away. After a failed attempt and another couple of calls, the situation was resolved. Apparently part of the problem was that your wife was named on another account that you have in trust for your daughters.

Aegon told me: “Following the Cofunds technology upgrade, customers require a unique email address for each investment account. We’ve now resolved the issue to Mr and Mrs R’s satisfaction and have arranged a payment of £100 as a gesture of goodwill.”

three years’ open claim premiums, which is the extra you paid because of the ongoing dispute. This comes to £695. It is paying another £500 for loss of use of the vehicle and £439 for other out-of-pocket expenses. It has deemed it a no-fault claim even though the case is not completed.

A spokesman for Peugeot Insurance said: “We are sorry for the delays that Mr G has experienced. International claims of this nature are more complex, which slows down the normal claims process.

“In this case, we were offered a 50-50 settlement from the third party insurer, which would have sped up and settled the claim, but we believed Mr G was not