Lloyds un­der­paid for missed hol­i­day

The Daily Telegraph - Your Money - - FRONT PAGE -

Our travel in­sur­ance is through our Gold Ser­vice ac­count with Lloyds Bank. It ceases when the pol­i­cy­holder reaches the age of 80.

I be­came ill and was

£50 credit to your ac­count and is send­ing a gift ham­per. Ama­zon has apol­o­gised to you and has as­sured you that its se­nior lead­er­ship knows about this. un­able to travel. The hol­i­day for which we are claim­ing was booked nine months be­fore my 80th birthday, at which time I was in­side the age limit. We be­lieve there­fore I should be cov­ered for the event, which hap­pened af­ter I be­came 80.

That, though, is not my main ar­gu­ment. Three fam­i­lies were go­ing to rent

know what hap­pened, my car just went. Con­tact my in­sur­ance com­pany.” When I said she had wrecked my pride and joy, by which I meant my car, she said she had also had a bad morn­ing.

About half an hour af­ter the ac­ci­dent her mother and boyfriend ar­rived. The boyfriend told me that it was all my fault, though he had not been there at the time.

Nei­ther Hast­ings Direct nor the other driver’s in­surer has been at all help­ful. KS, SOUTH­ERN ENG­LAND

The cul­prit, you re­port, changed her story sev­eral times and also, I un­der­stand, failed to pro­vide a di­a­gram of the in­ci­dent as re­quested.

Given the dis­pute over li­a­bil­ity, your in­sur­ers, with your con­sent, be­gan le­gal the apart­ment, which cost £3,987 and would have cost that what­ever the num­ber com­ing. The fam­i­lies di­vided up the pay­ment. My wife, who is 72, was fully in­sured by the cover pro­vided through the Gold ac­count and she has made the claim for our onethird share of the prop­erty cost. The in­surer has said it

pro­ceed­ings. I waited for them to be re­solved be­fore pub­lish­ing. This process seemed to me to have taken far too long.

Even­tu­ally, Covéa In­sur­ance, which pro­vided your cover via Hast­ings Direct, ad­mit­ted that le­gal pro­ceed­ings could have been in­sti­gated sooner. In ac­knowl­edge­ment of this, it re­funded your ex­cess be­fore the case went to court. Hast­ings also re­cal­cu­lated your re­newal pre­mium on a “no fault” ba­sis and re­funded the £60 at is­sue.

Fi­nally, 18 months af­ter the ac­ci­dent, judg­ment was found in your favour. You told me that Hast­ings had sig­nif­i­cantly in­creased your re­newal pre­mium and so you were look­ing at other op­tions for next time.

You had de­vel­oped se­ri­ous and alarm­ing symp­toms which turned out to be can­cer, from which thank­fully you are now re­cov­er­ing. How­ever, this did stop your hol­i­day plans in their tracks.

Orig­i­nally the in­surer had di­vided its pay­ment by nine – that is, per per­son in­tend­ing to use the ac­com­mo­da­tion. A ninth of the ac­com­mo­da­tion cost came to £443.

Fur­ther to my in­volve­ment, a Lloyds spokesman said: “While Mr N was 79 when the hol­i­day was booked in February 2017, he was 80 at the time of the in­ci­dent and at the start of the trip. This is out­side the max­i­mum age of the travel in­sur­ance pol­icy un­der his Lloyds Gold cur­rent ac­count, which is un­der­writ­ten by Axa.”

It said a num­ber of fac­tors had caused the pre­mium in­crease. It said a change in February 2017 to a rate of in­ter­est that al­lows courts to cal­cu­late fu­ture losses in in­jury and ac­ci­dent cases had caused all mo­tor pre­mi­ums to in­crease. It also said that last year the In­sur­ance Pre­mium Tax rate had risen from 10pc to 12pc.

I un­der­stand from Hast­ings that your claims his­tory and age were also fac­tors, al­though the fact that you had a pro­tected no­claims dis­count has helped.

In fact you and your hus­band have never made any other claim, but Hast­ings coun­tered that sta­tis­tics had shown that some­one who had been in­volved in an ac­ci­dent, whether they were to blame

The bank said it had sent you a let­ter three months be­fore your cover was com­ing to an end to prompt you that al­ter­na­tive ar­range­ments for in­sur­ance would need to be made if you planned to travel.

It added: “Mr N fol­lowed up the re­ceipt of this let­ter with a phone call to Axa in Au­gust 2017 and was again ad­vised of the ac­tions he would need to take to en­sure he was cov­ered for his trip the fol­low­ing year.

“Af­ter in­ves­ti­gat­ing, we have agreed to pay £665 for Mrs N’s share of their claim. This al­lows for one third of the ac­com­mo­da­tion bill mi­nus the half that was for Mr N. In ad­di­tion we have of­fered Mr N £100 for any dis­tress the mat­ter has caused and we wish him a speedy re­cov­ery.”

You still feel the claim is your wife’s and her share of the ac­com­mo­da­tion would have been the same whether or not you were in­cluded as it was di­vided be­tween the three fam­i­lies. You re­main un­sure about the 80-year cut-off point and whether a hol­i­day booked, al­beit not taken, be­fore you were 80 should in­deed be ex­cluded. In fact it is when the hol­i­day takes place that counts in such cir­cum­stances, not when it was booked.

or not, was more likely to be in­volved in an­other one.

Hast­ings added: “Covéa ad­justed its pric­ing struc­ture for its en­tire mo­tor busi­ness in 2017. Al­though this made prices more com­pet­i­tive for some, it caused in­creases for oth­ers, in­clud­ing Mrs S.”

You say you are sur­prised about the lack of com­mu­ni­ca­tion there has been from Hast­ings Direct. I feel that it is obliv­i­ous to how stress­ful this has been for you.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.