Insurance disaster zone
SOMETIMES you just have to wonder how home insurers get away with it.
They lure you in with a cheap, loss-leading policy, jack up the price for anyone who stays loyal — and then use every trick in the book to wriggle out of paying claims.
Many homeowners go through their whole life without ever making a claim on their policy, preferring to cover the cost of any minor damage themselves to protect their no claims discount. So if they
do put in a claim, it is typically because they have suffered a real disaster, such as a fire or flood or have been the victim of a crime.
But all too often, at a most stressful time, households find their insurance isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. After diligently paying premiums for decades, jargon buried in the small print means they are not eligible for help.
Take storm cover. As we reveal on Page 48, insurers use multiple definitions as to what qualifies as a storm. For some, it’s wind speeds of 47mph; for others, 54mph or even 55 mph. Some demand a minimum rainfall per hour, others per 24 hours — and this could be 15mm, 25mm or (if it’s snow) 30cm.
How on earth are we supposed to navigate this baffling maze?
If your home is struck by a stray branch during what anyone would describe as a storm, the exact wind speed shouldn’t matter.
A decent insurer should be able to use common sense when assessing your claim, rather than pointing to obscure terms and conditions. And if insurers insist on nit-picking, the least they can do is to use the same measurements so there is some consistency for customers.
Meanwhile, brokers or insurers selling policies without flood cover to homes in flood-risk areas, should take a long hard look in the mirror.
Online scandals
LAST week we revealed how customers are under increasing pressure to bank online, with NatWest now refusing to print paper statements in branch.
You responded in your droves, slamming the bank for failing the elderly, vulnerable and anyone else who may not be comfortable using computers.
Many also highlighted other examples where customers are penalised for not being online.
Trevor says: ‘I am due a tax rebate. Oddly it can be done in five working days if requested online but takes up to two months if not applied for online. Other examples include savings rates biased towards online accounts, some services charging extra if you don’t receive an e-bill.’
Susan says: ‘I recently tried to apply for a Blue Badge but you can now only apply online and must have an email address. Blue Badges are supposed to be about helping the most vulnerable people in society.’
I also received three notes about Sainsbury’s ‘double up’ Nectar point promotion. One reader says: ‘Every year I look forward to the Sainsbury’s double up promotion to stock up on wines for Christmas, but this year it has decided to make it online only and will not be issuing vouchers in store. For those of us without a smartphone or online access, this means we are excluded from the promotion.’
If you have lost out because you’re not online, write to me at the email below or Money Mail, 20 Waterloo Street, Glasgow G2 6DB.
TSB failure
A DAMNING report into the IT meltdown at TSB last year has confirmed what we suspected all along: the bank utterly failed its customers.
Not testing its new system properly demonstrates extraordinary arrogance, and customers paid the price. They may have since been compensated, but there is no making up for the fact that the stress endured by many was avoidable.
How many computer disasters will there be before the regulator introduces tougher checks? The findings should act as a stark warning to other financial firms looking to upgrade systems.