Nokkerboff v DWF £5k 'debt'

[Nokkerboff]

Hi. I have received a letter from DWF demanding money. Is it ok just to ignore these? Does anybody have any experience of DWF? Thanks in advance.

[ostell]

Usually Ignore but you haven't told the full tale. Create your own thread away from here and you will get some answers.

[Nokkerboff]

Oh sorry. I’m basically being chased for a debt and it is being dealt with by DWF. I have received the first letter asking for £5,182

[Amethyst]

I'll move your post to it's own thread (edit: DONE - use this thread now ) ... do you want to tell us what this £5k debt is from please?

Nokkerboff

[Nokkerboff]

It’s a vet bill. I was insured but the insurance company wriggled out of it on a technicality now I don’t know what to do.

[Amethyst]

Okay. It is different from the civil recovery invoices of the thread that you originally posted on, so good job Ostell picked up on that

Pet Insurance - presumably?

What was the technicality that caused the Insurers refuse your claim ? pre-existing conditions ?

[Nokkerboff]

Yes. Debt has now been passed to DWF who are the ones that have written the letter asking for the balance to be paid by 23rd October.

[Amethyst]

And you disagree with the insurers decision?

What have you done so far to challenge the decision?

[Nokkerboff]

I’m past that stage now tbh. They cited behavioural issues with the pet that had not been declared. Just need to know what to do now as I don’t have the money to pay £5k plus

[Amethyst]

If you don't want to argue the point with the insurers any further than the Vet's bill will need paying - presumably you have a full breakdown of the invoice and the vets are aware your insurers have refused payment hence involving DWF. You will need to make an offer to pay by instalments or risk the vet's taking you to court ( using DWF as their solicitors ) to obtain a judgment against you to pay by installments or enforce through various means ( bailiffs, attachment of earnings etc )

[Nokkerboff]

I have asked DWF to send me evidence that the debt is attributed to me. They sent consent forms that had my name on but were signed by someone else. I provided them with proof of my signature and they accepted that I hadn’t signed the forms. Does this change things?

[Amethyst]

Consent forms for what ? the treatment of the Pet ?

( it helps if you give the full story rather than drip feeding btw )

[Nokkerboff]

Sorry

Yes consent forms for treatment of the pet.

I questioned via email whether the debt was attributed to me as I myself hadn’t signed the consent forms. I sent evidence of my signature in and they said:

Whilst we appreciate that the signature on the documentation is not yours, the vet practice obtained verbal consent from yourself on 20^th May 2019 in relation to the procedures to be carried out during a telephone call;

• The documentation appears to have been signed by your partner;
• You are the owner of the pet, Henry;
• Your details have been provided as those of the policy holder.

I have since emailed them back saying this is not proof and they have come back to me saying I need to send them my payment intentions or a ‘formal dispute in writing’ (which I’m not sure what that is)

[Amethyst]

• The documentation appears to have been signed by your partner;
• You are the owner of the pet, Henry;
• Your details have been provided as those of the policy holder.

So are those all correct ( ie. did your partner consent to the treatment of your pet ?)

Raising a formal dispute in writing is basically make a complaint stating that you did not consent to the treatment, you did not authorise your partner ( or whoever signed ) to consent to treatment of the pet, and how you feel this invalidates any invoice raised on the basis of that treatment. You then have the issue of who put the claim in to the insurers, and if the treatment was given without your authority why you would claim from the insurers …. gets a bit tangled.

You've been through the whole 'pre-existing' conditions element of the insurer turning down the claim ? Was the condition treated directly related to the 'behavioural' issues that you failed to disclose on your application for insurance ? Going to tag des8 for you ( cause it's insurance ) as it seems more likely looking back at the insurer is more worthwhile than arguing that you didn't want the vet to treat your pet and your partner had no right to agree to such treatment. IMO anyway.

[Nokkerboff]

Sorry crossed wires with the pre-existing condition thing.It was a condition limit that the insurers had imposed so I can’t really get out of that one. I thought I could claim £3000 but this was the annual limit for all pet conditions with a max £500 payout per treatment