gibberish

You may have read my views on the scandal that is insurance in the UK. Basically as the insured you are guilty until proven innocent and the strategy of insurance companies is not to pay up unless it is the last resort – like having to come home from your holiday ‘cos your Dad died (of course that was all planned) or your kitchen going on fire (because we’re pyromaniacs).

Well, our latest issue was just that – and here’s the photographic evidence that was good enough for the Loss Adjuster, but not the insurance company, as you will read below.

Amazingly, the following letter has, believe it or not, actually elicited a sympathetic response.

No result yet, of course, but at least some consideration.

See what you think. This was my letter to Nationwide Building Society on March the 12th.

Dear Sir/Madam

I write to you in a state of some disbelief.

My understanding of the economics of insurance is that we, the underwritten, undertake to pay you, the underwriter an open ended premium to ensure that if something unexpected happens to us, the cost of that eventuality (less an agreed excess) is paid out to put right the unfortunate occurrance that we have paid for.

You, I understand, set the premiums on the basis of a risk analysis. So that, you pay out less than you collect and make a profit.

We, the underwritten, do exactly the same.

We calculate that if the risk of paying out endless monthly premiums is worth the security of knowing that in the eventuality of something going wrong we will be looked after.

We assume the people we are paying are as good as their word.

In the past year I have lost all of that faith.

Firstly, my father died whilst I was on holiday and had to bring my family home from Portugal.

My trust in Mondial was misplaced (as we were treated like cheats when in fact the reality was precisely the opposite – it was Mondial that was cheating).

We were fed nothing other than lies.

Nationwide, who we bought this policy from, positions itself as the good guys – not the money grubbing swine that the banking network is. So, why is it that when our kitchen goes on fire; when you send out a Loss Adjuster to validate any claim – and he does; when you find out that our kitchen has been discontinued you come back to us and say…

“It’s normal practice to settle for half the cost of the full replacement kitchen.”

Why is that?

Which half were you planning to replace? Top or bottom? Left or right? Inside or outside? Handles? Worktops? Or don’t those count?

What would you have said to me if I had only paid half my premiums?

Would you have settled my claim?

I don’t think so!

And what’s that about quick settlement of claims? The fire was on the 5th of January. It’s now the 12th of March.

And can we have the door back that you’ve had for a month trying to find the kitchen that matched it?

You are being very unfair, very unreasonable and frankly ridiculous.

Please could you respond wearing your sensible hat and tell us when our fully validated claim will be processed with some dignity.

Yours faithfully

Mark Gorman

PS. One other thing. You have replaced the washing machine (minus the excess) but you seem to be treating this as two claims when quite clearly it is not. The washing machine caused the fire, therefore the whole thing is one incident and should be treated as such. In other words, for the avoidance of confusion we have no intention of paying two excesses. Just like we don’t make two monthly payments.