When Adrian Neal’s beloved dog Poppy had to be put to sleep, he was grateful his pet insurance would at least cover her vet bills.
But despite paying more than £1,500 in premiums over eight years, the father-of-four was told he could claim just 80p.
Adrian, 50, is just one of scores of readers to write in after Money Mail revealed last week how owners are routinely let down by the £1.2billion a year pet insurance industry.
We exposed how some insurers severely restrict how much they pay towards treatment and rely on onerous terms and conditions to reject claims.
Out of pocket: Alan Patterson, pictured with pugs Ruby and Bailey, is battling Legal & General over its refusal to cover tests to diagnose a mystery allergy distressing Ruby
Since then, we have been inundated with emails and letters from owners complaining about poor service and unfair payouts.
Adrian, from Lee-on-the-Solent, Gosport, Hants, bought his Boxer, Poppy, as a puppy 12 years ago, and a few years later, in 2010, he took out insurance with Animal Friends, paying £14.55 a month.
In 2013, he received one £81 payout for treatment when Poppy scratched her eye on a bush.
Then, this year, Poppy started struggling to walk, and last month she collapsed in the park. Adrian took her to a vet, who found she had lost 2kg and recommended that she be put to sleep.
Adrian, a member of the Royal Navy Police for 22 years, says: ‘I knew it was time for her to go on good terms.
She had been with me through some bad times, and putting her to sleep was the most dreadful thing I have ever done.’
The bill for Poppy’s final appointment, the drugs for the euthanasia and the disposal of her body, came to £342.21.
But when Adrian, who lives with partner Karen West, 52, submitted the claim, Animal Friends wrote back to say just 80p would be paid.
Adrian Neal, with his beloved Boxer, Poppy, was told just 80p would be paid out
The policy small print limited claims for euthanasia to just £100. The insurer then took off £99 to cover his policy excess, along with a further 20 per cent because Poppy was older than eight years.
Adrian says: ‘It would have been better if they had refused to pay out at all.
‘The fact they paid out 80p is an insult to Poppy’s life and an insult to me as a long-term customer.’
A spokesman for Animal Friends says: ‘The investigation into this complaint is ongoing.’
Another Animal Friends customer, Mo Large, 76, was stunned when the insurer turned down her £1,030 claim altogether — citing a diagnosis from more than two years ago that her vet says was irrelevant.
Her dog Buster, an eight-year-old Bichon Frise, had to have fluid drained from around his heart last month and spent three days at the vet’s.
But when Mo, a retired care home manager from Suffolk, tried to claim, Animal Friends said it would not pay up as Buster had been diagnosed with a heart murmur during a check-up in 2016.
Mo, who lives near Bury St Edmunds, paid £17 a month for the policy, but has now cancelled her insurance payments.
She says: ‘You pay it because you want to do the best for your dog if something awful happened. It’s hard to find that amount of money when you are living on a pension, but we love him and he is worth it.’
Animal Friends says it has not received a complaint from Mo.
Eighty-one-year-old Anne Heighington, a widow, gave up on insurance after Petplan repeatedly refused to pay out for bills for her toy poodle, Diablo.
She paid £27 a month for around five years, but decided to cancel last year after making just one successful claim out of five or six.
She says: ‘It’s every excuse under the sun.’
The pet insurance industry is worth a massive £1.2billion a year – but is letting customers down
Anne says she has now paid out thousands of pounds to pay for ten-year-old Diablo’s problems with his teeth and skin.
The former civil servant, from County Durham, says: ‘It’s my dog, it’s my responsibility, it is my little comfort. I would hate to be without him, and whatever it takes, I will pay. It is a shocking, shocking rip-off all round.’
A Petplan spokesman says: ‘Petplan’s priority is to ensure pets get the veterinary treatment they need, which is why we design our policies to pay out and do not increase premiums as a direct result of a claim.’
Alan Patterson, 64, is battling Legal & General (L&G) over its refusal to cover tests to diagnose a mystery allergy distressing his pug Ruby.
His other pug, Bailey, is insured at around £50 a month with Petplan and has had a host of health problems, but the insurer has always paid out.
He says: ‘I reckon Petplan has spent £25,000 on Bailey, and we can’t get a penny piece out of L&G for Ruby.’
Alan pays L&G £38 a month for cover for Ruby, but the insurer refuses to pay for tests, claiming a 2016 ear infection is linked.
The father-of-two, who has already paid out £600 on tests and says more will cost £1,500, says: ‘How could a simple ear infection that cleared up in 24 hours have anything to do with her allergy three years on?
‘I am now going to consider the Ombudsman as I feel I am being ripped off.’ L&G was approached for comment.
Money Mail reader Paul Deaville, 62, was shocked to learn he was entitled to only £290 of a vet bill exceeding £2,200 after his 15-year-old border collie, Bob, had to be put down last month.
He says the Animal Friends policy small print restricted cover for treatment to £500. His claim was then subject to a 35 per cent cut due to Bob’s old age, and finally the £99 excess.
Paul, who lives near Sandbach, Cheshire, says: ‘In what was already a very traumatic time, this added insult to injury. It left me thinking, after paying into it for all of my dog’s lifetime, what is the point of pet insurance?’
Some links in this article may be affiliate links. If you click on them we may earn a small commission. That helps us fund This Is Money, and keep it free to use. We do not write articles to promote products. We do not allow any commercial relationship to affect our editorial independence.