Hol­i­day in­surance wouldn’t pay out

The Daily Telegraph - Your Money - - FRONT PAGE -

Last year I took out travel in­surance for my wife and me to last 12 months.

I had sev­eral con­di­tions to de­clare for my­self, in­clud­ing a heart by­pass six years ago.

The cost of the in­surance with Al­lClear was £1,173.

Un­for­tu­nately, af­ter much fight­ing to save my right leg, I de­cided to have it am­pu­tated be­low the knee. I am at last free of pain and look­ing for­ward to re­ceiv­ing my first pros­thetic leg.

Meanwhile, a hol­i­day that had been booked had to be can­celled. I sub­mit­ted a claim of around £2,800. PETER ROSWELL, DEVON

One of the toes on the leg that was later am­pu­tated be­low the knee had been partly am­pu­tated a month be­fore you took out the travel in­surance.

You had not men­tioned this specif­i­cally dur­ing the in­surance med­i­cal screen­ing process, per­ceiv­ing it to be linked to the is­sues that you had de­clared. You ad­mit that this was wrong.

As a re­sult of this omis­sion, the claim was turned down.

When all this was re­viewed fol­low­ing my in­quiry, it tran­spired from your sup­port­ing ev­i­dence that chronic ob­struc­tive pul­monary dis­ease, which you had been di­ag­nosed with in Fe­bru­ary 2015 and for which you had been pre­scribed med­i­ca­tion, had not been dis­closed ei­ther.

Fur­ther to my in­volve­ment, Mapfre As­sis­tance, the un­der­writer of the pol­icy, wrote to you con­firm­ing that the claim had been de­clined cor­rectly. You read­ily ad­mit that you are in­deed at fault.

How­ever, in what we both agree is a fair and rea­son­able res­o­lu­tion, the pol­icy has now been taken back to how it would have been un­der­writ­ten at the point of sale had the toe am­pu­ta­tion and pul­monary dis­ease been noted.

Re-as­sess­ing the pol­icy in this way shows that the cover would have been pro­vided but at a higher pre­mium of £1,504.

As it would have ac­cepted the risk pre­sented in this way, Al­lClear has cal­cu­lated that you had paid 78pc of the pre­mium that was needed to cover your med­i­cal con­di­tions cor­rectly. It has there­fore paid £2,035 af­ter de­duct­ing ex­cesses.

You are de­lighted with this out­come and grate­ful to all con­cerned. has caused us con­sid­er­able anx­i­ety and emo­tional dis­tress. DL, MERSEY­SIDE

The lounge of your de­tached house was sig­nif­i­cantly dam­aged, mostly by smoke.

The in­ves­ti­ga­tion Tesco un­der­took, which was car­ried out by staff in Poland and based on pho­to­graphs, in­di­cated that the fire was caused by a short cir­cuit on the power ca­ble at­tached to a four-way socket.

The television had been on standby. The Tesco re­port found that the ev­i­dence in­di­cated that the stand burnt first. The fire or heat came up from out­side and on the right side of the bot­tom au­dio­vi­sual sock­ets. The in­side of the stand had not melted, only the back.

The in­de­pen­dent re­port you had com­mis­sioned was less de­tailed and said the most likely cause of the fire was an elec­tri­cal fault on the TV.

You were not in­sured. The claim you made to Tesco was for £1,613. This in­cluded the £148 charge for your own re­port.

A Tesco spokesman said: “We take prod­uct safety ex­tremely se­ri­ously and will al­ways in­ves­ti­gate is­sues that cus­tomers bring to our at­ten­tion. An in­ter­nal in­ves­ti­ga­tion in­di­cated that the source of the fire was ex­ter­nal to the television, which was de­signed ac­cord­ing to Euro­pean safety stan­dards.

“We have ex­plained the re­sults to [ your reader’s] rep­re­sen­ta­tive and are un­for­tu­nately un­able to as­sist with this mat­ter fur­ther.”

You still haven’t taken out any house in­surance. I have urged you strongly to do so. Things could have been so much worse.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.