UK: Hugely detrimental changes to Platinum travel insurance from January 25, 2012
Jan 8, 2012, 10:28 am
#152
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: London
Posts: 3,459
I still haven't had notification of the changes from Amex in relation to two of the cards in our household (but have recieved notification for one other). This is puzzling. Are Amex not changing the product for everyone, or are they not changing it for business cards, or IDC cards? Or are they completely incompetent. Bearing in mind I am entitled to at least 30 days notice of the changes, it appears I shall be enjoying the old terms and conditions for some time to come.
Last time I looked, the contract on the Amex website (referred to on the online application form) had not been changed. Now if Amex attempted to enforce the new contract on an applicant, that really would be unfair.
Jan 9, 2012, 2:52 am
#154
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Programs: BA Silver, IHG Diamond, Hilton Gold,
Posts: 558
You haven't been misled because the terms sent to you are the ones you should expect to be the ones that prevail. That is the whole idea of sending the booklet to you, which should reflect exactly what you were offered and what you paid for. It should merely confirm what you know. You're not psychic, the weegie board isn't the primary communication route and no changes that they wish to make have been negotiated with you.
You have explained exactly why attemtping to change the terms and conditions during the year is "unfair".
You have explained exactly why attemtping to change the terms and conditions during the year is "unfair".
I will feel slightly nervous paying for travel other than on an Amex in case I need to claim especially for car hire where there is a legal need to be insured.
Jan 9, 2012, 4:09 am
#155
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Programs: BA S, VS S, SQ G, HH D, IHG D/A, Marriott G, Radisson G, Hertz PC
Posts: 3,945
Although ironically that's one of the benefits where you don't have to pay on the card! (presumably due to the way they source that insurance)
Jan 9, 2012, 5:06 am
#156
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 11,969
UK1, I agree with what you have written - Amex do need to notify me of the T&C changes. The point I was trying to make was that as I was issued a card with old terms that are possibly going to be immediately varied to terms that existing customers have already been notified of. I would feel cheated (misled was probably the wrong word) that I had spent time reading the terms, applying for the various benefits that are on offer and then be told that there were changes. I will be waiting for the mail to see if a change of terms are sent.
I will feel slightly nervous paying for travel other than on an Amex in case I need to claim especially for car hire where there is a legal need to be insured.
I will feel slightly nervous paying for travel other than on an Amex in case I need to claim especially for car hire where there is a legal need to be insured.
I fully understood your point and was simply pointing out that whatever else was true or not - one thing that Amex couldn't avoid admitting is that long after they had imposed notice on others for a different product they were sucking you into buying a product they had no intention of delivering and that in your case at least they would have to keep faith.
A lot of what they are doing seems to me to several converging trends in their business.
Firstly inexperienced people are fixing strategies and new products without the degree of scrutiny there use to be in the past from both business practices (ie ethical and sensible marketing behaviour) and legal practices teams. Secondly there seems to in the new environment in which most financial organisations have long lost the degree of trust we all use to have in them, Amex have taken a commerical decision that they can allow their reputation to be eroded and the high cost they have been paying to maintain their reputation and ethos in order to make the odd opportunistic tactical financial gain. In the long term like many people here I'm certain that decision is commercially poor. It has taken decades to gain their reputation. But it is the sort of thing inexperienced people do who have pressing financial pressures placed on them. Placed over this the odd bit of plain incompetence.
For what it's worth .... and if you agree....... I think it is worthwhile explaining to Amex as individuals that you'd prefer to see a reasonable increase in the fee say £50 or £100 annually in order to protect the Rolls Royce nature of the card. The cost will be much lower than an individual pricing the componsents because not every member calls on all elements of the card. If they were told that by enough members then perhaps they'd think again. Most people who pay £300 will grunt but will find the extra and this profile of member are not the ones they want to upset or lose. That is better than a poorer card because that then doesn't avoid the aggravation and palaver most people are seeking with the continuing membership of the Plat Card sceme. One annual fee - everything covered without any suprises. I purposefully pay my home insurances through an expensive company rather than the lowest premiums to avoid potential hassle. It's the same to a degree with Plat members. Perhaps even salami slicing a further card for those that will and those that won't.
Last edited by uk1; Jan 9, 2012 at 5:24 am
Jan 9, 2012, 5:27 am
#157
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 23
Moi? Fat, Drunk, Lounge Lizard, Shuuurrly there mush be shome mishtake
What a puzzle. The UK Government is increasing the retirement age because people are healthier and living longer and are fit to work into the late 60's.
Meanwhile, the insurance industry through Amex, is saying "Whoa if you're over 70 you're just too risky to insure anymore because your health profile is getting worse than it was last year".
Either the over 70's are getting healthier or they're not. Of course it could be all us Amex Plat travelers are a high risk, fat, drunken, bunch of lounge lizards that wouldn't walk any further than a first class seat. (Checks mirror . . .. .hmmmmmm)
Meanwhile, the insurance industry through Amex, is saying "Whoa if you're over 70 you're just too risky to insure anymore because your health profile is getting worse than it was last year".
Either the over 70's are getting healthier or they're not. Of course it could be all us Amex Plat travelers are a high risk, fat, drunken, bunch of lounge lizards that wouldn't walk any further than a first class seat. (Checks mirror . . .. .hmmmmmm)
Jan 9, 2012, 5:46 am
#158
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 11,969
What a puzzle. The UK Government is increasing the retirement age because people are healthier and living longer and are fit to work into the late 60's.
Meanwhile, the insurance industry through Amex, is saying "Whoa if you're over 70 you're just too risky to insure anymore because your health profile is getting worse than it was last year".
Either the over 70's are getting healthier or they're not. Of course it could be all us Amex Plat travelers are a high risk, fat, drunken, bunch of lounge lizards that wouldn't walk any further than a first class seat. (Checks mirror . . .. .hmmmmmm)
Meanwhile, the insurance industry through Amex, is saying "Whoa if you're over 70 you're just too risky to insure anymore because your health profile is getting worse than it was last year".
Either the over 70's are getting healthier or they're not. Of course it could be all us Amex Plat travelers are a high risk, fat, drunken, bunch of lounge lizards that wouldn't walk any further than a first class seat. (Checks mirror . . .. .hmmmmmm)
The issue is that as people live longer and travel more as they get over the Amex age thresholds they are certainly traveling more and probably making more use of this insurance whereas in earlier times they would be staying at home knitting. With older healthier people comes with it more traveling and therefore more claims. There is also sadly a generational slippage in that it seems that people are now more likely to make a claim when previously they wouldn't have done for example with possession damage or loss.
As a result their underwriters would have offered to continue cover but at an increased premium. They have concluded they would prefer to stay wedded to the premium ie some bit of focus group has told them that if they increase the fee they will lose x number of members and so they thought they could slip these changes through and the number of members they would lose would be less than those lost by increasing the annual fee.
They may of course be right.
Jan 9, 2012, 1:54 pm
#159
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: London
Posts: 3,459
UK1, I agree with what you have written - Amex do need to notify me of the T&C changes. The point I was trying to make was that as I was issued a card with old terms that are possibly going to be immediately varied to terms that existing customers have already been notified of. I would feel cheated (misled was probably the wrong word) that I had spent time reading the terms, applying for the various benefits that are on offer and then be told that there were changes. I will be waiting for the mail to see if a change of terms are sent.
I will feel slightly nervous paying for travel other than on an Amex in case I need to claim especially for car hire where there is a legal need to be insured.
I will feel slightly nervous paying for travel other than on an Amex in case I need to claim especially for car hire where there is a legal need to be insured.
Jan 9, 2012, 1:55 pm
#160
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: LAX and LHR. UA lifetime Gold 1.9MM 1K , DL Gold Medallion, HHonors Gold, Marriott Gold, Avis President's Club
Posts: 3,592
I checked my records - complaint logged by email on 14th December. Received the "5 day response" letter on 20th December. This says "We will be investigating your issue". The enclosed complaint handling procedure says that they endeavour to resolve issues within 24 hours. More complex issues should be resolved within 4 weeks and even more complex issues within 8. If no response after 8 weeks I can go to the ombudsman
Jan 9, 2012, 2:00 pm
#161
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: LAX and LHR. UA lifetime Gold 1.9MM 1K , DL Gold Medallion, HHonors Gold, Marriott Gold, Avis President's Club
Posts: 3,592
As a point of reference I have been scouting around for Worldwide Annual Travel Insurance giving me the same level of cover as my Amex Plat (which with supplementary cardholders and their partners is currently covering 7 adults), and I am getting quotes of around £480. And they don't even cover all UK trips, where there is usually a stipulation of 2 pre booked hotel nights or more. Nor do they cover gap years.
I too have been scouting around in a different scenario — just the Mrs and me, no children to worry about. On a first online search, I find I can get the same level of annual worldwide cover up to age 75 for less than £150. It's a no-brainer, isn't it? Now to see what my brother-in-law, an insurance broker, can come up with. (He always beats the online guys.)
Jan 10, 2012, 12:15 am
#162
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 11,969
I know "everyone" knows this so I mean the reminder only for those that forget.
Under absolutely no circumstances buy travel insurance cover without informing the insurers in writing (and receiving written confirmation of acceptance) of all current and previous medications you are and have received and any topic on which you have consulted a doctor.
Under absolutely no circumstances buy travel insurance cover without informing the insurers in writing (and receiving written confirmation of acceptance) of all current and previous medications you are and have received and any topic on which you have consulted a doctor.
Jan 10, 2012, 3:18 am
#163
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Tyrone,EU
Programs: Avios Hunter
Posts: 2,812
I know "everyone" knows this so I mean the reminder only for those that forget.
Under absolutely no circumstances buy travel insurance cover without informing the insurers in writing (and receiving written confirmation of acceptance) of all current and previous medications you are and have received and any topic on which you have consulted a doctor.
Under absolutely no circumstances buy travel insurance cover without informing the insurers in writing (and receiving written confirmation of acceptance) of all current and previous medications you are and have received and any topic on which you have consulted a doctor.
Prior to plat, I used insured and go, and their front line premium would increase by 30-40% when told about my BP issues med.
Jan 10, 2012, 3:53 am
#164
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 11,969
Which of course is one of the un-mentioned major benefits of the plat insurance, they don't require any such medical history and therefore don't have inflated premiums for common things like blood pressure.
Prior to plat, I used insured and go, and their front line premium would increase by 30-40% when told about my BP issues med.
Prior to plat, I used insured and go, and their front line premium would increase by 30-40% when told about my BP issues med.
Jan 10, 2012, 4:26 am
#165
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 11,969
In case anyone is interested in the way that the ombudsman may react to banks or credit card companies making changes to travel cover after a premium has been made they may be interested in this. Although the link deals with the disclosure or non disclosure of medical conditions it also talks about:
This doesn't directly fit this complaint but the ombudsman is very clear that a policy remains in all important terms unchanged during it's premium paid life. It must be read in conjuction with the ombudsmans views on unfair contract terms.
The ombudsman also deals with situations where terms of the contract would be considered "unfair". This would obviously include an agreement where the bank states that they can make "any change they want" in other words changing the contract after it has been made. Some idea of how they treat this is included under their guidance on banking contracts
I hope this is of interest to those contemplating making complaints and helps also to understand how far the laws and ombudsman leans towards the rights of the public in these issues. The right to withdraw cover after a premium has been made is an area I believe the ombudsman would almost certainly rule in the favour of a member.
Naturally debates about these issues are interesting - but I post them for people to read and make their own minds up for themselves rather than engage me with their reasons why they think they are irrelevant!
We are likely to uphold a complaint where a financial business does not bring these exclusions and warranties to the consumer’s attention when they take out the policy. In the cases we see, we usually decide that it is not enough simply to remind the consumer to read the policy – and cancel it within the “cooling off period” if it does not meet their requirements.
In deciding whether a policy was mis-sold, we ask the financial business for clear evidence that the exclusion or warranty was drawn to the consumer’s attention before they committed to buying it.
In deciding whether a policy was mis-sold, we ask the financial business for clear evidence that the exclusion or warranty was drawn to the consumer’s attention before they committed to buying it.
The ombudsman also deals with situations where terms of the contract would be considered "unfair". This would obviously include an agreement where the bank states that they can make "any change they want" in other words changing the contract after it has been made. Some idea of how they treat this is included under their guidance on banking contracts
When we look at banking disputes involving contracts, we take into account the firm’s duties under the Banking Codes. We consider relevant statutes, such as the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999. We also consider the Financial Services Authority’s Statement of Practice, Fairness of Terms in Consumer Contracts (published in May 2005). This gives firms an indication of how they can avoid using terms that could be regarded as unfair. It is particularly relevant when we look at terms to do with interest rate variation.
In addition, and very importantly, we are required to decide what is ‘fair and reasonable’ in a given case. This may mean deviating from the ordinary or strict legal position where that is necessary to ensure a fair outcome.
Among the more common issues we come across are the following.
unusual or onerous terms
There is a legal rule that a term which is particularly unusual or onerous – and would not be generally known to the customer – is only binding on the customer if the firm has brought it fairly and reasonably to their attention before the contract is made.
We often need to consider this rule in the context of early repayment charges on mortgages. But it also applies to any unusual or onerous contract terms, including those in business banking contracts.
unfair contract terms
Sometimes the law simply provides that a contract term is unfair.
Examples are terms that
unreasonably try to exclude or limit a firm’s liability for breach of contract; or
unfairly tilt the balance of a consumer contract too far in the firm’s favour.
real consent
Customers will not be bound by a contract if they did not freely agree to enter into it and the firm was on notice of this.
Examples include situations where
the customer lacks the mental capacity to understand the nature of the contract and the firm knows that; or
the firm knows that a customer is being pressured or unfairly influenced into agreeing to be responsible for another person’s debts.
terms that do not form part of the contract
To be enforceable under the contract, a term must first be properly incorporated into it. We sometimes find that firms try to add terms after the contract has been finalised, or to infer terms that could not reasonably be inferred from what the contract says. It may be that, with hindsight, a firm wishes it had included a particular term. But unless that term was properly incorporated into the contract we will not apply it.
In addition, and very importantly, we are required to decide what is ‘fair and reasonable’ in a given case. This may mean deviating from the ordinary or strict legal position where that is necessary to ensure a fair outcome.
Among the more common issues we come across are the following.
unusual or onerous terms
There is a legal rule that a term which is particularly unusual or onerous – and would not be generally known to the customer – is only binding on the customer if the firm has brought it fairly and reasonably to their attention before the contract is made.
We often need to consider this rule in the context of early repayment charges on mortgages. But it also applies to any unusual or onerous contract terms, including those in business banking contracts.
unfair contract terms
Sometimes the law simply provides that a contract term is unfair.
Examples are terms that
unreasonably try to exclude or limit a firm’s liability for breach of contract; or
unfairly tilt the balance of a consumer contract too far in the firm’s favour.
real consent
Customers will not be bound by a contract if they did not freely agree to enter into it and the firm was on notice of this.
Examples include situations where
the customer lacks the mental capacity to understand the nature of the contract and the firm knows that; or
the firm knows that a customer is being pressured or unfairly influenced into agreeing to be responsible for another person’s debts.
terms that do not form part of the contract
To be enforceable under the contract, a term must first be properly incorporated into it. We sometimes find that firms try to add terms after the contract has been finalised, or to infer terms that could not reasonably be inferred from what the contract says. It may be that, with hindsight, a firm wishes it had included a particular term. But unless that term was properly incorporated into the contract we will not apply it.
Naturally debates about these issues are interesting - but I post them for people to read and make their own minds up for themselves rather than engage me with their reasons why they think they are irrelevant!