Direct Line Pet Insurance

[mrbrooks]

Hi everyone, just thought I would drop this in for a bit of input and advice...

 

My mom had a policy with DL to cover her cat for the last 2-3 years. She cancelled the policy in June 2013, the last payment she made was on the 10th Of June 2013, I have confirmed this from her bank statements.

 

Her policy documents state that the 'new' policy would (if she were to continue) would commence from 18/07/2013.

 

You can view the policy schedules below:

2012/13 Policy - [ATTACH=CONFIG]45752[/ATTACH]

2013/14 Policy - [ATTACH=CONFIG]45751[/ATTACH]

 

After cancelling her direct debit with the bank she received this letter sent out on the 15th June 2013, [ATTACH=CONFIG]45753[/ATTACH], which seems straight forward enough and she assumed that as the payment for June had gone out, this would take her to the cutoff/end date of the 17th July 2013 as mentioned in the letter and she just put it aside knowing she was not renewing.

 

Then today, she received this letter [ATTACH=CONFIG]45754[/ATTACH], a FINAL NOTICE asking for the payment of £17.34 and the usual threatogram spiel mentioning debt management companies and agents etc etc, which as of course got her in a panic.

 

She has received no interim letters between the two shown above.

 

So my question is this, what the hell are they playing at? haha, really, what I want to know is, has anyone got any input on how to get this resolved, she spoke to them and they were less than helpful, the woman was only interested in discussing the payment options and threatening her. So I said, tell them you are not discussing it on the telephone any more, and that you will write to them, and got her to end the conversation.

 

I know from past experience that companies like to play the heavy handed approach in the hope that customers will cave in, but I don't at this point see that she owes them any funds and told her not to pay them until they can clearly show where/what this payment is meant to cover.

 

I plan to write in and ask for clarification regarding the policy and period this payment is supposed to have covered, and why in their initial letter they make no mention of any potential outstanding payments due on the policy.

 

My real concern though is this, FINAL NOTICE, how can they just issue a FINAL NOTICE when no other notices have been issued? and this is like 18 days after they sent their first letter, even IF she owed this payment, which I am not convinced about, surely 18 days to issue a FINAL NOTICE is a little cheeky as the payment would have only gone on the 8-10th July anyway, so its not even 30 days past when it should have been paid 'in their eyes', i.e. when this letter was sent, she would have even been less than 30 days in so called arrears and yet already they've issued a FINAL NOTICE to her. (I hope that makes sense!)

 

It seems a little over the top IMHO and a bit heavy handed for £17.34 and I plan to get to the bottom of it! So any input and advice on how to approach this would be most useful and grateful...

 

Thanks all...

[citizenB]

You could indeed write a letter to their head office and complain about the way they have gone about advising you of this. However, I think they are correct. The last payment would have been the July payment.

 

 

**NOTE** The information I have given is incorrect.

Edited August 12, 2013 by citizenB

[mrbrooks]

Hi CitizenB thanks for the input, if the case is that the last payment would be for July, then how is it that the new policy also starts in July and not in August? Is the July payment for the last of the old policy or the start of the new policy?

 

Are we saying that the monthly payments are taken in 'arrears'? And not in advance?

 

mrbrooks

[citizenB]

Hi Mr Brooks.. my apologies.. the way in which I was given information was slightly confusing and my interpretation was WRONG. You are correct, the June payment was the last payment and you should indeed make a complaint to the Insurer.

 

Advise you are unhappy in the way they have approached this and you owe nothing. Write to their Head office

[mrbrooks]

Hi Citizenb, it is confusing, I cant figure out whether they take payment in advance (which is what i believe should be happening) or whether they are claiming it in arrears (which i would find rather odd for an insurance company).

 

I am also wondering about this final notice, what (apologies I cant remember now) are the procedures for issuing FN, i mean surely they cant go from, thanks for you custom, to here is a final notice within 3 weeks!

 

thanks

 

mrbrooks

[mrbrooks]

Hi all, a quick update and request for some advice here!

 

Ok we sent a letter out on the 14th August 2013, by 1st Class, signed for delivery, it arrived on the 16th, I have the receipt and a print out from the PO web site showing the letter was delivered to the Leeds office of Direct Line on the 16th and I even called the PO and spoke to some nice girl who confirmed that as far as they were concerned the letter had been delivered.

 

So we can safely assume that for all intents and purposes that the letter in question has in fact arrived at its destination.

 

The letter in question is here > [ATTACH=CONFIG]46134[/ATTACH]

 

Next we receive a letter again asking for the payment, no mention of our own letter, and here it is > [ATTACH=CONFIG]46135[/ATTACH]

 

So, the point of this post? Well, what do we do? I figured asking for some form of validation, proof, whatever you may wish to call it, was fairly reasonable and prudent and would be forthcoming without too much resistance from DL. After all if you could just claim someone owed you some money without needing to provide evidence of such, then we would all be at it!

 

So I have written a response to this last letter, which basically says, Direct Line claims that we have not responded to the previous letter, which is wholly inaccurate and untrue, as we responded on the 14th etc and that I have proof of posting and proof of delivery/receipt at your Leeds premises...And I refer them to that letter rather than re-write a lot of spiel.

 

I tried to find some info on 'debt validation' but its mostly confusing as the majority of it seems to be American with very little mention about how to go about it in the UK. However I find it hard to accept that there is no official path/protocol for someone to make a valid request for proof of debt owed to a business.

 

I have a quick scout about in the OFT guidance for business engaged in the recovery of consumer credit debts, but again Im not really sure if this applies here or not.

 

Some of the points I highlighted include:

 

• section 2.2 - Fair Business Practice
   
  'be transparent'
  
  I fail to see how not providing proof of the debt is being transparent

  
  exercise forbearance and consideration
  

  I fail to see how making a 7 day demand, sending the letter by 2nd Class, leaving 3 days to make a payment is
  'reasonable time and opportunity to repay debts'

  
  

• Section 3 - Unfair or Improper Business Practices
  Data Accuracy
  
  It states in this section, amongst other things,
  '...with a view to only the actual debtor and valid debts being pursued for repayment'
  . OK so how does one 'validate' the debt? If this debt is not valid, then it follows the accuracy of the data must be in question.

  
  

• Communication - Section 3.3b
  
  States - '
  leaving out or presenting information in such a way that it creates, or has the potential to create, a false or misleading impression, or exploits a debtors lack of knowledge'
  . OK so leaving out the requested proof of the debt and not mentioning it is clearly leaving out information, that could mislead us into believing the only option open to us is to give in and pay.

  
  

• Physical/Psychological Harassment - Section 3.7
  
  subsection e - When seeking to recover debt, failing to take appropriate steps with a view to ensuring that available data/information to inform the the pursuit and recovery of a debt is accurate and adequate, such that the debtor and th amount of the debt can be correctly identified from that data/information
  Ok so again this section mentions Failure to do so may result in - a person being pursued for a debt that does not exist. Which brings us back to the request for evidence and validation of said debt.
  
  

  
  

• Deceptive and/or unfair methods - Section 3.9 (i)
  
  When a debt is reasonably queried or disputed, failing to investigate and/or provide details (possibly including for example, details of account history, payment schedules and relevant correspondence) to the debtor, as appropriate, in a timely manner'

  This one, sings to me ... and again the sub notes suggest that this action or lack of it may possibly result in - 'a person being pursued for a debt that does not exist'
  

 

There are more but I figure this post is long enough and you all get the idea!!! So any more input, ideas and thoughts would be most welcome...

 

mrbrooks

[raydetinu]

have you checked the actual no of payments made on policy, normally 12; if these have been paid then surely no more is due?

[mrbrooks]

Hi raydetinu, thanks for the reply, apologies for not getting back sooner but have been laid up.

 

Anyway, my mom says shes checked and she has 12 payments, going from July 2012 through to June 2013.

 

I have sent them a letter basically saying, they have had way more time to respond to this than the 5 days the OFT considers as being in a 'timely manner'. Pointing out that in this time not only have they failed to produce ANY supporting evidence of their claim, they have infact managed to send out another demand, thus ignoring the fact we have contacted them with regards to this matter on two occasions now. I know for a fact the original letter was delivered to their offices on the 16th August and it is now the 5th September, giving them some 3 weeks to respond properly.

 

I have also told them that from this point forward, if they are unable or unwilling to produce their evidence in order to validate this claim, then any further correspondence, not containing said evidence (ie further demands and threatograms) will be viewed as harrasment and a formal complaint will be lodged with their company and they will be reported to the appropiate bodies for said abuse.

 

We shall see what happens next.

 

mrbrooks

[raydetinu]

good luck, hope that is the end of it.

[Surfer01]

I think a lot depends if the payments were made upfront or in arrears. If in arrears i.e. at the end of the month covered, then the amount may be due. However ti appears she was paying in advance. As she gave notice in June, a month's notice is probably required making it 13 payments so again she may still owe the one month outstanding. If she had needed for the cat to see a vet in early July, they woudl have had to pay.

We are presently looking for a policy for our cat but most policies seem to weigh heavily against you as they are very one sided. At the moment it seems Petplan is the forerunner. Reading all the threads on CAG regarding pet policies makes interesting reading especially regarding one company.

[unclebulgaria67]

I think a lot depends if the payments were made upfront or in arrears. If in arrears i.e. at the end of the month covered, then the amount may be due. However ti appears she was paying in advance. As she gave notice in June, a month's notice is probably required making it 13 payments so again she may still owe the one month outstanding. If she had needed for the cat to see a vet in early July, they woudl have had to pay.

We are presently looking for a policy for our cat but most policies seem to weigh heavily against you as they are very one sided. At the moment it seems Petplan is the forerunner. Reading all the threads on CAG regarding pet policies makes interesting reading especially regarding one company.

 

Policies available via a Vets practice are often better, because they will handle any claim for you, putting the correct information on the claims form. There can therefore be less argument about the validity of any claim. BUT they are usually pretty expensive.

[raydetinu]

I gave up with pet insurance a long time ago; some risks you just have to take on board yourself.

If you work it out over the life of the animal plus excess etc., just does not stack up IMHO.

[mrbrooks]

Hi all thanks for the replies I agree with pretty much all of it.

 

For clarity here is my moms position - She is happy to pay the amount IF they can explain to her how it is that she owes the amount in question in the first place. The problem being they have thus far failed to provide any explanation and now there is more!!! See below...

 

OK so today my mom got this > [ATTACH]46288[/ATTACH] from Moorcroft Debt Recovery

 

Now we sent a 2nd letter in to DL and this was received and signed for on the 4th Sept, this letter from Moorcroft was issued on the 6th Sept, now considering that they have had the first letter on the 16th August, requesting information, explanation and evidence of where and when this debt was alledgely accrued, and the latest letter on the 4th referring them to that original letter, they seem to have, utterly ignored the request for this information, have made no attempt to explain it, shed any light on it or provide an ounce of evidence to support their claim.

 

In this time they have made 2 demands and now this letter from Moorcroft.

 

Again, as I stated here, we told DL that she was happy to make the payment upon provision of supporting explanation evidence, for example, as surfer01 mentions, she could inadvertantly owe an outstanding payment due to some policy cancellation rule, this is fine, they just need to explain this and show/refer her the policy details where this clause exists.

 

I find it rather noxious that they have ignored her requests for information and confirmation and have now referred it to a debt collection agency without responding to her request for information.

 

So my questions are:

 

1 for the general CAG public here: what do you reckon the next step here is? I have read some of the stuff from the OFT and I have no doubt the 'dispute' she has made is reasonable and well grounded, she is not refusing to pay, but rather asking they prove she owes this sum before she does by way of making clear where the outstanding balance has arisen.

 

They have gone way way past the 5 days the OFT mention as reasonable time to respond to such a dispute/request for information and have move directly onto refering the matter to a Debt Recovery Company, which brings with it the issue of potential additional charges etc, and the point being this could have and should have been avoided, by providing the infromation requested. Thus I beleive we could and should dispute ANY charges levied against this account for this sole reason, ie, they have missed out the previous step and never needed to proceed to this step as she is not a 'refusing to pay' or 'wont pay' but a give me the evidence before I pay' and has made this clear on more than one occasion.

 

So any thoughts on this most welcome.

 

2 For site team! Would this thread be better off in a debt recovery thread? Im not saying it would, im just askin the question.

 

Anyone who has a more indepth knowledge regarding OFT guidelines on Debt recovery and how to tackle this are most welcome to throw in some suggestions and thoughts, I very much appreciate everyones efforts and voice here.

 

thanks all

 

mrbrooks

Edited September 7, 2013 by mrbrooks
Attachments not working properly

[unclebulgaria67]

Moorcroft will not have touched this. They simply provide Direct Line with their letterhead to send out letters which make it seem as if it has gone out to Debt Collectors. Many companies do this.

 

Complaint needs to be made to Direct Line Customer Relations complaint department. This can be easily resolved. I suspect that if enough fuss is kicked up about this that DL will just write off such a small amount.

[mrbrooks]

Hi unclebulgaria67, thanks for the reply.

 

I find the whole thing rather distasteful, she shouldn't be getting letters from 'debt collectors' directly or otherwise, as you so rightly pointed out, this is easily resolved, and more to the point, it was easily avoidable.

 

What I don't understand, is why to this point, they have provided no evidence or explanation to support the claim. I assume at some point, as the legal burden of proof falls upon them to show she owes this outstanding payment, they are going to have to give details as to where, when and how this alleged payment has become outstanding. Which is why I do not understand why they have not done so already.

 

None of their letters explain this claim or why they feel they are entitled to it, and I am sure they have shot themselves in the foot now with regards to how they have gone about the whole affair, irrelevant of whether she owes the amount or not. For example, she has made a reasonable dispute of the claim pending further evidence, she has made it perfectly clear that she is willing to make payment if they can provide this proof, this has been ignored on 2 occasions now, we clearly marked the 2nd letter as the claim being in dispute as far as she was concerned, which as far as I am aware places them in the position of validating said debt before passing to any other collection agency, which again would mean they would have to provide details to support the claim, and again, which raises the question as to why they have not already done this...

 

My next step will be to send out a letter basically saying 'FORMAL COMPLAINT' demanding to know why they have failed to produce any explanation or evidence to backup their alleged claim and refer them to the previous 2 letters we have sent. I feel it is unfair to have moved this to debt collection so rapidly without answering her queries for further evidence and explanation. I am sure they have broken the law here somewhere or at least broken a few important guidelines.

 

Anyway thanks again to everyone and will update when I have more...

 

bye for now...

[mrbrooks]

I think a lot depends if the payments were made upfront or in arrears. If in arrears i.e. at the end of the month covered, then the amount may be due. However ti appears she was paying in advance. As she gave notice in June, a month's notice is probably required making it 13 payments so again she may still owe the one month outstanding. If she had needed for the cat to see a vet in early July, they woudl have had to pay.

We are presently looking for a policy for our cat but most policies seem to weigh heavily against you as they are very one sided. At the moment it seems Petplan is the forerunner. Reading all the threads on CAG regarding pet policies makes interesting reading especially regarding one company.

 

Hi Surfer01, I just wanted to mention something with regards this, and I do not know if her own policy had such a cancellation clause, however, the policy was due to expire in July, so she didn't cancel it, she just chose not to take out a new policy, I am sure under the law these are different things, otherwise all and sundry would be charging us for not taking out a new policy.

 

Also. the letter she received in July clearly stated that if she was happy to let the policy expire without continuing with a new policy then she was to simply do nothing, which is what she did. This again I do not quite understand, she has done what their own letter stated, and also I have questioned, why this letter, did not infact mention that if she bailed out now, she would be liable for an additional payment.

 

Anyway, thanks again...and thanks to all members for the input here...most appreciated...

 

mrbrooks

Edited September 8, 2013 by mrbrooks

[raydetinu]

write or email direct line once more, then forget it, until they respond with some facts.

[hightail]

 

Policies available via a Vets practice are often better

 

They are no different than the ones you take out yourself other than the fact that the vets are 'incentivised'. For example, one vet local to me uses the Petplan vouchers as Christmas bonuses for staff. All vets may, or may not, deal directly with your insurer. Some will do so for free and some add a charge on for putting your claim in for you. It's always worth asking your vet if there are companies they prefer to deal with but there is no benefit whatsoever in then taking out a policy through the vet.

[raydetinu]

Also my vet does discounts if not going through insurance and will accept up to three monthly payments for large bills.

Vets are much more flexible in these current times. They also respect loyalty.

[mrbrooks]

Hi all, update here!!!

 

Ok so I sent another letter in on my moms behalf, basically saying DL have broken all kinds of OFT guidelines and their behaviour has surely broken a few laws and added to this, now she is being harassed by Moorcroft for something they (DL) should have resolved weeks ago. I put the words 'FORMAL COMPLAINT' in big bold letters at the top leaving no room for misinterpretations.

 

That letter was sent on the 16th Of September by Signed For 1st Class (just like the previous 2 letters), they received it on the 18th of September (I again downloaded the page from the Post Office showing the confirmed Delivery/Signature).

 

On Thurs 19th September, sometime in the morning, DL Customer Services call my mom, they say, we are very sorry to hear of your troubles and we take complaints very seriously. So it turns out she had owed them 1 payment and she reminded them that she was happy to pay up had they simply provided the explanation she required. The Customer Service Rep, said she had not been able to track down the previous 2 letters and knew nothing about them, my mom pointed out that we had the proof they were delivered to their Leeds office and signed for. Anyway the Rep basically agreed that they had gone about things in a way that could definitely been improved upon. She offered to waive the outstanding balance and also offered her £50 as compensation for how things have gone.

 

So my mom was very happy with this result and again thanked the rep who told her that she would send out the confirmation of the resolution in writing and would make the compensatory payment in the next few days. So 21st September my mom get the letter, informing her that DL have agreed to waive the outstanding balance as a good will gesture and offered her the £50 as compensation for their oversights in the matter. Again my mom was very pleased with the outcome and the speedy response from DL Customer Services Team.

 

So move to today, we are at my brothers place having lunch, with my mom n dad, aunties, uncles, cousins, and she gets a call, from a Moorcroft agent. He asks her for information regarding the matter so he can confirm who he is talking to, she tells him she is giving him nothing and if he is who who claims he knows all about the situation and doesn't require further information from her. She then informs him that the matter is dealt with and she is not discussing the matter with him and she finds his calling on a Sunday lunch in rather poor taste and unprofessional. He tells her, he can call her whenever he chooses too and as far he is concerned the debt is still valid and the recovery is still in force and then he asks her again how she is going to deal with the matter. Again she tells him the matter is resolved directly with DL, and he basically says that he doesn't believe her and that if it were true DL would have informed Moorcroft and again asks how she is going to deal with the matter and if she is going to pay up now. Again she tells him the matter is dealt with and she is not going to discuss the matter any further with him, he then tells her that if she refuses to speak with him she could make things worse for herself!!! By this time she if of course rather stressed, embarrassed and upset, so he then proceeds to tell her, that she needs to contact DL and inform them, that they need to inform him of such and tells he will give her a week to contact them or he will be contacting her again and that there may be increased costs due to his additional time...I told her to ask for his name, and would only give his first name, refusing to provide his surname, telling her he didn't have to give his surname. So then she tells him that she is not talking to him any further and ends the call.

 

OK now, as far as I am concerned this is clearly harassment, the agent was aggressive, bordering rude, arrogant and in my opinion clearly misled her and this has clearly broken a number of OFT guidelines. Firstly, in the previous 2 letter, we clearly stated that any and all correspondence was to be done in letter/written form only, so calling her was out of order here. The claim that they have not 'seen' the previous letters, is of no concern to us, we can prove the letters arrived at their premises, what happened to them after this is their own issue and if they have internal mail issues then I am going to suggest they investigate where this mail has been going to.

 

I also believe the agent should have responded more along the lines of, I will get back to DL and check out what you have told me and if I need to I will contact you at a later date, it is NOT her place to have to contact DL in order to make sure the correct data/information is held by Moorcroft, it is their own responsibility. His response and his whole attitude in general was inappropriate and in my opinion can be easily classed as a number of breaches, including, improper/unfair business practice, deceptive and misleading statements, bordering on threatening, psychological harassment, in addition to this DL have failed to inform Moorcroft of the change of status of this case and have breached a few more rules themselves to add to the ones I had already pointed to them with regards to the previous requests for information etc.

 

I believe now we should report both DL and Moorcroft for this string of failings and plan to lodge another formal complaint into the latest issue with Moorcroft and the incorrect information/data and the attitude of the Moorcroft agent in general.

 

If anyone has anything else to add please throw it in, I am keen to hear from anyone with something to throw into the pot, ideas, advice or just general comments...

 

Good Luck all...

 

mrbrooks

[Surfer01]

I would be absolutely furious with some oen harassing me on a Sunday as that is beyond OFT guidelines. I would kick up such a stink that hopefully Moorcroft would never get any further business from DL! Up to that point it seemed a good result!

[mrbrooks]

Hi Surfer01, I absolutely agree, it was a disgraceful move by the Moorcroft agent, and his general attitude was equally offensive. Having spoken to my mom, she is going to call the DL customer rep that called her on Thurs and inform her of this latest contact from Moorcroft and tell her that she intends to make a formal complaint over the matter and will refer DL to the appropriate bodies for their lacking and oversights and for the behaviour of their chosen agents, Moorcroft.

 

Will let you all know what happens when I get more info!!!

 

mrbrooks

[mrbrooks]

Hi all I apologise for the huge delay here...

 

Anyway, she did owe the payment! She offered to pay it. DL responded by waiving the outstanding balance, and with an apology and another £25 'cashback' to her account and a full written apology for the way their letters were difficult to understand and had not pointed out clearly what was going and also for the way the Moorcroft Agent had behaved.

 

So all in all not a bad result, very kind of DL in the end. I think we can mark this down to a slight win! And another example of a big company putting their arse before their elbow and not making sure that all the paperwork was present and correct.

 

And of course also another shining example of what badly behaved lot some of the Debt Collectors can be...

 

Thanks ALL

 

mrbrooks