Sorry, Nationwide but your policy is flawed
P.D. writes: I have been a loyal Nationwide account holder for more than 40 years, with a Flex Plus account for more than 12 years. For a monthly fee, this offers benefits including family travel insurance covering dependent children in fulltime education. I booked a family holiday to the US and Canada to celebrate my 60th birthday but had to cancel after suffering a head injury. Our insurance claim has been rejected for my student son’s share of the holiday costs as he was 22 when I booked. GIVEN its size, Nationwide attracts fewer complaints in my mailbag than you might expect. Certainly, it attracts fewer complaints that claim it hides behind small print – yet that is exactly what has happened here.
The society was quick to point me towards a section of its website that includes a lengthy set of terms and conditions applying to your travel insurance policy. The website says the policy covers ‘all children... who at the start date of the journey have not reached the age of 19 or not reached the age of 22 if in full-time education’.
Nationwide added: ‘The customer would have been sent or given the policy document at account opening and he would have signed to say that he agreed to the terms of the account.’
Pretty open and shut, you might think. But hang on. The document runs to 51 pages of small print and page 8 says: ‘This policy wording confirms who is eligible for Nationwide’s Flex Plus current account travel insurance.’ The shortlist includes the ‘current account holder’s dependent children’.
There are no ifs, no buts, and nothing to tell you to look elsewhere in the 51 pages. The only mention of any kind of age limit on cover says: ‘There is an upper age limit of 75.’ Yet, sure enough, page 14 of the same brochure does indeed say that dependent children are not covered by the policy once they have reached 22. The problem is that there is nothing on page 8 to warn policyholders to flip six pages ahead, where they will find that not everyone listed on page 8 is eligible.
You have told me that you have now obtained a new version of the policy document, via a relative who is also a Nationwide customer. The new version clearly states the age limit instead of – as you put it – ‘hiding it’. Nationwide has admitted that the policy brochure was indeed updated last year. This did not help you though, as your brochure was issued in 2016. This is not just a matter of claiming back your son’s share of the travel costs. Imagine what would have happened if your son had needed to claim for something more serious, only to find he was not insured after all.
Nationwide has told me it sympathises with you over your head injury and cancelled holiday, but insists that its policy terms are clear. It explained: ‘Each year we send a reminder to customers to check that insurances available under our Flex Plus account are still suitable for their needs.’
This is quite right. But the policy brochure itself was flawed. Why read on, once you have established that your family is covered? I think you have a good case for lodging a complaint with t he Financial Ombudsman Service. An assurance on an early page of a policy should not be contradicted or weakened by small print further on.