Of Laws and Men

I forgot to mention in my previous entry that, in asking the QSM to review the exclusion of part of my claim, I added a suggestion that the mis-handling of the claim warranted a payment of a modest amount to compensate for my inconvenience and stress.

To be fair to the insurer, my e-mails querying the lack of progress (see last entry) this morning received, as usual, prompt replies.

The claims-handler apologised for (but did not explain) the delay in the cheque but said that it was in the mail.While I was actually reading her message, the postman arrived with it. It was posted from London on Friday (day 68).

The QSM said that she had indeed sent the promised formal acknowledgement by post, and enclosed an electronic copy. So, here we have a second letter - the form allegedly sent on Day 2 has still not shown up - from the insurer that fails to arrive.

From the said electronic copy, I learn that I may have to wait until July 9 (Day 87) to get a final reply.

Day 54-58

In the words of the late Harry Chapin

time went by, as it always does ...

Day 59

Today, I request the Manager of the insurer's Quality Standards Department to review the refusal to pay the remaining €21.50. You may remember that the claims-handler originally claimed that there was no such person and that it was not possible to send e-mail to the department. Although she subsequently gave up the manager's name, she did not provide an e-mail address for her. She did offer to transmit my complaint if I e-mailed it to her.

It is almost certainly a breach of the applicable regulations on the insurer's part to suggest this, but I decide that ordinary mail would be too slow. In deference to the matter of principle, I resist sending the complaint to the claims-handler, e-mailing it instead to the Travel Claims Department.

Of course, my "friend", the claims-handler, acknowledges the e-mail which "has been passed to me" and a few hours later it turns out that the Quality Standards Manager has, after all, not only a name but an e-mail address, because I receive a further acknowledgement from her:

Dear Mr O'Rourke

Thank you for your email.

Your concerns will addressed by a member of my team and a formal acknowledgement will be sent to you shortly detailing our complaints handling process.

Kind regards

S***** B****

Quality Standards Manager

Let's pass over the "Kind regards" in silent astonishment and note the signature as "Quality Standards Manager", a post that did not appear to exist a few days ago. Note also the first initial of the manager - the claims-handler knew so little about her "referee" that she thought that her initials were CB rather than SB.

Days 60-69

That Chapin line is a good one, isn't it ?

Day 70

Well, more than two weeks have now passed, and there is no sign either of the cheque for €40 promised on Day 52 or of the formal acknowledgement promised by the QSM.

Tomorrow, I will be asking the company to explain the delay.

Today, the first cheque arrived, in the amount of €122.06, which, with the refund to my credit-card account, brings the amount recovered to €205.10 (out of total expenditure, net of insurance premiums, of €316.60). As we saw yesterday, another €40 is on the way, leaving only €21.50 still outstanding before I reach my minimum acceptable figure of €266.60 (€183.56 from the insurer) which is the €316.60 minus the "excesses" of €50.

By the way, the arrival of the cheque proves that the postal system does work. This makes it all the more mysterious why the claim form allegedly posted on Day 2 has not yet arrived.

I am confident that the €21.50, which represents the "credit-card booking fees" paid for two return airline tickets and for reserving accommodation, will be paid, if only as "nuisance-money" to "get rid of" me. There is no doubt in my mind that I am entitled to it, though. I am therefore going to continue to fight for it, not only for my own sake but for all the future claimants who will hopefully benefit from the "softening-up" I give the insurer.

Let's look now at the excuse being offered by the insurer for continuing to with-hold the final €21.50:

due to the fact this is a booking charge as such this is a used cost and the policy only provides cover for unused travel costs.

I have to admit that the term "used cost" is not one that meant anything to me, but I eventually decide that it refers to this sentence in the policy

We will pay ... for your part of unused personal accommodation, transport charges and other travel expenses...

(emphasis added by me)

What the claims-handler is contending for is that this means that if an expense can plausibly be described as "used", it is not recoverable. I "used" the €21.50 not to pay for my trip - if I had, so the argument runs, I could have recovered it - but for the convenience of using my credit card to pay for the flights and to reserve my accommodation.

Ingenious, huh ? I am more inclined to see it as verging on fraud, and I am tempted to ring Insurance Confidential and report the insurance company. Every time I look at this poster:

the inclination to do so grows. Time will whether I will be able to resist - after all, it might give rise to a saga at least as interesting as the current one !

Let's note in passing that the airline - which introduced this insurer to me - facilitates this kind of chicanery by breaking down what is essentially one cost into several component parts.

I may explain later why the insurer's excuse for excluding this €21.50 is legal nonsense.

The polls have closed, but the ballot boxes are still sealed. It's time to prognosticate.Fresh from the, er, triumph of my 2007 predictions, I offer here my guesses for the results of the European Elections in four of the Irish constituencies. (I am ashamed, as someone with 1/4 Belfast blood, and with quite a few friends and relatives over the border, to confess that I have not followed the campaign in the occupied territories at all).

OVERVIEW

This election takes place in circumstances without precedent. The most prosperous period ever in Ireland has come to a most unpleasant end. Both domestic and international cirumstances have conspired in a vicious way, resulting in deflation, tax hikes, bank failures, job losses and pay cuts.

Just before the crash, the politician most identified with the boom, Bertie Ahern, left office as Taoiseach (Prime Minister) to be succeeded by the man who was Finance Minister for the previous five years. Almost immediately, things started to go wrong.

The Government is a coalition mainly composed of his party, Fianna Fail, and the Green Party. The latter is new and small (national support 5-10% at best) but Fianna Fail, founded by De Valera, has dominated Irish politics for 80 years and for all of that long time until recent months, when polls suggest it only has 20-25%, could rely on support of 38-47%. Even 12 months ago, its opinion poll rating was above 40%.

(It should be noted that a 20% share of the vote will normally be sufficient to ensure one seat per constituency in our multi-seat proportional representation system.)

The question here is whether incumbent Eoin Ryan (FF) can hold on in the face of the collapse in his party's support, and poor showing in the opinion polls, and if not, who will take his seat.I incline to think that he will not - though I will not be surprised if I am wrong - and that rogue Green former M.E.P. Patricia McKenna will sneak in, joining Mitchell and de Rossa as the new M.E.P.s. If I am wrong about McKenna, Socialist Joe Higgins may benefit, or it might even be Deirdre de Burca (Green). I am pretty certain that Sinn Fein's McDonald will succumb to the concerted onslaught against her.

In this constituency, Fine Gael have two, Fianna Fail one, but one of the FG incumbents has retired and the Labour candidate, a former Green, but with a splendid Fianna Fail pedigree, is likely to take the third seat.

I predict McGuinness, Aylward and Childers.

South

My sense is that sitting Independent Sinnott will lose her seat. The question is: who will replace her ? Labour is probably the most likely, but I will not be astonished if FG take a second, and Senator Dan Boyle (Green) may surprise everyone, despite a late start to his campaign.

Prediction: Crowley, Kelly, Kelly.

North/West

Currently represented by one FF, one FG and Independent Marian Harkin, the main questions here are whether Libertas's Declan Ganley can make it, and if he does, whether it will be Harkin or FF (whose sitting MEP is retiring) that lose out.

I don't think Ganley will make it, though it might be closer than polls suggest, so I expect Higgins, Gallagher and Harkin to be elected.

Having simmered-down again somewhat, I e-mail the insurer:

I suggest that you, and/or the person who has instructed you to reply in that manner, refresh your knowledge of the requirements of the regulations applicable, and provide the information requested without further delay.

Alternatively, you can revise the unwarranted decision to exclude some of my "other travel expenses" (page 12 of policy) on the basis of your eccentric, artificial and self-serving re-working of the English language, and pay the additional €61.50 forthwith.

Since the disputed amount is so small, the decision now may well be to pay it, rather than deal with the time, trouble and expense of further dispute, even if there is - however incredibly - a confidence that the Ombudsman would ultimately vindicate the insurer.

It takes only a few hours for this prediction to be proven largely correct:

Further to your e-mail, I am pleased to confirm after referring your file to a senior person I am in a position to make a payment for the charge of the airport tax that you were refunded by the airline being €20.00 per person as a gesture of goodwill.

In view of the above, a further cheque for the amount of €40.00 will follow the initial payment that has already been sent to yourself on 02/06/09.

I regret to advise, I am unable to reconsider the other expenses such as the handling fee of €10.00 per person due to the fact this is a booking charge as such this is a used cost and the policy only provides cover for unused travel costs.

Please note with regards to the details you require such as the manager of The Quality Standards Department this person is Mrs C B**** and the manager above this person being Ms S J****

As I have early physiotherapy and a meeting to attend, I will give my comments on this later.

By the way, today Friday June 5 is Day 53.

Now that I have simmered-down, today I will take the next step prescribed by the policy document and suggested by the claims-handler:

If, however, you remain dissatisfied with the outcome of your claim ... you should contact: The Quality Standards Manager...

I prefer to write to named individuals, and decide that a quick telephone call is the best way to get that i.e. the name of the individual in question.(Some of you may be wondering whether, as my mother likes to say, I came down in the last shower).

Let's just say that I was wrong about that. I rang twice, to two separate numbers. At the first, I was met with a blank refusal - unless I was willing to disclose the purpose for which I wanted to know, a ridiculous pre-condition - and a refusal to refer me to higher authority. At the second, I was told that the information was simply not available. (Incredulous though I was, this turns out, as we shall see, to have been a perfectly correct answer.)

An e-mail to the claims-handler produces this - again admirably prompt (6 minutes !) - response

Please note there is not an actual name as it will be passed to the department as such address to The Quality Standards Department.

Please be assured that this is a verbatim quotation.

Now, this may come as a shock to many of my readers, but I am a somewhat pernickety individual and thus I shoot right back

Your e-mail of 11.20 on June 1 specified that the addressee should be the "Quality Standards Manager".

If he or she does not exist, who is the most senior member of that department ?

Alternatively, please let me have the name and e-mail address of the person in your company to whom that department reports.

The claims-handler - only just - fails to beat her previous record as she gets her reply in after a mere 6 minutes:

Having noted your comments, I can confirm you only need to address the complaint to the Quality Standards Manager there is no particular name this will be passed to that department where one of the managers will assess you complaint.

I need a break to restore my "simmered-down" condition.

Yes, it's been the Pearl Harbour day of this claim. (Mind you, just like Roosevelt, I had no right to be surprised: my last travel insurance claim had a similar moment, and the memory of that partly inspired me to blog this one. It still came as a shock, though.).

As foreshadowed yesterday, the day started with me writing to the claims-handler summarising my position.

It may have a use later, but it turns out that this was futile for present purposes, because I learned that the letter enclosing the cheque in purported settlement of my claim was written on Friday last and is awaiting production of a cheque to go with it.

The amount of the cheque ? €122.06.

My "bottom-line", remember - see here - was €208.56, though I have had to reduce that today to €183.56, because, upon reflection,I accept that, as two passengers are involved, two "excesses" of €25, rather than only one, fall to be deducted.(The idea that this might be the case, has, like the one about premium, for some days now, been popping up in my brain - but never stayed up long enough to get my proper attention).

So, how has the insurer come up with a figure of €61.50 less than this ? By taking off these amounts, is how

1. Airline "cancellation fee"                                      40.00
2. Airline "handling fee"                                          20.00
3. Credit card fee charged by acommodation provider   1.50

I presume that the airline "handling fee" is the charge for credit card use. The "cancellation fee" is the amount withheld as a "processing fee" from the refund of "travel taxes".

I paid the airline €293 for two return tickets, of which €83.04 was refunded. As far as I am concerned, the balance of €209.96 represents what I have lost by cancellation of my trip. The insurance contract says that I will be paid

WHAT YOU ARE COVERED FOR

We will pay ... for your part of unused personal accommodation, transport charges and other travel expenses...

(The emphasis above has been added by me.)

The insurer is suggesting that when the airline charges me for using my credit-card to pay, that is not an "other travel expense". The reasoning for the other deductions is similar.

I reject that reasoning: just because it is described by the airline as something else does not mean it has ceased to be a cost of travel. If the insurer wanted to impose that artificial definition, then it should have written the policy accordingly e.g. by defining "travel expense" so as to exclude these charges. And even if it had done that, I would strongly suggest that it would have been an "onerous or unusual" term requiring, in order to be enforceable, that specific attention be drawn to it, in accordance with the decision in Interfoto Picture Library Limitedv. Stiletto Visual Programmes Limited [1988] 1 All E.R. 348 (confirmed to be part of the law of Ireland in Carroll v. An Post [1996] 1 IR 443 ).

Had that been done, I might not have entered into that particular agreement. At a minimum, especially as my previous unhappy experience with a travel insurer featured this issue, I would have considered one of the many alternative policies in the market.

(Stiletto is perhaps my favourite decision of all time, and I am accordingly eternally grateful to my friend and former colleague Adam Samuel who first drew it to my attention in 1993 while "showing me the ropes" at the late, lamented Insurance Ombudsman Bureau - subsumed since 1999 into the Financial Ombudsman Service - in London.)

My next step is to write to the insurer protesting the claims-handler's approach, which is undoubtedly in accordance with company policy, to the claim.

Day 46

Other than publishing my (second) post for Day 44 and drafting my posts for Day 45, nothing relevant occurred today.

Day 47

A Saturday. I complete and publish my first post on Day 45.

Day 48

Today, having published the second of two posts on Day 45, I thought that I should tidy up some loose ends, left by me while I was still dominated by chagrin at my blunder in failing to deduct the insurance premiums from my claim.

Alert readers will have noted that the promised further elaboration of the issues with which the claims-handler's last letter bristled was not provided in my last post.

The passage in question from said letter was this

It appears that you are now not claiming the accommodation as you have confirmed you are only claiming for the lost amount on the flights being €227.96 which also includes the insurance premium and other charges which are not refundable.

What I said was that I would accept €227.96, which was not my own figure at all, and of which I cannot make sense arithmetically. I have never abandoned, implicitly or explicitly, my claim for the accommodation.

The amount of my claimable loss is, now as re-stated,

1. Paid to airline                          €293.00        (311 minus 18, being the insurance premium)
2. Lost deposit on accommodation   €23.60
3. Total                                      €316.60

The airline has refunded €83.04, and thus I am now claiming a net €233.56. I remain willing to accept €227.96, but, as that would require the insurer to waive most of the "excess" of €25, I am not really hopeful of getting it ! However, I am determined to get my entitlement of €208.56.

In that connection, I am perturbed by the claims-handler's reference to "other charges which are not refundable", and I am writing to her to ask her to explain.

Rather than put the excess into her head - in case she is minded not to deduct it, since it has been so pleasant to deal with me - :) - I have decided to remind her that she may not make deductions unless there is provision for them in the contract.

As a heretical after-thought, I observe that, notwithstanding what may have been an over-hasty apology on my part, it is not clear from the contract that I am not entitled to include the premiums in the costs of cancellation. Generally, the cost of insurance is not recoverable as part of a claim on that insurance, but cancellation just might be one of the very rare exceptions.

This time, the claims-handler outdoes herself yet again by responding in 18 minutes.She starts

It appears that you are now not claiming the accommodation as you have confirmed you are only claiming for the lost amount on the flights being €227.96 which also includes the insurance premium and other charges which are not refundable.

Aaargh ! For some days now, flitting in and out of my conscious thoughts - but never quite having the grace to stay long enough to be examined - has been the question of whether I could possibly have made the error of including the cost of the insurance in the loss claimed back. I have lost the high moral ground to a significant extent.

The rest of this first paragraph also bristles with issues, as you will see below.

She goes on

In view of the above, please confirm whether this is correct due to the fact the amount you paid to [the airline] calculates to €311.00 in total which includes the amount you have been refunded by them. As such the amount paid to [the airline] is less than the total amount you have claimed being as previously advised €334.60 this is what has caused some confusion when handling your claim.

She ends by explaining her curiosity about my banking arrangements

Please note the reason for the request of your bank/credit card company is due to the fact free travel insurance is sometimes offered with these accounts as such we write to them to confirm this and we may be able to obtain a contribution

In my reply a few hours later, I acknowledge and apologise for the mistake in not deducting the insurance premium from my claim but confirm that I am not withdrawing my claim for the accommodation. I also confirm that none of my credit cards carry automatic travel insurance cover.

I start Day 45 by writing to the claims handler. First, I again remind her that she has the accommodation provider's original invoice specifying the non-refundable nature of the deposit. Second, I confirm that the value of my claim is net of the airline's refund of tax.

Third, I ask her to cite the provision of the contract which requires the additional information she seeks from my medical advisers.

Within 25 minutes - which is seriously impressive ! - the claims handler has replied

Upon further review of your file, I can confirm the medical certificate does appear to have a date being 06/04/09 of which was not clear as such I can accept this. Although regrettably I do require you to confirm how the injury occurred and whether you feel any third party is to blame and their contact details

This is progress, even though I have already supplied the requested information.

She goes on

...you have stated on the claim form the amount you are claiming is €334.60 and your covering letter states you have had a refund of €83.04 of which is the tax refund as such the amount outstanding with [the airline] is €227.96.

In view of the above, It is unclear how you have calculated the amount claimed due to the fact you have not supplied sufficient evidence from the hotel confirming the cancellation charge it is not clear if anything has been refunded. As such I require your comment towards the amount you are claiming for the hotel to enable me to verify this.

Well, if you can make sense of this, you are a better man or woman than I am.

Finally, we get this

In addition to this, please also confirm the name of your bank/credit card company if you have more than one I require all of the details

What an extraordinary pronouncement: "I require .. !

I reply after two hours

• There were no witnesses to the occurrence of the injury. I have already given you the answer as to how it occurred, and the position regarding third parties, in my e-mail of May 22 re-sent to you yesterday and receipt of which you confirmed.
• My total expenditure was €334.60. I do not really follow your arithmetic, but I would accept €227.96 in settlement of my claim.
• You ask me to comment on the cost of cancelling my accommodation. Please read my e-mail of earlier today. I have nothing to add.
• I have to say that I am astonished by your enquiry regarding my credit-card and bank account details. What is the justification for this ?

I have to start with a confession: almost as soon as I claimed it back (in the follow-up at the foot of this post), this journal has lost its "live-blog" status. I have once again fallen behind "real time". Day 44 turned out to be very busy; not only did the insurer write to me more than once but I had of course other fish to fry, including this.

You may recall that earlier on Day 44 , at 9.55 a.m. to be precise, I had to re-send an e-mail originally sent last week. The claims-handler came back an hour later. Her message repeated her contention that the medical certificate was inadequate and her request for a cancellation invoice from the accommodation provider.She also queried the total of the cancellation costs.

I am unable to address that before the end of the day.

My e-mail of last week has produced no response yet. This, in one sense, is neither a surprise nor a cause for grievance. After all, the cheque even if already written and posted last week would not necessarily have arrived by now: the mail often takes a week to travel from England to here.

However, I do not want to discover next week that the e-mail never arrived. So, this morning at 6.13 a.m., I again e-mail asking for an acknowledgement of receipt.

And now, at 9.32 a.m. - who dares now to suggest that this is not a live-blog ? :-) - my caution is justified: the claim-handler, with admirable promptitude, e-mails

I regret to advise I do not appear to have received your e-mail, please can you resnd this.(sic)

I re-send the e-mail at 9.55 a.m..

In a separate, but related, development, my credit-card statement has arrived, and it shows that the airline has, as promised, refunded me €83 in taxes.

In a note written in 2006 (you'll find it here) I confidently asserted

No-one in Ireland goes to prison because they cannot pay a debt

Though correct as to the position in law, arguably I was wrong because of the failure to observe due process by some judges.

Earlier this year, it was reported that the relevant legislation was to be challenged on constitutional grounds, with the Irish Human Rights Commission supporting the challenge.

A decision reported in "The Irish Times" this morning suggests that this may not be necessary.

The report is, as is normal, written for the general audience and is not necessarily complete as to what lawyers would regard as the relevant details, or the detailed ratio decidendi. (I note that Eoin O'Dell has recently repeated his criticism of the delay in publishing the full judgments of the Irish superior courts.) That said, O'Neill J.'s decision as reported seems to me to admirably set out the standards which ought to apply when a creditor applies to a court to have someone imprisoned for failure to pay.

(As an aside: why are so many of the cases which get publicity initiated by credit unions ? Does it reflect sub-normal attention to public relations ?)

Note that a failure to pay by itself is not a ground for such an application: the failure must be to comply with a previous order by the court that the debtor pay a specific amount. Now, it may not be generally realised, but in Ireland, when such a failure occurs, the creditor may realistically have very little legal option but to apply for such an order, even if putting the debtor in prison is of no use, and indeed may be counter-productive. The creditor may not be unreasonable in believing that to apply is the only way to get the debtor's attention.

However, this is by no means always the explanation for the application, or if it is, something is going wrong on a regular basis, because yesterday's case, as well as the case referenced here (and here), all appear to be cases of "can't pay" rather than "won't pay". In all of the latter cases, and, I suspect, in virtually all cases of this kind, the debtor has failed to turn up in court, or, as it is often censoriously expressed, has ignored the summons to attend.

Judges are invariably wont to take umbrage at this, and my sympathy for debtors notwithstanding, I tend to agree with this, at least up to a point. I cannot agree, though, that, as has happened, it is appropriate to sentence someone - in absentia - to prison for up to three months because the judge is annoyed with failure to turn up.

It appears likely, as well, that creditors are either encouraging judges to do this, or failing to suggest more suitable alternatives such as adjournments.

Presumably encouraged by Conor Devally S.C., the debtor's counsel, O'Neill J. has now made such inappropriate happenings much more unlikely, if not completely impossible, by interpreting section 6 of The Enforcement of Court Orders Act,1940 in a new way.

The said Section 6 reads as follows

• ( a ) where a debtor is liable, by virtue of an instalment order, to pay a debt and costs either in one payment or by instalments and such debtor fails to make such payment or fails to pay any one or more of such instalments accruing due while such order is in force at the time or times appointed in that behalf by such order, the creditor may, at any time while such order is in force or within twelve months after it has ceased to be in force, apply to a Justice of the District Court for the arrest and imprisonment of such debtor;
• (b) on the hearing of an application under the next preceding paragraph of this section, the Justice may, if he so thinks proper but subject to the next following paragraph of this section, order the arrest and imprisonment of the debtor for any period not exceeding three months, and thereupon the debtor shall be arrested and imprisoned accordingly;
• ( c ) the Justice shall not order the arrest and imprisonment of the debtor under the next preceding paragraph of this section if the debtor (if he appears) shows, to the satisfaction of such Justice, that his failure to pay was due neither to his wilful refusal nor to his culpable neglect;
• ( d ) on the hearing of an application under paragraph (a) of this section, the Justice, if he so thinks proper, may, in lieu of ordering the arrest and imprisonment of the debtor, treat such application as an application under the next preceding section of this Act for the variation of the said instalment order and thereupon the said next preceding section shall apply as if such application were an application thereunder;

O'Neill J. appears to have decided that section 6(c) may not be interpreted so as to place the onus on the debtor to satisfy the court as to his or her inability, as has been the practice - in accordance, to be fair, with the most obvious meaning of the words - but that it must be shown beyond reasonable doubt that s/he is either wilfully refusing, or is culpably neglecting, to pay. This, the standard of proof in criminal cases, is appropriate because the criminal sanction of imprisonment is involved.

Day 35

To forestall any possible disagreement later on what I did and did not enclose with the claim form, I write first thing today to the claims handler asking her to confirm that she received my other enclosures. She supplies that confirmation shortly after lunch-time.

Day 39

I was away for a few days in Dublin (mainly to visit my parents) and had no access to a computer (long story ...), but today I write to the claims-handler

• Reminding her that I am claiming for the costs of cancellation and nothing else.
• The airline cancellation invoice clearly sets out what cancellation of the flight has cost. I fail to see what the original flight confirmation e-mail adds to that.
• The accommodation invoice already supplied again clearly shows what cancellation has cost me, in that it specifies the amount that is non-refundable on cancellation. I attach confirmation from the provider that cancellation did occur, in case that is a concern
• The information missing from the medical certificate is not material to this cancellation claim. The certificate clearly states my unfitness to travel due to injuries to my arm and wrist
• My injuries were sustained on Sunday, March 29, 2009 following a fall from a ladder at my home. No third parties were involved or are liable. No other insurance covers me for the accident
• I am aware that if in fact the accident occurred prior to taking out the insurance, and if cancellation was for other, uninsured, reasons, my claim would be fraudulent, and I would be committing a criminal offence. Granted, we are in harsh economic times, but would I do that for EUR 200 odd ?

I get a response to my claim by e-mail today. It is not entirely satisfactory to me, and that is understating the position.

First of all, the claims-handler says that she has not received the original airline booking confirmation, which, to my recollection, was the first item clipped to the claim form.

Second, she wants a confirmation from the accommodation provider of the amount of deposit forfeited, despite the fact that the deposit receipt itself clearly set out the fact that it was non-refundable.

Third, unsurprisingly, she doesn't like the medical certificate that I provided, because

this does not confirm the date of when the incident occurred and I am unable to read the medical condition as such

(Doctor's handwriting unreadable, shock !)

Finally, she wants to know how my injury occurred and whether anyone else was to blame.

I will respond tomorrow.

My strange happiness of last night was well-founded, I am pleased to tell you.

I managed to stick to my plan, rang at eight o'clock and got through almost immediately to a most helpful lady.

Wham !

Bam !

However, she apologised and promised to expedite the matter.

Thank You, Ma'am

By 10.30, the required message arrived in my e-mail Inbox.

One aspect of the e-mail requires to be mentioned: the airline is going to refund me most of the tax portion of the fare paid. Accordingly, I write a note withdrawing the relevant amount (€83) from my claim, which is now valued at only €227.

A few minutes later, my claim is trussed up in an envelope, addressed and stamped. By the end of the day, it has been dropped in a postbox.

Day 10

Yesterday, using a website e-mail link helpfully provided by the airline for the specific purpose, I requested the airline to confirm that I had not travelled. This confirmation is the final piece of documentation required to complete my claim.

It does not arrive today, either, and I resolve to use the telephone if I do not get a response tomorrow.

Day 12

The airline's website shows a number to call for assistance.

I dial, and after negotiating the option menu - quite difficult when one has the use of only one hand - am put on hold. After 5 minutes, I hang up. (It is not a free call).

Day 17

I decide to use the website e-mail link to send a reminder.

Day 19

I try the telephone again today. This time, I wait 10 minutes - which is about as long as I can comfortably allow my "good" hand to be monopolised - before hanging up. (I can't find my "hands-free" unit - again, having only one hand slows me down).

Day 21

I e-mail another reminder.

Day 24

O.K. This has become ridiculous: two weeks not only without a straightforward confirmation, but without any communication whatsoever. One is beginning to suspect that delay suits everyone involved, except me. The insurer holds on its cash for longer, the airline gets a share of the revenue on the premium telephone line it provokes the customer into using.

Enough ! Tomorrow, I will telephone the airline one last time at 8 a.m., the opening-time of the help-line. I will wait 15 minutes (if my arm will let me). Then I will send off the claim anyway, tell them my story, maybe put my conspiracy theory to them, demand that they sort out the airline (through which the insurance was, not so incidentally, arranged) and dare them to decline the claim ! Oh, yes !

I go to my bed strangely happy.

I have now completed the claim form received yesterday, but I still cannot submit the claim. I am required to supplement the form with a number of other documents. To quote the insurer's letter accompanying the claim form:

We are pleased to attach your claim form for cancellation of holiday, as requested. Please ensure this is fully completed by hand, signed and returned to us by post, together with the following documentation:

1. Your original receipt/schedule of insurance premium from the issuing agent. This may be in the form of a holiday booking invoice or, for internet bookings, an email. Please note that we are unable to process your claim without this documentation.

2. Tour Operators booking invoice or proof of travel and payment of trip. For internet bookings,this may be a print out of the email confirmation.

3. Tour Operators cancellation invoice. If you are travelling with a 'ticket-less' airline, please provide written confirmation from the airline that the booking has not been used and no refunds issued. For non-package trips, we require written confirmation from the transport/accommodation providers that there is no refund available.

4. Documentation in support of your need to cancel*.

* If cancellation is due to medical reasons, the medical certificate on the reverse of the claim form must be fully completed by the usual GP of the person whose medical condition gives rise to this claim, regardless of whether they were due to be travelling or not. In the event of bereavement, a copy of the death certificate will also be required.

Item 3 is the only item that I am missing (in my opinion - the insurer may disagree about the medical certificate, for example: see yesterday's post).

I have therefore today visited the airline's website and discovered that I can request confirmation of cancellation by means of an on-line form. I have done so.

Response is not instant. I will let you know ...

Seven days after being promised the claim form in the post, it still has not arrived. I ring again. This time, a female voice answers, and before I even have a chance to ask, offers to e-mail me the form and ... does so immediately. Who said women were less technically-aware ?

Let's consider the form.

First problem:

...if cancellation is due to medical reasons, the medical certificate ... must be ... completed by the usual GP

Why should this be so ? I have not seen my G.P. at all in relation to my injury - I was taken directly by ambulance to hospital.

In any case, earlier in the week, I took the opportunity of my first return for an out-patient check-up to ask the surgeon to certify my unfitness, and he did. Rather amazingly, he wrote it out long-hand instead of using his dictating machine on the desk. (Bureaucracy explains it, presumably.)

I am not going to waste my time or that of my GP by visiting him just to sign a form especially in view of the Second Problem.

The second problem that I have with this claim form is this:

Any fee for completing this certificate is the responsibility of the patient / claimant.

This is outrageous. Most claimants would not realise that they have no obligation to accept an insurer's instruction to, in effect, incur an un-necessary unrefundable cost.

The third problem I have with the form is this

Total journey cost €

Less refunds received €

Less airport departure tax €

Total Amount Claimed

Taxes constitute about a third of the entire cost of the trip. Sometimes, the proportion is much higher than that.For the insurer to attempt to disallow this element of the cost, is, to say the least, high-handed. I find no provision of the contract justifying it, but even if there were, such a drastic reduction in the value of cover would need to be highlighted in advance.

That's all I can do for today.

So, I used the text number (see previous post) to report that I am not travelling.

Unfortunately, during the night, I got a "bounce" message i.e. the number was unreachable. (Reader Mike from the U.K. has explained why to me in a private e-mail:textphones are for Minicom users i.e. mainly those with hearing difficulties.) I therefore telephone, this time using a Dublin number from the front page of the policy. I was answered by a man who later revealed that the call had been re-directed to the UK number mentioned in yesterday's post.

He had never heard of the "textphone". He was quite surprised when, at my suggestion, he looked at the policy and saw it on page 10.

(Let's pause here to consider the implications of this for how he will deal with claims on the policy)

Anyway, he said that the next step was to send me a claim form, which he promised to do, and took my address details.

Thinking back now, I cannot quite recall whether he said when he was going to send it.