Were you living in Ireland? What was the reason that you were in Ireland for and why did these consultations take place over a protracted period of 7 months?
Did you get authority from them before you undertook a protracted number of consultations?
Why were there so many consultations?
What was the nature of them?
May we have the part of the terms and conditions which is relative to this please?
Is the issue that they are saying that the consultations you have had are beyond the scope of emergency treatment?
The question then arises as to what the difference between emergency treatment and normal treatment? Would they be expecting your return to the UK for ongoing treatment?
Have you reported this to FOS?
Which provider is it?
We are not allowed to accept documents outside the site unless it’s part of the premium service exchange for which there is an extra cost. You can attach the documents on here.
I still don’t know why you were in Ireland for 6 months.
They say in the email of 6 June at 0837 that the psychiatric treatment is not covered under the overseas emergency plan provisions but it certainly isn’t excluded and hence it would be covered.
They are Incorrect in the first email they sent.
It comes down to whether this is emergency treatment or not.
I don’t think they’re offered to pay €800 is an admission of guilt. I think it’s a genuine offer to settle.
The difficulty here is that it’s unlikely that emergency treatment be spread over 6 months because the first treatment was 20 January and the last one was 11 July. I don’t think the judge would find that psychiatric treatment over seven months for a nervous breakdown was emergency.
On a no interpretation, that is not emergency, that is a protracted course of treatment.
There is one thing that would help you and that is that if you got a consultant to give evidence which confirmed that it was essential that your treatment was carried out with the same therapist without travelling home. Without that, I don’t think you have a good chance of succeeding certainly in court.
If you take them to court on this, I don’t think that you have a good chance of success although it would be Small Claims Court and therefore even if you must, you would only lose the court costs and have to pay any nominal solicitors costs of the insurer. I would not go to court with the hope of 50% chance of winning. It is not the treatment of the nature of the treatment the protracted timescale.
What you might want to do is make a formal complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service and let the Ombudsman decide. I will tell you that they will not routinely come down on the side of the insurer.
I’m sorry the answer is not more favourable for you.
Can I clarify anything for you?
Remember that you are entitled to a have a work colleague union representative at that disciplinary meeting as well as your interpreter.
You could email the Data Controller to ask how this could have done wrong and what the ramifications are of any breach.I wish I could give you the answer you wanted but I just don’t think the facts are favourable. Sorry
I apologise for that. It was indeed. It happens from time to time. Here is what you should have received:
It not have to be your consultant that would say that, but an independent. Your consultant has a vested interest.
It might be “better” but not necessarily essential and it comes back again to whether this is classed as emergency treatment ongoing therapy.
I accept that the breakdown was emergency but it’s the ongoing treatment that you have to convince the insurance company but was emergency and it’s because of the protracted period of time that is problematical for you. You would not normally be fully recovered after emergency treatment because it would need some ongoing treatment.
I think that it’s the length of the treatment that is the whole issue.
The doesn’t say anything about which exchange rate is to be used because there was no statutory provision in that respect.
It may well be that the cost arguing the difference in exchange rates is going to be far more than you are arguing over. What the world does say is that the idea of insurance is to put you back into the position had the incident not occurred and hence, it is what exchange rate is required at the time the money is handed over to you to put you into that position.
I wish I could give you the answer you wanted but I just don’t think the facts are 100% favourable. But I would certainly make a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service because it is risk-free. I just don’t want you to build your hopes up. Sorry