The Animal Insurance Trap (Pet Plan)

Member Name: aefra

Product:	Pet Plan
Date:	01/02/02 (1299 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: A worthwhile gamble?

Disadvantages: No consideration given to non-claimants

I discovered that animal insurance was available about 15 years ago. Since then it has always been my policy (no pun intended) to insure my dogs. Principally because if one of them was seriously ill, or involved in an accident, I would dread to think that the cost of treatment was an issue. In fact I would have found the money somehow.

A few years ago my beloved lhasa apso, Gin, was insured with Pet Plan. The payment rose gradually to £98 pa, which I paid monthly by direct debit. I had one moderate claim when symptoms required a preventative operation, and my claim was paid promptly. However, when Gin reached 11 years old, I received a letter from Pet Plan stating that as he was over 8 years old my annual fee would now be raised to £240. I took the hint and cancelled the policy. I was only one of many since the TV programme, Watchdog, covered this issue. By this time I wished to insure my jack russell terrier, Jody, and was advised by a friend that Dog Breeders Insurance were now offering policies to non-breeders at reasonable rates.

Before completing my telephone application with DBI, I told them of my previous unhappy experience and asked them if I could be assured that Jody would be insured for her lifetime. I was told that this was so. That when she reached 10 years old I would be asked to cover a £50 excess and that would be all. Since I have always had an excess of this amount, I accepted gratefully. Three years ago I took into my household a rescue lhasa apso, Missy, and promptly insured her with DBI. My monthly payments were now £15 for the 2 dogs.

Approximately a year ago I learned that DBI had merged with Pet Plan. Shortly afterwards I received a letter from DBI announcing the merger and informing me that, since my dogs were now over 8 years old, my monthly payment would now rise to £27. Not only had the premium risen from £180pa to £324pa, but the excess would rise to £100 for each treatment and I would be expected to
pay 35% of the cost. Added to this was the demand that my dogs should each have an annual dental inspection, in itself often a costly business. At this point I would like to say that neither Jody nor Missy had been the subject of any claim. The final paragraph of the letter from DBI suggested that perhaps I wouldn`t want to pay the new premium. In other words I had been thrown out, with 2 dogs now uninsurable because of their ages.

I don`t know how we can deal with this extortion. It would not be unusual for a pet owner to keep an animal for 8 years without a claim. Particularly if an excess was held on the policy. After helping to fill the coffers of the insurance companies, we can be dropped without redress just at the time they may be called upon. If "extortion" is too harsh a word, how about "welching""?

Maybe the veterinary surgeons have some responsibility for this. The clients' records state whether or not the animal is insured. Do fees reflect this, so pushing up the premiums?

In future I shall take a chance and put a monthly amount in an account for possible veterinary fees.

Summary: