Online Desk : Insurance insurers and warranty providers seem to rewrite their terms and conditions to avoid payments during the coronavirus epidemic. The London RP received an invitation from her online travel agent to buy canceled security when she booked a hotel room last December.
The cover, provided by RoomerFlex, promises an 80% refund for cancellations “for any reason, no questions asked” which was a relief when Covid-19 put paid to RP’s trip next month.
The part about any question is true. RumorFlex has decided to dismiss all claims regardless of the reason for the “unprecedented” situation. The epidemic is, it seems, forgotten to mention the small print. Since Romerflex works in partnership with a number of travel booking platforms, a large number of customers find that the only return they will receive is their £ 8 dollar premium – which Romerflex says may take up to 150 days to process.
The Financial Conduct Authority, which regulates insurance in the UK, said it was powerless because Romerflex is a US company that sells its canceled room to fund its guarantee and is therefore offering a service instead of insurance. Rumor was contacted for comment.
The landlord who purchased the Premier Rent Guarantee service provided by the leasing agent leaders has likewise been relinquished. The service promises to pay the rent if the tenant falls in arrears. An AN lives on the way to income from a property coming from Kent in the Philippines. He paid £ 36.86 a month for a guarantee and assumed that if his pensioners fell behind on rent due to epidemics, it would protect him.
However, like the RumorFlex, leaders have written to homeowners that guarantees nothing after being worried about an epidemic, though there is no mention of an epidemic in the exclusion list. Unlike RumorFlex, those who now consider themselves insecure are not offering a substantial refund of cover. Leaders were contacted for comment.
The wife of LJ and Howards Heath bought a £ 95 standard multi-trip travel insurance policy from Zurich for her May trip to Thailand. “The summary shows that we are not covered for travel [if it is] against the advice of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office [FCO],” he wrote.
“It seems likely this will apply to us, but the website now shows that standard policy holders should not be covered. This has put us in a Catch-22 situation. ”
Zurich told the Observer that a list of all possible exceptions could not be made, so customers were instead notified of specific situations where cancellations were covered. Given how insurers rely on small print to avoid claims, this is not good enough.
The answer to which Zurich shows me in its small print. On the 68৮ page of the information document issued to the LJ, the cover for the FCO modified consultation is mentioned, but only applies to those who have additional policy requirements. This rather displeases Zurich’s claim that it cannot include all possible exceptions. The Financial Ombudsman Service may decide if it is unfair.-Internet
