Home > Banking & Finance > Home Insurance >

Reviews for Lloyds TSB insuredirect


Be Warned: The Policy Doesn't Pay What It Says It Will Pay -  Lloyds TSB insuredirect Home Insurance
Lloyds TSB insuredirect 

Newest Review: ... the standard of their advisors over the telephone is better than others - the web site is easy to use - they offer a panel of insurers an... more

Be Warned: The Policy Doesn't Pay What It Says It Will Pay (Lloyds TSB insuredirect)

jlt12

Member Name: jlt12

Product:

Lloyds TSB insuredirect

Date: 24/05/03 (514 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Cheap

Disadvantages: Doesn't Pay

Okay...this is my first review on this site. No hidden agenda here, I am writing it because I am very upset with LLOYDS TSB Home Emergency Policy, underwritten through ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE.

I have held a Home Emergency policy for several years. The policy is supposed to cover home emergencies involving plumbing, electricity, external locks, heating system, and roof. It includes coverage of the first ₤100 of parts. The policy can be reviewed at https://www.insurance.co.uk/insurance/home/info/in foJhe.asp

My boiler broke down, leaving the house without hot water and heat. The heating system and boiler is clearly covered as referred to in the policy. The replacement part only cost ₤85, but they would not pay!

No warm bath for my 3 kids (including my 10-day old baby) would be provided by Lloyds or Royal and Sun Alliance on that night.

The first reason they gave for denial of the replacement part cost was "because the tradesman does not have the part on him." Several phone calls later, they apologized for giving me that reason, and decided the real reason was something different, which I will get to in a minute. The important point here, is that they were obviously LOOKING for a reason to deny coverage, or that reason would not have changed. For this alone, they have lost my trust.

Why would I continue to pay for a policy that won't pay when it is supposed to?

What is the real reason they refused to pay for the boiler replacement part? They referred to a clause in the policy which states "The insurance does not cover the cost of full repair or replacement, even when it is necessary following an emergency." Now, I understand that they will not pay to replace a whole boiler system when only one part is faulty...that is fair. But what they have done, is to use this clause to deny coverage for the replacement of only one part, because I would then have my heat and water
restored! This is exactly what the policy is supposed to do!

But ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE will not honor the policy and pay, although they have happily accepted my direct debit premiums for the last several years.

The denial is currently under review by their "Customer Relations Team." I will be sure and let my kids know, so they can rest well tonight knowing that Royal & Sun Alliance care enough to review Dad's claim denial, even if they don't care enough to cover the heat and water system the policy says they will cover. A measly ₤85...

If the denial is upheld, then BE WARNED that the no-full-repair clause could be used to deny any claim in which your emergency will be fixed, rendering the policy USELESS.

BOTTOM LINE: The policy seems like a good one until you need to use it, but it is apparently just a ploy to get your money each month.

More to follow...





Summary:

Last members to rate this review:
(3 members total)

majorb%2Fopinions4u%2Fsandra_dee%2F

View all 3 member ratings

Overall rating: Very useful

Nominate for a Crown:

See all newly Crowned Reviews

Last comments:
majorb

- 25/05/03

It does sound as though they are looking for any excuse not to pay. I hope everything works out for you and that they do pay up in the end.
jlt12

- 24/05/03

Wow! Thanks for the feedback. I can't beleive I have had this many people review since my post yesterday...very cool.

I also notice if you compose in Word and then paste to the site, you get some text errors (i.e. capitilization, "?", etc)
sandra_dee

- 24/05/03

welcome to dooyoo

i bank with lloyds but dont have this policy.

i think it was totally unacceptable to leave you in this situation with a 10 day old baby.


Top