My insurer rejected a claim because I don’t live with my partner
MY PARTNER and I were due to go on holiday to Madeira in May.
In late April, my partner was abroad with her elderly parents, aged 91 and 85, for whom she is the primary carer.
Her father hired a mobility scooter which was faulty and sent him flying down a steep hill, where it turned over. He suffered multiple injuries.
Our holiday had to be cancelled as my partner had to care for her mother, who has Alzheimer’s.
Her insurance company paid for her share of the holiday, but Nationwide has rejected my claim.
It argues that although we are considered to be partners, we do not qualify because we do not live together. The reason for this is that she has an autistic son and her elderly parents to look after.
Could you please try to tell Nationwide that this is 2015 and not everyone lives with their partner?
A. S., East Sussex
You’ve raised an excellent point which will affect countless readers of this column.
Many people travel on holidays with close friends or partners with whom they may not actually live.
While youngsters may quite happily still go on a holiday if one of their number is unable to travel, older people may not wish to or even be able to travel without a partner.
If insurance companies are using this as a get- out to avoid paying up on claims, this is a serious issue.
It did not take much pressure from me for Nationwide’s underwriters to buckle and agree to pay your claim.
It has now agreed to pay half the cost of the holiday minus the excess on the policy, so you will be getting £1,185.38.
In a statement, Nationwide said that its terms and conditions ‘clearly state that a partner is defined as a person cohabiting with the account holder’.
However, it said it had reviewed your concerns and has decided to honour the claim as a gesture of goodwill. It said it believed this was the right thing to do having taken into consideration your personal circumstances.
It added: ‘We have two set levels on what is deemed close family. However, we recognise exceptional circumstances, which is why we have reversed our initial decision in this case.’
I would strongly suggest any reader considering travelling with a close friend or partner check the wording of their policy very carefully and if necessary quiz the insurance company as to whether they would be covered if their travelling companion had to cancel due to illness or family misfortune.
MY WIFE died on December 28, 2014. She had a £10,000 bond with the Post Office.
I agreed to leave the bond until maturity on July 16 this year.
I have phoned several times since and cannot get past the operators. Even after sending a copy of the will, probate and death certificates, they will not pass this money to me.
Can you help?
D. J., Doncaster
Your letter suggests the Post office adopted a callous, insensitive and uncaring attitude to you, an elderly, recently widowed customer.
even as Money Mail was highlighting the issue of bereaved people being abused by banks, you say the Post office prevented you from withdrawing money that was rightfully yours. You provided them with all the documentation they could possibly need. And when you phoned, no one would help you, either because they were so badly trained that they did not understand procedures or because they just couldn’t care less.
Post office Money has now reunited you with the £10,000, which you have chosen to put into a Growth bond.
It initially failed to inform me that it was resolving the issue, giving the clear impression it wished to cut me out of the loop, perhaps because it feared bad publicity.
I explained that it is neither my role nor that of Money Mail to help them to sweep poor customer service under the carpet.
If firms wish to avoid bad publicity, they should resolve issues before customers feel compelled to write to me
You told me that a lady from the Post office called to apologise and promised that they will investigate what went wrong.
They have also paid you £145 compensation, and you say you are very happy with the outcome.
MY LATE husband took a bank loan for £20,000 with Santander and put the money into our RBS joint account. He died in May 2011, which was a terrible shock.
I then began getting phone calls from Santander demanding payments. I later found out he had taken the loan in my name, forging my signature. But Santander refuses to believe this, and is still demanding that I repay them the money.
J. H., address supplied.
WHEN I read your letter it appeared on the surface that you were a victim of a bullying bank.
However, delving below the surface sometimes reveals a fuller and more illuminating picture.
one reason I ask for a letter giving permission for an organisation to speak to me is so I can appraise myself of the full story.
And it seems you withheld some vital details. The most significant is that you had already taken your case to the Financial ombudsman Service, which found in favour of Santander.
It was a joint loan arranged over the phone, and the paperwork was signed by you both.
The bank’s fraud department did look at the application again and confirms that the signature matches yours. It also appears that you made a payment by debit card after he passed away.
I have some sympathy for the situation you are in, but the money does appear to have been borrowed by both of you and with your full knowledge.
If you are in financial difficulty, then your best option is to call the National Debtline on 0808 808 4000 for advice.