 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Can I suggest someone with an issue getting in touch with one of the national newspaper's Consumer Affairs journalists? It might trigger someone into acting if there is press involvement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
I've been considering this, I was just so appalled when the ombudsman tried to weasel out doing anything. They said since the insurance underwriter is a foreign company they can't help since "this service can only consider complaints about activities which take place from an establishment in the United Kingdom."
After six months of waiting my complaint has only got as far as an 'investigator'. I've requested that it go further up the food chain up to an ombudsman on the grounds my complaint is against a UK establishment but they've told me they will probably reach the same conclusion. Now I'm annoyed both at MPI and the lousy enforcement, it seems like its buyer beware FCA regulation or not. You shouldn't have to depend on consumer champions to get help.
But yeh I'm going to put it all in an email and either go to you and yours or the Guardian. Jessica used to be good at the Telegraph but I think she's left.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
@dora_the_pow_explorer, try small claims court, more likely to get an outcome vs a newspaper I'd suggest?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
@dora_the_pow_explorer, you could complain to the FCA and ask them for an update. The FCA told them in July to: stop dealing with overseas insurers who were not authorised in the UK, identify any customer for whom it had placed business with an overseas insurer and whether there was any associated risk of harm, provide a remediation plan for such customers, and notify each one within 5 days. (More details on the FCA Register site).
This should all have been done last summer. If you think they have failed to comply, the FCA will certainly be interested. But whether that will have more effect than a press /social media campaign is moot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
I’ll try that but I thought the FCA generally encourage you to go to the financial ombudsman? I didn’t realise you could contact them directly. At this stage I’ll feel like I’ll talk to anyone who’ll listen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
@dora_the_pow_explorer, I'm not sure the FCA will get involved with your actual claim, but they ought to be able to tell you where they are at with enforcing the disciplinary process against MPI, if there are some outstanding actions still to be completed or policyholders updated etc. If MPI haven't done what they were supposed to do then FCA should jump on them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok good to know, I’ll try them tomorrow. Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Have not responded to enquiries,for which I apologise. But I had news today. I had an email from MPI which sort of suggested that my claim is still live. Will look into it tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notification of Voluntary Requirments
Dear Wendy johnson Houghton,
We are writing with reference to your travel insurance policy, ……,with MPI Brokers and we are obliged to notify you of the following:
Your Travel insurance policy was arranged by us, MPI Brokers, with insurers overseas* as described at the time of purchase, in your policy and also highlighted in the accompanying purchase email.
After being approached by the Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”), on 12 July 2024, as requested by the FCA, we made a voluntary application for a restriction to be placed on our permission, which prevented us from placing any further business with insurers based outside the United Kingdom. The FCA was concerned that our arrangements with these overseas insurers brought their activities within the UK regulatory regime, meaning that they may be undertaking activities that they do not have the necessary permission for.
This does not affect the validity of your insurance, your insurance remains valid and enforceable, and you continue to benefit from the cover provided. If you would like to see the requirement, please click here: https://register.fca.org.uk/s/firm?id=001b000000MfXFLAA3#what-can-this-firm-do-restrictions.
Those with outstanding claims will be contacted very shortly with an update on the status of the claim.
If you have questions, please email claims@mpibrokers.com.
If you are not happy with the service that MPI Brokers has provided, you should complain to us in the first instance; to do so, please email claims@mpibrokers.com. If we are unable to resolve your complaint or fail to do so within 8 weeks, you can complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service. You can contact the Financial Ombudsman Service via their website (financial-ombudsman.org.uk), by email (complaint.info@financial-ombudsman.org.uk) or by phone (0800 023 4567).
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Another complaint to the ombudsman then given they've had more than a year.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
If you have not yet complained to the Obudsman make a formal complaint on the MPI website first. You have to wait 8 weeks before going to the Ombudsman.
Give the Obudsman the full details.
In addition add this (also for those who have already complained).
The policy document if the same as mine (check yours) detailed two INSURANCE COMPANIES as the carriers of the risk.
ICICI Lombard and Swan Insurance.
The email issued this week makes it clear that the insurance was put through Swan which is NOT an Insurance Company.
It is an agency with no Insurance Issuing License of its own.
This was a fundamental misrepresentation of the most important part of the policy.
I (and you) would never have bought the policy if it was clear Swan was not an Insurance Company and was in fact acting on behalf of other (at the time) unidentified third party insurers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Murky waters ?
"..Swan International based in Bahrain underwrite as an agent of a Paris based insurer who
hold a Standard & Poor’s rating of A and also have a long experience in domestic and
international travel insurance. Being part of a large conglomerate, whose parent company
is Fairfax Financial Holdings Ltd., brings an added level of security.."
https://www.mpibrokers.com/documents/MPI%20underwriters%20-%20Description.pdf
" At MPI we have taken the bold decision to move our underwriting capacity offshore. This
has allowed us greater flexibility in the areas of product design including the ability to
handle our own claims and to insure Resort Staff of any nationality as well as those on EU
con- tracts of employment."
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
MPI have gone into administration as of Mid November
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| albob wrote: |
Murky waters ?
" At MPI we have taken the bold decision to move our underwriting capacity offshore. This
has allowed us greater flexibility in the areas of product design including the ability to
handle our own claims and to insure Resort Staff of any nationality as well as those on EU
con- tracts of employment." |
So the "bold" decision turns out to have been a flawed one as well....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
@Wendyjh, did you ever get your claim paid out?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| brokenlance wrote: |
| MPI have gone into administration as of Mid November |
That's a shame, until their recent problems I previously found them very good and their policy was by far the most suitable for my needs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Certainly is a pretty tainted legacy for Michael Pettifer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Quote: |
| That's a shame, until their recent problems I previously found them very good and their policy was by far the most suitable for my needs. |
Yes, a shame indeed. They were very good (and very sympathetic) in dealing with, and sorting out fairly swiftly, Mrs MA's *£10k claim in 2023 after she broke her leg skiing in Japan. (*The bulk of that was on repatriation/rearranged flights, including an upgrade to business class for the patient.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
I never got my claim sorted, I was contacted just like @Wendyjh to say my claim was still active. Part of me wonders if that email was because I notified the FCA directly that MPI were still trying to trade. Shortly after, this summer, I was able for the first time in a year to contact them on the phone. The lady behaved as if everything was normal and my claim was still being processed, I was incredulous. I said I'd be taking them to small claims court if I hadn't heard from them in six weeks. Sadly it's been a rough year for me financially so I couldn't afford the £300 to bring the claim till I got paid by last job. Now that I was about to take them to court I'd thought I'd better google them again and I read they've finally done the decent thing and declared insolvency. Presumably, hopefully, maybe... outstanding claims are covered by the FSCS? I hope so for all the people who got shafted. I'm down the £1,200 I spent on the season's insurance and the a not dissimilar amount I shelled out after a bag got stolen.
After 9 months the ombudsman upheld my complaint but offered me a paltry £120 which I would have had to again take them to small claims court to get and would have invalidated any claim for the outstanding amount. The whole thing just feels like the Wild West.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@dora_the_pow_explorer, that is a truly shocking story. So sorry. Insurance so often appears to be a complete rip-off and/or scam. Don't even get me started on private health insurance in general and Vitality Health in particular.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@dora_the_pow_explorer, that is shocking, but surely MPI are just the broker / claims handler and the policy is actually underwritten by an insurer who is (presumably) still trading? And therefore they are still liable for the claim (although accept that actually getting it processed may be the difficult part)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
@Tubaski, as I recall, the problems all started with MPI 'losing' their original underwriter and not being able to find a new one. Though what lay behind all that I don't know, or indeed the terms under which the eventual new underwriter (can't remember who that was) took on the liability. Alternatively, my memory, such as it is, could be completely at fault.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| KSH wrote: |
| @Tubaski, as I recall, the problems all started with MPI 'losing' their original underwriter and not being able to find a new one. Though what lay behind all that I don't know, or indeed the terms under which the eventual new underwriter (can't remember who that was) took on the liability. Alternatively, my memory, such as it is, could be completely at fault. |
I think that's correct, as I understood the original underwriter decided to withdraw from the travel insurance market (whether that was the truth or the whole truth who knows?). I also think that as part of the move to the new underwriter that MPI decided (or needed) to do their own claims handling, which they seems to have not been very effective at.
But I think my point still stands that the policy itself was still underwritten, so there should still be someone liable for outstanding claims.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
@Tubaski, wasn't the FCA issue with MPI that they'd engaged an overseas underwriter? If so, I'm guessing that could complicate things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
@Tubaski, I agree "someone" ought to be liable, it's grotesque that a service for protection, for which payment is taken, should leave someone completely unprotected. However, we don't know the terms on which the new underwriter took on the risk; I'm guessing they might have been favourable to the underwriter, but not to a claimant. As consumers, should we be investigating the underwriters as closely (or not!) as the insurers? I don't know. I don't know enough about insurance and I'm as guilty as the next person of not delving sufficiently into the small print, embarrassed as I am to admit that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| sugarmoma666 wrote: |
| @Tubaski, wasn't the FCA issue with MPI that they'd engaged an overseas underwriter? If so, I'm guessing that could complicate things. |
Yes, I think you are correct (on both counts)
| KSH wrote: |
| we don't know the terms on which the new underwriter took on the risk; I'm guessing they might have been favourable to the underwriter, but not to a claimant |
Is that not standard procedure 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| sugarmoma666 wrote: |
| @Tubaski, wasn't the FCA issue with MPI that they'd engaged an overseas underwriter? If so, I'm guessing that could complicate things. |
ah, I'd forgotten that. Even worse.
As usual, it's the well-heeled who win out ie those who can afford to self-insure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
The thing is I thought they had a great reputation as both an instructor friend and the company I was taking the trip with recommended them. They were easily the most expensive of the options I investigated prior to purchase which generally with insurance makes you feel safe. It never would have occurred to me to look at the small print about the underwriters in those circumstances.
I'm going to contact the liquidator on Monday and see what the deal is. The overseas underwriter is probably the issue, I'm guessing if it was just a case of administrating the claims everyone would have been paid out by now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| dora_the_pow_explorer wrote: |
| The thing is I thought they had a great reputation |
They did the cover was superb and I had a good experience with a previous claim which was handled swiftly. However, after they were forced to change underwriters things went downhill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Quote: |
it's the well-heeled who win out ie those who can afford to self-insure
|
it's the self-insurers who win out when there are no mishaps and no claims, but when there ARE mishaps it's the people who get paid out by their insurers who "win" (if you can describe being evacuated with a nasty injury as a win) at the expense of the large majority who pay premiums but don't claim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
Oops, incorrect quote.
Last edited by Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see? on Sat 3-01-26 11:51; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
@Origen, well, obviously an insurance claim which is actually successful is a win! But the whole process, including the claim, is a hassle which the wealthy don't have to endure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Tubaski wrote: |
| dora_the_pow_explorer wrote: |
| The thing is I thought they had a great reputation |
They did the cover was superb and I had a good experience with a previous claim which was handled swiftly. However, after they were forced to change underwriters things went downhill. |
same for me
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| sugarmoma666 wrote: |
| @Tubaski, wasn't the FCA issue with MPI that they'd engaged an overseas underwriter? If so, I'm guessing that could complicate things. |
The problem wasn't just an overseas underwriter, but rather that that underwriter was not authorised to write business in the UK. As such I don't think the FSCS will be able to help.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
As such I don't think the FSCS will be able to help.
|
That's really depressing and the same excuse the FCA Ombudsman took, they wouldn't comment or rule on the claims themselves because of the overseas aspect - just the stonewalling / lack of communication. Even if I'd taken the £120 offered by the ombudsman I can't imagine I'd have ever got it by the time I'd gone through the small claims courts. Looking at the news reports the company has wound up with close to half a million in debt. I'm curious what the insolvency practitioner will say, at least they'll hopefully pick up the phone.
Still seems wild to me that the FCA / FSCS can't or won't help and that the ombudsman was as good as useless. It would appear in the case of "bold decisions" by insurance brokers the whole system breaks down for the consumer - not very robust.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can someone say who the overseas insurer was please. "I know a bloke, who knows a bloke, who knows a bloke....." Sexy Beast
According to the FCA:
Some activities by this firm may not be protected
This firm is shown on the Register because it is now, or was previously, approved by the FCA (or relevant regulatory body). As a result, you may be able to complain about this firm to the Financial Ombudsman Service. If this firm goes out of business owing you money you may be able to claim compensation from the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS). However, this is not always the case and these organisations may not cover some of this firm’s activities. If you would like to check what is and what isn’t covered, you can ask this firm to confirm this to you in writing. There’s more information on the Financial Ombudsman Service’s websiteopens in a new window and the FSCS’s websiteopens in a new window about the kind of complaints and claims they can help with. The final decision on whether or not they will consider any complaint or claim is for the Financial Ombudsman Service or the FSCS.
Also:
This firm is in an insolvency process. It is under the control of the appointed insolvency office holder(s) and may have stopped taking on new business. It remains authorised and has to continue to meet our regulatory standards, including when dealing with its customers. If you are/were a customer check how this affects you with the firm or the appointed insolvency office holder(s).
And I suggest it is worth contacting the liquidator because the firm is still regulated and has to treat customers fairly:
c/o Robert Cooksey of Bridgestones Limited
+44 1617853700
mail@bridgestones.co.uk
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
@Phantom Phil, it says above it was Swan Holdings based in Bahrain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Hells Bells, thanks, I'll talk to a bloke I know
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
