Ayoni Singh's community profile page

Write a review

Go to business site

Viewing profile for,

Ayoni Singh

Total reviews written

Helpful marks given to their reviews

Times reviews seen

All reviews (1)

Review of the Petplan, Pet insurance:

View on product page

Repeated underwriting errors for 10years!

We insured our Siberian Husky, Ghost (our son), with Petplan from puppyhood because we trusted their reputation and believed we were choosing the best protection possible for our pets. Sadly, our experience has been extremely distressing. As a puppy, Ghost had a mild cosmetic valgus observation which was fully assessed by Fitzpatrick Referrals, one of the UK’s leading orthopaedic specialist centres. Their European orthopaedic specialist confirmed there was: no clinical disease, no pain, no functional abnormality, no treatment or management required, and stated: “I would consider him to be a NORMAL dog… this is purely COSMETIC.” Ghost then remained fully active for approximately 9.5 years: long hikes, sledding, bike towing, running, with no symptoms, no medication, and no treatment relating to this so-called “pre-existing” condition. We made a claim relating to the Fitzpatrick referral in 2018, which was later rejected in 2019. In that response, Petplan acknowledged that the underwriting team had not written the policy correctly regarding exclusions, yet still declined the claim. Due to the COVID pandemic and serious family illness at the time, we were unable to pursue the matter further through the Ombudsman. Fast forward 6 years later, in 2025, Ghost developed completely new age-related conditions including spondylosis and arthritis affecting multiple joints and different parts of the body. Before proceeding with expensive stem cell treatment, we specifically contacted Petplan multiple times from August 2025 onwards to clarify whether ANY exclusions existed, particularly regarding his historic valgus observation and previous claim rejection. We were explicitly told in writing that: “There are no exclusions… we missed to place it and won’t be adding one.” I made several additional calls to further clarify policy wording and Ghost’s previous history. We were repeatedly reassured that there was no exclusion relating to valgus deformity. We relied on this confirmation before proceeding with treatment costing thousands of pounds. Despite this, the claim was later rejected and retrospective exclusions were subsequently applied approximately 9.5 years after the policy began through what was described as a “mid-term policy adjustment.” Petplan had opportunities to correct any alleged underwriting issue in: 2016, 2019, and throughout the following 6 years, yet remained silent until a major claim was submitted. What has been most disappointing is not only the financial impact, but the emotional distress caused while trying to secure treatment for a beloved family dog approaching 10 years old. We are now pursuing this matter formally due to serious concerns regarding: retrospective underwriting, contradictory information, and failure to properly consider specialist veterinary evidence. We strongly encourage pet owners to carefully review their policies and obtain written confirmation of exclusions, even where none appear on renewal documents. We currently pay over £300 per month for Ghost alone and have two dogs insured with Petplan. Based on our experience, we no longer feel the service reflects the reputation of the company we originally trusted. We will continue pursuing this matter and sharing our experience publicly so other pet owners are fully informed. Reviewed on: 12th May 2026

We are helping 1000s to make smarter financial decisions

We use the power of consumer reviews to help increase trust and transparency in financial services and to deliver industry leading insight and events.