Club Caravan Insurance

Hi again

We thought it might be helpful to provide a bit more information about the claims and complaints process, following on from further queries that have arisen.

If there is disagreement between the covered Member and the CAMC, any complaint must be made to the Club in the same way as you would go directly to an insurer in the event of a complaint.

As well as the claim protection to our members, the Group policy with Builders is designed to allow recourse via the Financial Ombudsman Service in the event of a complaint with us, which we felt was an important element to provide.

The Builders policy was indeed taken out by The Club, and therefore is in The Club’s name. However, the policy protects YOU as Members of the Discretionary Mutual, not the Club. If any unlikely reason Builders can’t meet their obligations the Financial Services Compensation Scheme covers them.  

Here’s a bit more detail on the processes for claims and complaints.

The claims process

• A claim is submitted in the same way as previously, via Devitt, who process them on the Club's behalf - but the Devitt claims team are now working under the remit of the Club rather than the insurers (so they process all claims based on the guidelines from the Club)
• All claims are considered using the Caravan Cover wording as the basis for its decision
• Where required, loss adjusters or engineers etc will be appointed to deal with the claim on our behalf
• The member will be advised of the outcome of the claim in the same way as previously
• The possible outcomes of the claim can be summarised as follows:

1. Claim accepted and then paid by applying the wording of the Caravan Cover booklet
2. Claim declined as we do not feel the claim criteria, as shown in the Caravan Cover booklet, is met
3. Partial settlement offered based upon the Caravan Cover that the member has taken out with The Club where we do not feel the claim criteria, as shown in the Caravan Cover booklet is fully met

Complaint escalation process

The following assumes that the claims negotiation does not provide the outcome that the member is satisfied with: the claimant can, if they wish, “skip” the first line and follow the rest of the process

• The member can appeal to the Clubs Senior Management responsible for Caravan Cover: they provide guidance and oversight, as is common with other areas of operation within The Club and have ultimate control on how we exercise discretion on a claims payment
• The member can claim under the Group Policy. Builders who are providing this cover for The Club have asked that we provide these services on their behalf, as this will speed up the claims process. The investigation will be undertaken by an appropriate member of The Club’s staff and a Final Response issued. This Final Response is the trigger that enables a member to take the case to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS).
• The member can then take the complaint to the FOS as the Builders policy puts the claim in their remit. We use the word ‘may’ because there are some circumstances where the FOS may say the complaint is outside of their remit ie a member can always refer to the FOS but the FOS doesn’t always accept them (although this is unusual).  It is established practice for the FOS to accept complaints from the beneficiary of a Group Policy, as they look at who will “gain” financially from the claim.
• Builders will honour the FOS decision, having followed their normal process

If you have specific questions regarding the cover / processes, please do get in touch with the Club directly, as although we do keep an eye on what is happening on Club Together we are unable to guarantee we’ll pick up on specific questions given all the discussions that happen on the site.

Many thanks

Dave

The club would receive commission on the premiums but that would reduce the amount the insurers would have to pay in claims. Hopefully the new system will reduce this spend as there should be no commission element in the premium.

TBH I think a proper insurance company with a long and good track record and not a mutual would be preferable.  At the moment the CC mutual fund does not have any track record!

If you do not give the start up a chance then it will never have a track record. The old policy was certainly more generous with claims than a lot of the opposition and hopefully this is being maintained.

Very true but we do not want to be the ones to give them a track record.  LOL! 

The old policy was certainly more generous with claims than a lot of the opposition and hopefully this is being maintained.

If the club want members to fully embrace the change from insurance to mutual cover it would have done well spelling out benefits for those seeking cover in detail - if any.

Significant premium reduction? I personally doubt it but who knows. I have read of no benefit for me, the potential consumer.

When most companies change a financial product they go out of their way to promote the improvements for the customer. When there are none they keep quiet. When the CC changed its name or its booking system it trumpeted the improvement for its consumers.

Not seen a fanfare for this change boasting improvements for members. Have you? 

Please can you update me how we benefited from the change of name and how it improved our lives or caravanning experience?   

Not sure about the actual benefits Surfer. The club did produce much hype about how we would become adventurers following the rebrand. 

The fact that their was little hype about changes to type cover makes me suspect that even the club could find little of good to say regarding any great additional benefits to members. 

Still not read of any

I think that the more generous approach to claims was partly behind the higher premiums. Others were asking for less but to achieve the lower premiums they had to cut out other things like generous claims settlements and possibly service.

I have found reading through this thread really interesting.

Firstly, let me say that I hope that the OP has received prompt and liberal settlement of his claim and will be back on the road again very soon.

I looked into the situation in full as my old policy was nearing renewal.

An insurance policy is a contract between two parties.  To my mind, words like “discretion” have no place in such arrangements.  Either a claim is valid, or it is not.  

After raising the issue in writing with the club, I received a lengthy response very similar to the quoted post above.

To my mind, the salient points were;

• It seems apparent the club has made the change to generate a larger income for itself than under the previous arrangements.  As members of the club, this should be to all of our benefits, as it will allow the club to invest more in sites and services without raising the membership fees.  The key issue is the risk profile that goes with this additional income.
• It is now the clubs own balance sheet that is liable to meet claims
• Despite what is stated in the quoted post above, I personally find it really hard to believe I can claim on a policy I am not a party to and have no detail of (Policy Number, insured risks, insured sums, excesses, limitations and exclusions etc.).
• The details of and in particular what the excess (the quantum of risk that the club is now exposed to) is on the Builders Policy, do not appear to have been made freely available to members
• The renewal premium quoted to me was c30% higher than that quoted by the “other” club (where the Policy is with a substantial Insurer) not the club
• The Bank of England is the regulator for Insurance companies, but as explained in the post quoted above, the Club is now risking the assets of the club and individual policy holders now no longer have the comfort of this oversight.
• I conducted a brief internet search and as far as I could ascertain, but of course I may be wrong, there appears to only be one employee of the club that is authorised by the FCA in respect of insurance business.  How will the club be able to (legally) continue to provide and operate any insurance business should that one individual, for example, leave the employment of the club? 

On balance, I reached the conclusion that I was more comfortable being insured through the “other” club with an insurance company with a balance sheet in the billions than a “mutual”  with a balance sheet not much over £100 million, and so did not renew with the CAMC.

I do think it is a pity that the club did not more widely publicise not only that these fundamental changes were being introduced, but also the full rational including the financial reasoning behind them.

All of the above is in my personal opinion.