they have no idea ... there is some policy wordings etc but they (the policy holders) are as vague as it gets, so i am guessing this will be interesting ...
Fred99: A problem with the Insurance and Saving Ombudsman (ISO) scheme is that you have to exhaust options offered by the insurer under their disputes resolution process, then be issued with a formal notification from the insurer that the dispute has reached "deadlock" before the dispute can be handed over to the ISO. The ball is in their court. I'm very cynical about the real value of the scheme. Insurers can use their normal tactic of "delay/defer/deny", but might issue prompt notification of "deadlock" by cherry-picking cases which suit their overall agenda (which is to make money for their shareholders). Consulting a lawyer who specialises in insurance matters should be a priority. It's amazing how Insurance Company standard behaviour changes when they know that the client is receiving good legal advice.
The ISO's process is certainly flawed, but there are other dispute resolution schemes in the financial services industry. Sadly, financial service providers can choose which scheme they belong to. FDR and FSCL both accept complaints where they have not been resolved in a set timeframe, unlike ISO's requirement for a letter of deadlock.
In regards to the issue, an EDR scheme like ISO may not help if there hasn't been a financial loss - if there was cover and it was paid for the dispute is more about the cost rather than a loss. It would be worth finding out which scheme the insurer is a member of and contacting them. It may also be worth contacting the scheme the broker was a member of - if they were still broking after 2010 they should have held scheme membership.
Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly
to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.
Trusted
