Purely Pets insurance forced to pay out by Financial Ombudsman Service

Tiddlypom

Tiddlypom

Carries on creakily
Joined
17 July 2013
Messages
25,872
Location
In between the Midlands and the North
Visit site
Purely Pets have been forced by the Financial Ombudsman Service to pay out £8k for vets fees for an injured dog on a policy which they had cancelled. They don’t come out of it at all well. Purely Pets had initially agreed to pay, but then cancelled the policy without informing the policy holder who had proceeded with the necessary treatment. PP tried to pretend that a dog who does dog agility is a ‘working dog’ so that the policy was invalid.

I self insure as I don’t trust horse or pet insurance at all, they make their profits by looking at every which way to avoid paying out on claims. Glad that Purely Pets got their comeuppance in this case.

Good on the dog’s owner for standing her ground.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn4vkw1lrz0o?app-referrer=deep-link
 
Last edited:
I'm surprised that agility is insured under a regular policy really. I'd have thought it would be more expensive. Either way the poor dog wasn't even injured doing agility so it should have been irrelevant.
Insurance complanies can be a nightmare
 
poiuytrewq said:
I'm surprised that agility is insured under a regular policy really. I'd have thought it would be more expensive. Either way the poor dog wasn't even injured doing agility so it should have been irrelevant.
Insurance complanies can be a nightmare
Click to expand...
But if agility should maybe more expensive then surely flyball (think that’s the name) should be as well…
 
It’s a slippery slope isn’t it.
If flyball and agility are working what about the gundog scurry at the local show and what about ‘real’ showing. I guess there could be categories of use like with horses.
 
I kind of think it's not unreasonable if a dog working sheep eight hours a day has a different insurance price than a fat toy mutt that goes for a 20min waddle before dinner

(But the pooch/penguin hybrid should be the one paying higher prices.)
 
I think that I vaguely know this lady, though I'm not completely sure if it is the same person (if not then very similar details and I'm terrible with names). Anyway, if it is the person that I'm thinking of, she has a few herding dogs (maybe 4) and all are pets that she does various things with like agility, but she also has a small flock of pet sheep on her property (think like 6 sheep), so I think the insurer was trying to argue that they were working dogs because of the sheep, and then pivoted into 'oh but also the dog sports' as they meandered down their weird road of trying not to pay out.

Glad she managed to challenge them successfully.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top