On December 21st, 2017 we talked with Joseph Dobbins a manager in The Society of Lloyd’s complaint department. He agreed that they would review our complaint and implied that they would move forward aggressively because it had already been in the complaint process for over 8 weeks. It in fact had been in that process at that point it had already been 2+ weeks and 40 weeks since the denial and the complaints process had started. A process which is supposed to be resolved in 8 weeks. At the time we felt that he understood/empathized with our frustration and would take an active part in moving forward. However, we all recognized that nothing would happen quickly around the holidays. The next action would be for the case handler to contact us.
January 8, 2018 We followed up with Joseph and he told us that ProSight had not provided the files so a case handler had not been assigned. It was decided that we would provide our files to him, so there would be no delay once the person was assigned.
January 11, 2018 prompted by a follow-up email, Joseph responded that he had received our files, but the technical department had to look at them to make sure they were “safe” to open. No update on the status of the ProSight data.
January 18, 2018 we followed up with Joseph and received no response.
January 26th we decided to call Joseph. He told us that he thought everything was moving along and was shocked that we hadn’t received an email introducing the case manager. He apologized profusely and said he would investigate immediately and let us know what he finds out.
It has now been 35 days since the Lloyd’s of London Stage 2 process has officially started and it doesn’t look like we are even to first base or even in the batter order.
On July 16, 2017 we received an automatic response from the FOS acknowledging the submitted complaint. It said “If you haven’t heard from us, it’s worth checking our junk mail or spam folder to see if our response is there”
After the recommended three weeks of waiting and checking our junk mail on a regular basis, we call the FOS customer line. Moray Pringle answered the call. He pulled our submitted complaint from the queue and said he will look at it.
August 15, 2017 I followed up with Moray and he responded that ProSight submitted their data, but due to the format it is taking an extended period of time to load it into their system. We ask him if we can get a copy of the files they submit. He said that he can do that, but he may have to redact information that represents their internal process. Moray suggests that we request a copy of the documents from them. We respond, telling him that they have not been transparent. We believe it would be more efficient to get it from him.
August 31. Moray responds to our inquiry that it is still taking time to input the information from ProSight.
Sept 15. Moray says that they are still technically delayed in uploading the data.
Sept 27. Moray says that the data has now been uploaded. “After having a brief look over what’s involved, I feel I personally may not be best placed to look into your complaint due to the complexity and depth of the situation. There is somebody within the organisation that specialises in marine insurance, however she isn’t due to return to the office until 10 October at the earliest. Can you let me know if you would be happy to wait for her to return for your complaint to be investigated?”
We agree to wait until Oct 10, 2017 for the more marine knowledgeable investigator.
On August 22, 2017 we received an email from Satty at ProSight regarding our complaint hollowly admits to mishandling our claim. The letter states:
- Crew’s Mess Limited the company the complaint response was sent to, is a cover holder of ProSight. Satty did not apologize for the lack of communication for 4 weeks and assuming that we would know this.
- They advised Crew’s Mess to address issues directly thru Hill Dickinson. However, it was made clear to us that we were not required to have our solicitors deal with the matter. Therefore this is absolutely false, we have an email from Wayne Scott who states “you will need to liaise on all claim matters with your legal representative. They will need to discuss with underwriters and/or Hill Dickinson directly.”
- That they have considered the additional evidence and information and maintain their stance on declining all three claims.
Admits Claim Mishandling
The letter states “it is our aim to respond to claims as soon as possible and to maintain our customer service. Whilst it was a technical claim that required more investigation and consideration, ProSight recognises that the investigation and consideration of the dis-masting claim dated 1/5/16 took longer than may have been anticipated, and that there was a failure on our part to explain the reasons for that delay to you at the time and to keep you advised of developments. In consideration of that failure and in full and final settlement of any complaint that you may have in connection with the claims handling and speed of response regarding the dis-masting claim we would therefore like to offer you the sum of £5000.”
How insulting! £5000 is a paltry amount for the months of expenses caused by waiting on them. It’s obvious that they have no regard for the impact, even though they have expense reports. To think that we would walk away with this small amount made us more determined to fight.
However, their admission of mishandling the claim, is positive and will be helpful during the review process.