Hi Alex.
I hope you had a good Christmas and New Year.
If I may, I’d like to counter some of your points in relation to your reply. I’m sorry that this is quite a long email, but I feel it’s important as a consumer to put my point across! Apologies again if you’re not the right person to be dealing with this type of enquiry, and I would be more than happy to discuss this with the relevant person if required – just point me in the right direction!!
The 14-day policy clause is understandable in some situations. A good example would be someone who had no insurance previously or a lapsed policy, had been told by a vet that their pet had a condition, then they take out the insurance to cover costs. However, even in those circumstances, claim forms ask if the condition was known and pre-existing, and all relevant information has to be filled out by the vet which would then expose this kind of fraudulent activity. Don’t get me wrong, I am all for stopping fraudulent claims – it affects us all with higher premiums, and I am not alone when I say people should be held to account if they conduct such activities.
However, in the case of Danny, his cancer would have been pre-existing long before the policy renewed, and in this case, totally unknown. When he was transferred from one policy to another, his cancer didn’t suddenly just “materialise” in those first 14 days – he would have had cancer for several months prior. Indeed, his previous policy was underwritten by RSA as was his new one. In addition, both policies were with Tesco (I did contact their customer relations asking the same question back at the beginning of December, but as of yet, I have received no response!). RSA underwrote both policies.
What happened was that his renewal for the next year had jumped by over £100. My parents, being pensioners in their 70’s and living off just their state pension, saw on a comparison website the exact same policy they had with Tesco offered at a cheaper rate by Tesco again (that is both policies were with Tesco with no break in cover). So, my Dad switched. He was totally unaware that Danny had terminal cancer as Danny was showing no signs of illness (he was still lively and eating well).
This is where I feel the 14-day clause falls down. There were no checkpoints to advise my Dad that even though he was taking out the policy with the same company (Tesco) underwritten by the same underwriters (RSA), that this would trigger the 14-day clause. Logically speaking, why would he? He just assumed that because it was with the same company it was a continuation. I will grant you that he should have read the small print, but logically, it doesn’t make sense to someone of that generation. Either underwriters and brokers need to put in place a system to stop this happening, or consider this a continuation of policy, preferably with certain exclusions for certain conditions.
Surely, in some instances, the 14-day policy shouldn’t apply. I think Danny’s story is a good example of this, where it couldn’t have been known that he was terminally ill as he showed no outward symptoms, and the stomach cancer was only discovered during the exploratory operation following the ultrasound which showed a previously undetected mass in his stomach, born from my parents being overly cautious because he’d been sick a couple of times at the start of that week (I will point out that the vets ran blood work on Danny initially, and it showed no sign of underlying reasons and no sign of cancer in his blood). On the basis of the example you gave, Danny was already ill (unknowingly) during his previous policy, but no treatment was sought because of this. What doesn’t make sense to me, logically speaking, is if my parents had waited just 6 more days before taking him to the vets, he would have been covered, even though his condition, in your words, would have pre-existed during the previous policy. And just for clarity, in the 4 weeks prior to his previous policy expiring, no veterinary advice was sought as he was not “unwell”.
Another example is when a cat has been involved in a fight or other accident – a circumstance that is not pre-existing, and cannot be mitigated against (unless during the first 14 days of insurance the cat is kept indoors, which is something I feel is not feasible to mitigate the situation) or forewarned about. Why, in this example, would a pet owner, who has taken out insurance in good faith, not be covered in the first 14 days if their cat is injured in a fight and needs urgent medical attention? This is what happened to our cat Lulu. Thankfully, she made a full recovery, but because the fight happened in the first 14 days of her cover, we were left with a £500+ bill for her treatment. This simply isn’t fair or right, surely?
I hope you can see my reasoning here, and why I think that the current rules on pet insurance penalise those very people who take it out to protect their pets, only to find in the first 14 days, there’s no cover. In my experience, only people who truly care about their pets take steps to make sure they get the best possible medical attention when ill, rather than letting them suffer or die of their condition because they can’t afford the vet bills.
Perhaps the insurance industry needs to have a rethink about this exclusion? Ideally, I would like to see the 14-day clause dropped if the cover is continuous, without break. At the very least, there should be some exclusions for medical conditions that cannot be known about at the time of taking out or renewing a policy (e.g. cancer, injury etc) – of course, backed up by evidence from their vet to state that the condition was not known about at the time of the insurance being taken out. I appreciate that as our pets get older, their cover increases (although an extra £100 a year for a 6-year-old dog, as was in Danny’s case, is a little steep, especially when he seemed a perfect fit, young, healthy dog). I also accept that if a pet has a pre-existing condition, and the pet owner chooses to change provider, these conditions cannot be included as part of the policy.
I note that there is at least one provider, “Bought By Many” who do offer continuous cover if there is a valid pre-existing policy at the time of cover being taken out with them. Surely the pet insurance industry, including underwriters, need to move towards this model as it’s fairer to both owners and their pets?
Would very much like to hear RSA’s thoughts/counter-arguments to the above.
Wishing you well, and with kind regards
Dave
