A shameful and scandalous experience!
We had an accident involving a tin of paint that spilled and exploded down our stairs after being accidentally knocked over. A very silly accident that wouldn't have happened if it weren't for certain circumstances that lead up to it. Ageas hired SBS to assess our claim, who in turn sent out Paul Jones (Independent Flooring Specialist). Paul visited our home, took some measurements, didn't ask any questions about the accident and left. Unbeknown to us at the time, Ageas then referred our case to "Claims Consortium Group" for a second opinion. We find out many months later that our claim is rejected because Ageas could not rule out fraudulent activity. Paul believed we had staged and exaggerated our claim and Danielle Wood of Claims Consortium Group agreed. As it transpires, Ben Crampton of Ageas, who received our initial enquiry, has recorded the accident incorrectly in the system as if the paint tin rolled down the stairs. Ben also marks down his concerns that our claim is staged. Ben states, "TECH REF images to follow, the carpet is showing signs of wear and tear, please can we have full validation as the images look staged compared the incident that was reported of clipping the paint can with hoover and it rolling down the stairs" Ageas then proceed to involve SBS, who correctly interpreted how the accident happened and issue a work instruction to Paul stating "both tin and lid remained on the landing" However, Paul turned up at our door and analysed the paint spill as if the tin rolled down the stairs. We didn't find this out until after we involved the Ombudsman. Paul states "What may have happened is there has been a spill on the top landing, the policy holder may have thought the stairs would not be covered and staged the stairs and engineered wood on the bottom hall." We stated to Ageas in our original enquiry we weren't claiming for the REAL OAK flooring at the bottom of our stars" To make matters worse, Daniel White of SBS (Accredited Counter Fraud Technician) has reworded Paul's terrible report mid-sentence... "On inspection the paint spill is not consistent with a tin falling 360 down the stairs, the drip is too large from top landing to top tread with inconsistent pattern." To... "On inspection the paint spill is not consistent with a tin falling and the paint subsequently going down the stairs, the drip is too large from top landing to top tread with inconsistent pattern thereafter.” There is a distinct difference between a paint tin can falling down the stairs and what SBS changed the report to say. Worse yet, Danielle of Claims Consortium Group, someone barely out of University at the time, who claimed to be a Forensic Scientist, completely and utterly failed in her analysis of our accident. Danielle openly admits in her poorly written report, she should have called us to ask questions but chose not to. Danielle states "Further questioning would usually be conducted for a full report but for this we are examining the images provided and the details of the event from the policy holders initial claim report". Danielle showed instant biased towards the findings of Ageas and SBS. Danielle states "We believe that the concerns raised by Insurers more than warranted the referral to our Investigations Team’s Forensic Scientist.". We tried to explain that we had to scrape up the spills / splodges / blobs and the pictures did not represent the accident at the time. Danielle states "the version of events put forward in full have unfortunately been unable to be verified due to some of the areas of damage simply not being possible." Danielle also states "When looking more closely to the different areas of damage and comparing them it is clear to see that the stains made were not made from 1 singular event due to the different patterns and different spreads made. Danielle unfortunately does not understand the chaotic nature of paint exploding out a tin, nor how its contents emptied out when the tin came to rest on the top landing and spilled over several stairs. Danielle also does not know what happens when you scrape up areas of paint in close proximity which turned multiple stains into less larger stains. The real disgrace is that Ageas used the faulty and incomplete reports from SBS and Claims Consortium Group in their defence when we brought our case to the Ombudsman - case "drn-5070335". We even knocked back the £600 the Ombudsman asked Ageas to pay in compensation for the poor service. However, we cannot accept the notion that we tried to cheat anyone. We have spent nearly £3000 to find this out, it will cost another £20000 to take Ageas to court to prove that we did not make a false claim. The incompetence of Ageas and its partner's is next level, our version of the Post Office Scandal! Queue the standard response from Ageas...