Aviva Medios Healthcare

A question about : Aviva Medios Healthcare

Official MSE Insert:

If you've arrived from Google, our fully researched Health Insurance guide may help.

Back to the original post...

I have been informed by Aviva that the cost of my Aviva Medios Healthcare policy is to incease by 20% this year. I understand that Aviva have made a business decision to increase the cost so as to maintain the profitability of the product. Aviva do not sell this policy anymore and therefore there is a diminishing number of policyholders who are getting older and therefore claiming more often. Aviva sell a new product that they seem keen to move me to but it does not offer guarantees that the existing product offers, mainly no age related increases.
It seems that Aviva want to run this as a separate business and not part of their overall healthcare business and therefore sharing the risk and cost across all of their customers.
All this means is that costs will rise disproportionately for customers of Aviva Medios until the increases have reached to such a level that Medios customers cannot afford the premiums. Thereby having to cancel their policies or move to an inferior product.
This cannot be fair. Watch out because if they treat one group of customers in this way they can do the same again with another group.
The sad thing is that Aviva should be a brand that you should be able to trust long term which is what you need with such a product.

Best answers:

• Check your T&Cs if it says they can increase it....then they are operating within the rules set out that you agreed to.
  If it doesnt then no they are not and you have grounds for a complaint.
  Orange increased my bill this year, unlike health insurance im tied in for another 6 months. I dont like it so i will probably leave them after 7 years. I know its not the same as your cover will be more expensive if you move but its one of those things if theyre allowed to do it and they feel the need to then they will and there isnt a lot you can do.
• Thanks ACG, I will check the terms and conditions about their ability to increase this plan.
  Yes Wutang they have offered the chance to move over to the Healthier Solutions plan without medical pre existing conditions but this plan does not have guaranteed no age increases which my Medios plan has.
  You should be able to trust companies like Aviva because they should be financially strong enough to withstand short term problems without resort to changing and varying long term contracts.
• I am similarly affected by Aviva's 20% premium hike.
  I believe we are being unfairly treated. Also we should not expect that from one of the world's largest insurers. Am currently seeking answers from Aviva before submitting complaint to Financial Ombudsman Service.
  Number of issues involved but they all revolve around Aviva's Guaranty and whether Aviva has met policyholders' reasonable expectations in connection therewith - the present premium hike would evidence otherwise.
  I will post update once Aviva has provided required policy information.
  If I am right then would seem unlikely for Aviva to collect any industry awards in future as appreciate your point on need for client trust.
• It seems Aviva has something to hide. It refuses to respond to policyholders’ questions on its Guaranteed Loyalty Bonus in relation to its 20% premium hike. That’s despite Aviva representing its policies are (a) straightforward, simple to arrange, and easy to use and (b) we explain how our policy could help – what it will do, and what it won’t.
  I took out the policy because I understood it (a) was a cradle-to-grave one that avoided complications on existing health issues by remaining with a single provider, (b) charged more but, in return, provided Guaranteed No Age Band Increases, and (c) was more expensive at the outset, but cheaper later on in life due to it being a ‘level premium’ policy. Consequently, I relied upon Aviva to invest my extra premiums to provide a Guaranty Fund capable of paying for Future Age Band Increases.
  Now Aviva tells policyholders that its exclusion of New Members (a unilateral action Aviva refuses to answer questions on) drives up premiums. Effectively, that must mean New Members cross-subsidised older ones. However, that was not my intention when paying 30-40% more expensive premiums (This is Money 11 July 2007) – it was to pay for my Guaranty. Yet, now Aviva refuses to say whether it did invest those extra funds to pay for that Guaranty. Perhaps, one could imagine up to 20,000 policyholders with say an average Guaranty Pot of say Ј10,000 each. Hypothetically, that could be a Ј200million Balance Sheet black hole in finances if proper provision for such a Guaranty was not made – reminds one of Equitable Life’s demise from its Guaranteed Annuity Rate, where guaranty benefits were improperly refused members. Even the act of cross-subsidising conjures pictures of a Ponzi scheme- where new investors pay for existing ones and are left holding less than their investment – that’s why Bernie Madoff got a ‘life sentence’!
  If Aviva properly accounted for past premiums then one would reasonably expect a resulting Guaranty Fund to cover existing members’ costs. Shame Aviva will not answer questions on this. It seems one must complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service to get those answers. Aviva’s explanation of changed group risk is itself compromised by its own web site pages – the reality is the mechanism for charging for that change is through Age Band Increases (unless of course they don’t exist because of the insurer’s Guaranty). As Aviva has committed itself in this direction, it can now only leave the matter with the Financial Ombudsman Service and hope National Newspapers have something else to investigate over Christmas and the New Year.
  My concern also extends to last year’s and this year’s premiums. A January 2010 New Member closure must have meant it was planned some time beforehand. If that was case then it seems likely Aviva knew about its likely impact when asking members for last year’s premium. Certainly, I would have then cancelled if the policy Guarantee was worthless. Worst still Aviva has now also forced me not to cancel again by the 10 month delay in telling me about that closure – especially as Aviva refuses to answer questions concerning the delay of that news, never mind its point-blank refusal to answer members’ questions on its Guaranty.
• As a professional insurance man with over 40 years of dealing with medical covers and a policyholder involved along with around 2000 others in the despicable actions currently being undertaken by AVIVA I am taking appropriate action and would urge all other policyholders to do the same.
  There is no doubt that AVIVA are in breach of The Financial Services Authorities "treating Customers Fairly outcomes 5 & 6"
  5. Consumers are provided with products that perform as firms have led them to expect.
  6. Consumers do not face unreasonable post sales barriers inposed by firms to change products.....
  With loss ratios by AVIVA medical running at 73% (AM BEST figures 07-12-2011) the action proposed by them due to them closing the book of this business and raping the reserves built up by policyholders since they took over the account in 2000 is clearly also in breach of the FSA requirement that "firms own commercial strategies are consistent with the fair treatment of their customers"
  I am currently challenging this with AVIVA and if not satisfied with their response will take this up with the Ombudsman and FSA for starters. I would encourage others to do the same including the above references as the more that complain the greater the adverse publicity they will receive.
  There is no doubt that AVIVA have got this wrong or as they say on their considerable number of expensive ITV medical insurance adverts at this time "Don't make a drama out of a crisis" or is it the other way around??!!
  Update 01-02-2012;
  The industry is up in arms about this from various conversations I have been having so something positive will need to be done by the Insurers. Various medical insurance brokers and industry associations are likely to be pushing this with insurers so currently would suggest that you leave your policy in force, make a complaint direct to Aviva perhaps inccluding some of my suggestions above, and hold fast as things are starting to happen.....
• First time poster here so be gentle with me!
  I currently have the Medios policy with family cover. Have had it for many years and have stayed with it for many of the same reasons quoted above. My renewal is due now, with the 20% increase plus a pretty big increase in the voluntary excess that I usually include. I have been offered the same Healthier Solutions Policy by Aviva at around Ј900 less but this is with an introductory No Claims Discount I think.
  Obviously the large increase came as a shock and at first glance I thought I would switch policies, but after reading the above posts and asking questions of my broker, The Private Health Partnership, I am now undecided. I have been happy with the Medios scheme and I'm reluctant to move to a another scheme and regret it later.
  My question is: do you think I should stay with the Medios scheme for another year and see how things work out in view of the level of complaints that are being addressed to various bodies (Ombudsman and FSA etc).
  I need to decide very soon. Advice, comments welcomed.
• Begs questions about present product attractiveness. First, the Insurer has stopped New Entrants in direct breach of a crucial part of Guaranty. Not only was that breach not communicated to policyholders (apparently some might have been told recently) but instead the Insurer’s Terms & Conditions misled them to think no part of the Guaranty had changed. Next the Insurer inflicted a 10%+ Age increase, again in direct breach of Guaranty. Motivation for the Insurer’s Guaranty breaches was the massive adverse movement in Age costs over those it originally predicted. Consequently, one must conclude the Insurer intends to kill this product, come what may. A dead product.
  Reason not to give in, at the present time, is that Guaranty is worth Ј50,000+ for couple of say aged 60, assuming its terms not breached. Work it out. Take your present premium and apply publicly available Age Increases for these policy types up to life expectancy (see Association of British Insurers). Then apply standard and medical inflation. The resulting increases can then be discounted back to present value through use of Gilt benchmark yield.
  The Guaranty has potential worth if one takes action as success does not necessarily benefit others. Different levels of proof are required if a policyholder feels Guaranty breaches constitute misrepresentation or fraud as the above misbehaviour seems to go beyond non-compliance with FSA Handbook rules and regulations. However, legal costs suggest the Financial Ombudsman route is most attractive where policyholders don’t group together.
  The Insurer is likely to seek to limit damages on the basis that policy is renewable annually. That should not succeed as Insurer represented in late 2000 that policy could be continued for life. Plus policy is obviously long term in its nature. Nevertheless, the FSA did not cover itself with glory on Equitable Life’s Guaranty and the Insurer will be looking to apply its muscle and influence to ameliorate exposure. Also one doesn’t know whether the FSA will become responsible for business conducted from the time it is put on notice due to its supervisory failure, especially if claims cause a deficiency in the Insurer’s capital. Nor can one expect to recoup all damage from the Financial Ombudsman Service as it underestimated certain Equitable Life claims when its outcomes are compared to present Government loss calculations. Consequently, it’s not surprising that the Insurer seeks this route rather than paying out fully on its Guaranty
  Speak again to your Financial Adviser and also consider legal advice if you’re prepared to pick-up that tab.
  PS Policyholders sold a cheaper Healthier Solutions product might feel cheated and misled due to not being told the value of their Guaranty (this assumes the Insurer possesses funds to meet its Guaranty liabilities, which is an unknown) – apparently certain policyholders were even refused that information when it was requested.
  Thank goodness you spoke to your adviser rather than falling foul of the Insurer’s direct selling or miss-selling, however one might want to term it. However, your own personal circumstances must dictate your considerations.
• You sound like a legal man with some good points made. Industry beginning to work on the problem here so keep an eye on this website I suggest as it could well be that we get a policyholders group going if an appropriate solution is not found. I am aware that something in this respect is currently being done and will keep you posted of any positive progeress being made in the coming weeks.
• It might help you to know that the Committee directing the main industry association comprises divergent views. Those in the ascendancy view the Medios policy as ‘an accident waiting to happen’ as it is an annual contract where the Insurer can do anything it wants. Whilst that’s incorrect for the Medios policy, it’s often true of annual contracts and is illustrated by the present debacle on Pets insurance, where Lloyds and Halifax have pulled cover. Claimants against Lloyds and Halifax claim their policy was a lifetime arrangement but that is denied by Lloyds and Halifax. In contrast, the lifetime cover arrangement was enshrined in 'black & white' in the Medios policy wording.
  You will appreciate that one of the Industry Association’s prime concerns is to gain commissions for members. Biting the hand that feeds it - Aviva being world’s 6th largest insurer (at least prior to the resolution of this saga) – is not an attractive proposition.
  Focussing upon Aviva and setting aside its arrogance, hopes of manoeuvring it into a position of reasonableness ignore the fact that Guaranty costs could be in the hundreds of millions assuming a few thousand policyholders. Taking account of there being 3 different groups of Medios policyholders, that could mean over Ј1billion of costs to Aviva. That could be a massive hole blown in the holding company’s balance sheet. Think of the reactions of buyers of $400 million of Aviva’s 8.25% capital securities who bought in a mid-November 2011 public offering (a time period when all our complaints were surfacing)! Think of the reactions of subsequent buyers and sellers of Aviva’s securities!! If any of them are Americans, think of the litigation!!! Who knows!!!! Whichever way, dramatic downside for Aviva!!!!!
  The money trail was identified by a previous Poster, How, and that showed how the premiums, we paid, for our Guaranty might have been swallowed-up in Aviva profits.
  The paper trail has now also been laid bare.
  1. For the 2005 renewal, Aviva set in motion its plan to avoid its liabilities when it changed policy wording so it could pull the policy at any time – the words ‘where the policy is still offered by us’ were added to ‘This Policy shall be for one year and is continuable subject to the terms in force at the time of each Review Date’. Of course nobody identified that sneaky change as Aviva made sure it did not bring it to policyholders’ attention.
  Yes it might have been beyond Aviva’s rights to change the policy’s nature.
  Yes it might have been against FSA rules to Treat Customers Fairly whether one focusses upon the the Handbook's Principles or 2 of the Outcomes you mention.
  2. Next, in January 2010 Aviva felt safe to breach its Guaranty when it excluded New Entrants (critical to Policy pricing) but made sure not to inform Policyholders of its wrongful action. Worst still it sent out 3 years of renewals with Terms & Conditions that represented New Entrants remained.
  3. Now in November 2011 it imposes a 20% increase that it can (and does) admit includes an Age Related Increase. Policyholders must ‘like it or lump it’ as Aviva can be expected to attempt to pull the policy as occurred with the above-mentioned Lloyds/Halifax situation. Also remember that Aviva pulled the plug on an OAP health plan in 2009 and left any everyone aged over 65 uninsured.
  If anyone thinks Aviva can be trusted for anything other than its self-interest then ignore all past events. Also, too much is now at risk for Aviva to put things right willingly.
  If anyone expects Aviva to change without the direction of the FSA then think again and as many times over as possible.
  FOS compensation needs to cover the full value of the lost Guaranty plus the last 3 years’ premiums (if claimants would not have otherwise insured).
• Thank you Burtwood for ackowledging trailing of our premium monies.
  The paperwork trailing seems to be equally horrendous.
  Aviva's actions just seem to be 1 long trail of cheating.
  Agreed we can't expect Industry Association to cut its own throat by taking on Aviva. But appreciate those late to dialogue, like PMW2012, will justifiably get annoyed. Problem is that organisations sometimes make general judgements without looking at documentation - something ACG rightly pointed-out at beginning without knowing anything about actual situation.
  We must await FSA action - albeit they're also somewhat late to party.
  Difficult to understand why Aviva plc does not clarify position as there must be lots of angry purchasers of its capital and other securities who must be wondering whether they have been similarly cheated. Maybe FSA will give Aviva a NUDGE in that direction as well.
  Seems all our actions will include piling into FOS with complaints.
  PS
  1. Be interesting to see whether criminal actions are initiated against responsible Aviva executives as their misdeeds do seem to go well beyond FSA Handbook rule breaking.
  2. If I had taken up Aviva's direct Healthier Solutions offering I would be even more vexed.
  Amazingly, the Healthier Solutions documentation says "We ask for written confirmation of cancellations due to the potential loss of benefits to you in doing so. You are advised to call our Customer Service Helpline to discuss your options before taking this step".
  No such interest with Medios policies and if one asked one was refused information!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!
• Maybe helpful to policyholders to clarify Wozearly’s comments as being general observations they don’t reflect documentation or, alternatively, Aviva’s responses.
  Wozearly speculated that a large actuarial rate increase was the main cause for the 20% premium hike. Indeed, Aviva did initially use that defence. Then it dropped it as the relevant costs were Age Related and the Guaranty doesn’t permit the charging of Age Related costs; the particular costs involved were the extra costs of underwriting an older age group caused by Aviva stopping New Entrants. Any effort to charge policyholders for that risk change also made no sense as it was caused by Aviva’s breach of the Guaranty when it stopped New Entrants; consequently, Aviva became liable to policyholders and not the other way around. Worst still for Aviva, it then admitted its real reason was it needed help in covering the cost of its Guaranty as it had got its sums wrong!
  Aviva was under a duty to provide for future Age costs in its Annual Accounts, irrespective of any investment of extra premiums received in advance of costs being expended. This is an accounting standard dictat that’s enshrined in Statute. Aviva accepted that but wouldn’t release information on Guaranty value or provisions as it claimed such information was commercially sensitive even though the product had not been marketed since January 2010. Obviously, that concealment questioned whether Guaranty provisions existed and from there was born questions over black holes in Aviva’s finances. As for any undeclared Ponzi style cross-subsidies (which jeopardise values for replacement investors), no comment is necessary as the related criminal law is well understood. Hopefully, this clears up any confusion Wozearly or anyone else has on those matters.
  Yes, Wozearly is right about freedom to make premium increases. However, they can’t include elements not permitted by the Guaranty. Equally importantly, premium increases are required to be regulated by pricing applicable to New Entrants, something Aviva secretly did away with – not only did it not tell policyholders about that but it sent out Terms & Conditions for 3 following renewal years which presented New Entrants as still existing!
  Annually renewable policies are not all the same when the Insurer commits to providing cover for life – albeit that’s not necessarily the case for Medios policies issued post 2005.
  Aviva knows this which is why it went to so much trouble in 2005 to transform the product into something entirely different without pointing that out to policyholders. That same motivation also led to Aviva secretly stopping New Entrants.
  One product transformation upon another!
  Yes, Wozearly is right that insurers have been burned in the past. That happened to Equitable Life with respect to its Guaranty. Well d!jа vu, albeit Equitable Life was far cleverer with its misdeeds. As Wozearly rightfully says, Aviva’s latest misdeed/action is blunt. As for Aviva’s earlier sneaky preparatory misdeeds, they are likely to be contractually ineffective and are also likely to form the basis for breach of contract claims (as well as falling foul of FSA rules) – moreover, they are especially telling in demonstrating Aviva’s need to disarm the Guaranty so as to avoid massive liabilities. By co-incidence, Aviva’s auditors are Ernst & Young – the same auditors that reportedly got disciplined by their Institute over Equitable Life’s Guaranty debacle with a Ј500,000 fine and a cost bill of Ј2.4million.
  Wozearly expects some get-out clause to exist for Aviva. However, the Guaranty did not offer that as it was an inherited policy from the CGU/Norwich Union merger in 2000 – a bit of history to add to his/her industry knowledge if not already known. It originated from CGU’s Dutch subsidiary, OHRA. More interestingly, charging for Age increases was not allowed by Dutch Law and it is from that rigid Dutch policy that the Guaranty originated. No wonder, Aviva tried to dismantle it piece by piece – or maybe by ‘hook or crook’ - to escape the Guaranty’s clutches. It wanted to transform the policy into an entirely different product – the worthless sort that Wozearly had in mind.
  This is now all about detailed documentation – which is unfortunate for Aviva as the paper trail magnifies its misdeeds. Disciplines required to work through matters cover law, accounting, insurance, FSA, FOS, plus actuarial. Seems these complexities or arrogance or a mixture of both have caused Aviva’s present high risk situation as all its Guaranty liabilities could now crystallise and become immediately payable as compensation – hopefully, for Aviva’s survival, it possesses a massive cash mountain to make compensation payments (sort of reminds one of the BP compensation funding problems with regard to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill)!
  Whilst long, this is not a fiction story – the large amounts of money involved motivate this sort of unacceptable behaviour – all familiar territory to the author (on the side of the good).
  It is the gravity and sheer persistence of Aviva’s misdeeds that causes so much anger amongst policyholders.
  Already, those misled to take-up Healthier Solutions policies have had their entire Guaranty values misappropriated by Aviva – doubtless, this is not the type of encouragement envisaged by Wozearly.
  These Aviva people are not the sort to introduce to family of friends.
• As the originator of this thread I think it is time to update you on where I am with my policy and what I think I will do now.
  I am still paying my new increased medios premiums.
  I have written a complaint letter to Aviva and had a fairly general reply with a polite refusal to answer some of my questions.
  I am going to write a further letter today to object to the price increase as a breach of contract and expect a letter back from them refuting this and directing me to the Financial Ombudsman Service if I want to take this further.
  This seems to me to be the logical step to take because either they can do this or they can't and I would expect the FOS to provide some clarity.
  If this does not work in my favour then there would need to be some legal opinion sought.
  I was an original OHRA Medios policy holder from 1996, the policy having been taken out through a specialist broker. I bought it specifically for the age guarantee. ( Exeter were also offereing similar product at the time, I wonder what happened to that). I was not happy at the time that Aviva purchased the book of policy holders at the time but was assured everything would continue as normal.
  I work as a Financial Adviser so am used to the way large insurance companies work. They are run by very clever people who understand how to manage a business and for the benefit of customers and shareholders. Mostly they get it right and we get good products service and profitable insurance companies. However sometimes they make mistakes that are not necesarily breaches of contract but get caught by the FSA with regard to appropriateness and ethics. I feel that this looks to be such a case. Time will tell.
• It would be helpful to know if 'burwood' and 'wozearly' are policy holders becuase they have given a lot of information and thought and I am just wondering where they stand?
• I’m a policyholder for the same sort of period as you and am well versed in all disciplines covered by this case – it’s not enough to be a broker unless also possessing FOS claim, legal, and financial expertise and actuarial knowledge is also required to determine value of Guaranty loss.
  FSA procedure is probably not now relevant to others.
  Action depends upon the loss you are claiming AND interest needs to be added to the loss amount.
  The Options I considered are set out below.
  Option 1 is a few hundred pounds for the premium increase above medical inflation and the 1% IPT.
  Option 2 is same as Option 1 + value of lost Guaranty.
  Option 3 is same as Option 2 + premiums paid for 2010, 2011 and 2012.
  Option 4 is for your Option 1, 2 or 3 choice + increase to account for any exclusion of existing conditions by a new insurer – particularly relevant if there are continuing claims for an existing problem.
  One must remember the 20% premium hike is the tip of the iceberg – most of one’s loss is hidden below the surface. Our Guaranty was presented by Aviva in late 2000 as ”one of the most complete medical expenses insurances available in the United Kingdom” and “cover can be continued for life”.
  Now we could have a worthless policy as a result of Aviva’s unexplained and unauthorised 2005 Guaranty change that allows Aviva to withdraw cover at any time. The New Entrants exclusion in January 2010 also means premiums are no longer market related, which further breaches the Guaranty. Consequently, these factors are the motivation for Option 2.
  I worked out that value by using methodology detailed in a previous post – well above Ј50,000 for me.
  Doubtless many would also not have renewed if they had known about the New Entrants exclusion in January 2010 (planned in 2009). They didn’t know about it as Aviva’s wrongdoing was not only concealed but was misrepresented within Aviva’s Terms and Conditions. Consequently, I would not have self-insured or would not otherwise have incurred premiums and therefore, ultimately, chose Option 3.
  I also needed to consider existing medical conditions with respect to the Option 4 add-on.
  When I complained to Aviva, I made sure I requested information about
  - Guaranty value and related provisions for Option 2,
  - background to and reasons for New Entrants closure for Option 3 (+ requested explanation for how policyholders’ situations had been considered).
  That’s because one should only make a claim if it has been previously submitted to Aviva and no satisfactory response received.
  Obviously, one cannot advise another without knowing their personal circumstances which is the reason for explaining my own choices.
• This is a 2 for 1 Post response so you can also understand timing aspects.
  When Aviva inherited the policy from 2001, the Guaranty costs for subsequent New Entrants had to follow 11 to 19 years later (due to the requirement to undergo 1 Age Related increase on a birthday ending with zero). That meant Guaranty costs from those further unwanted New Entrants would commence from 2012.
  The unexplained and unauthorised Guaranty change in 2005 was established to cause any challenge to be statute barred from 2012.
  Aviva’s planned 2012 exit strategy was delayed when Aviva lost its nerve in 2011. Instead of ceasing cover, Aviva decided to go for a staggered exit that started with the 20% premium hike; the intent was to cause policyholders to relinquish their Guaranty and move onto Aviva’s Healthier Solutions Policy.
  Even if the expertise was available, Aviva believed no one would invest the time and effort to unearth and trawl through 10 years plus of policy documentation.
  This whole strategy must have gone all the way up the Aviva plc management tree as the 'fraud' was so long in the making.
• Wozeasy’s comments do not change the fact that deception took place, which might or might not constitute fraud - in the legal sense.
  That’s because those Wozeasy’s comments are made on the basis that deception issues can be set aside.
  The following took place and, consequently, cannot be set aside.
  1. The 2005 change when the commitment “This cover can be continued for life” was changed to “is continuable subject to the terms in force at the time of each Review Date where the product is still offered by us”.
  2. New Entrants being unilaterally removed in breach of Guaranty.
  3. Charging renewal premiums for 2010, 2011, and 2012 whilst misrepresenting in its Terms & Conditions that New Entrants remained.
  4. Aviva charging for the impact of its own Guaranty breach (it says the 20% increase was mainly caused by “the remaining members are getting older” as “The Medios policy was closed to new business” and therefore “the pooled fund is no longer sufficient to cover the risk it represents”). Nor can Aviva benefit from its own contract breach but must, instead, compensate policyholders - irrespective of Wozeasy’s play upon whether Age Related means Age Related.
  5. Policyholders being told how much they could save by transferring to Healthier Solutions but Aviva failing in its duty to inform them also of the value of the Guaranty they were relinquishing. A new lamps for old fraud of the worst kind, where motivation was to avoid millions of pounds of liabilities.
  If Wozeasy thinks this is just an FSA matter, that’s a mistake; albeit appreciate his experience is focussed in product analysis.
  First there’s the prima facie fraud question, aggravated by (a) the long term planning of the various deceptions, (b) the duty of trust, and (c) the huge amounts of money involved.
  Second policyholders’ contracts have been breached (especially relevant to FOS or the Courts).
  In particular, Wozearly wrongly seems to think Aviva can change the character of the product sold and can unilaterally inflict unfair terms upon policyholders under some general alteration capability.
  That’s so wrong on so many different planes.
  Just one for instance is Schedule 2 of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 where the following are given as examples of terms that shall be ineffective against the Consumer -
  (j) enabling the seller or supplier to alter the terms of the contract unilaterally without a valid reason which is specified in the contract;
  (k) enabling the seller or supplier to alter unilaterally without a valid reason any characteristics of the product or service to be provided.
  Wozearly just does not appreciate that policyholders invested in Medios because of its Guaranty and its crucial characteristics of life cover and being market related (through New Entrants).
  Yet Wozearly would like to set all those aspects aside and play on words – rather like Aviva ridding itself of all the millions of liabilities that it should have provided as opposed to concealing from policyholders.
  The extent of Aviva's deceptions will cause policyholders to pursue Aviva until they get justice.