1980 in Woodfield Avenue; Back When I Thought Cases Were Just For Cassette Tapes
Dear Colm,
FOLLOW UP REGARDING ROOT CAUSES AND ISSUES THAT LED TO NOW RESOLVED COMPLAINT
RE: 3 WOODFIELD AVENUE, STREATHAM, LONDON SW16
You might recall my open letter of 6 April…
…in which I pointed out that, more than six months after a legally binding, final decision from the Financial Ombudsman Service, the matter was still being delayed and ignored by Allianz. I can confirm that, within a few working days of my public outburst, the outstanding financial settlements flowed in my direction, as did the long overdue warranties and certificates, such that the matter is now resolved.
Janie, my wife, wondered whether I was relieved and satisfied now that the claim is over. As the days have gone on, I realise that I am much relieved but not much satisfied. I still don’t understand why my claim and complaint were such an omnishambles over a period of nearly seven years, yet finally resolved so quickly once I barked in public. I am also convinced that most Allianz clients, when faced with such sustained obstruction, would have given up and not achieved a fair outcome.
In my 6 April letter, I requested comments and proposed actions from you. I still await those. Let me set out in a little more detail the areas that I think need your attention:
- In the matter of six months of silence after the ombudsman’s decision:
- Who in Allianz is responsible for following up with clients following an ombudsman’s decision and why did they go silent on me for so long?,
- Does Allianz not investigate internally adverse ombudsman decisions to ensure that the matter is properly resolved in the aftermath of the decision? Also to learn lessons to prevent recurrance of such adverse cases? It should – using staff independent of those who were previously involved with the case.
- In the matter of the ombudsman process itself, the matter took more than a year, which the ombudsman investigator explained was due to consistent requests for extensions by Allianz and the furnishing, by Allianz, of 12,000 pages of defence documentation. That is clearly disproportionate. I provided some 100 pages to support my original sumbission plus a further 20 to meet the investigator’s requests:
- Shouldn’t Allianz be working in good faith and co-operation with the ombudsman? It is impossible for me to believe that such a drawn out process, manifestly swamping the process with an excess of detail, might have been conducted by Allianz in good faith. The only other conclusion I can draw is that the Allianz people assigned to the case were vastly under-skilled and under-trained in handling ombudsman cases,
- I believe that the ombudsman should have powers to penalise financial institutions (as well as award compensation to and specify actions for clients) when cases are met with delays and obfuscation to the detriment of the ombudsman service as well as to the detriment of the client. Do you agree?
- With regard to the entirety of my claim, between 2019 and its conclusion last month, there were extended periods of delay and also dishonest conduct by Allianz and/or its agents. The worst example being the false claim that there was separate storm damage at the house in January 2021, whereas the truth was that the agents had done no work on the house for many weeks, even after being notified of water ingress arising from the subsidence damage:
- Did any internal investigation/intra agency complaints/sanctions occur in the light of that dismal and dishonest performance. If not, why not? My claim handler at Allianz promised me that it would, as part of his entreaty to me not to take legal action at that juncture,
- Is part of the problem the lack of clarity in a system that has so many agents from different organisations working on such a case, (seemingly) not communicating well with each other? The Allianz claim handler, the Crawford loss adjuster, the agents of the loss adjuster doing the remedial work, the Allianz complaints people… Not only was it sometimes unclear to me who was responsible for delays or problems, it was seemingly unclear to the very people who were supposed to be resolving the problems. But matters are especially opaque here to the client, as the information asymmetries add to the agency problems that abound in such a set up. My sense is that the several agents are motivated to look after their own corporate corner, e.g. keep the claim within budget or mark some element of a complaint “resolved”, to a far greater extent than they are motivated actually to resolve the claim and settle matters satisfactorily with the client,
- Without wishing to sound rude or disparaging of the whole insurance sector, my sense is that this byzantine set up is designed to obfuscate, and pass the blame for delays and bad practice back and forth, with no-one taking responsibility. That is shameful.
In short, I sense a massive ethical gap between the claims of the insurance sector – that it acts with professionalism, in the utmost good faith, striving to support its clients at a time of vulnerablility – with the reality of the sector’s practices. Allianz at the moment seems to be an especially bad example, in which case you, Colm, have a massive job on your hands to make good in your company. But I also sense that the whole insurance sector/profession need to take a long look at itself and seek to improve, through self-regulation and/or through substantial strengthening of the ombudsman’s powers.
I have heard from your new complaints manager, Michael Torres, who would like to discuss matters with me. I am happy to do so with him, but the complaints department shortcomings are only part of the problem; more symptom than cause. The essence of these shortcomings arise from the causes of complaints. I am willing to speak with relevant senior people at Allianz to help you understand and improve, but not to be fobbed off or to take up yet more of my time to no purpose. If you show serious intent on Allianz’s part to address the root causes of these issues, then I’ll gladly engage with Allianz, purposefully. I still await your comments and proposed actions with great interest.
Yours sincerely,
Ian Harris
SOLE DIRECTOR & SHAREHOLDER
cc: The Financial Ombudsman Service, BBC Radio 4 ‘You and Yours’ (Investigation Desk), BBC ‘Money Box’ (Consumer Redress Team), Crawford & Company, Michael Torres (Allianz)
1978 in Woodfield Avenue: Back When I Thought I Could Always Pick Up The Phone, Speak With Someone Sensibly & Resolve Issues Promptly.
