Aviva's Fraud Investigators - making policemen everywhere seem polite...

Last Friday afternoon at work I was rung by a gentleman who I never spoke to because I was working.  He then sent me an email informing me that he was a Fraud Investigator for Aviva and asking me to “give him a call” about my motor insurance.  I rang the number back only to be put on hold.  So I gave up and sent a grumpy email to which I received a perfunctory reply explaining that they wanted to check my claims history.  Later that afternoon I started to worry that I had not filled in my insurance application form correctly.  Had I missed an accident out?   

So when I got home from work I logged into Aviva’s website to check my policy documents and what I had told Aviva.  I was locked out with only a message on the site to contact Aviva… So I spent a huge amount of time trawling through my emails to try to prove to myself that my claims history was right.  It was.  But of course without access to my policy I couldn’t check what I’d told Aviva to reassure myself.  So I emailed the Fraud office again…

Unlike Barton Keyes – the fearsome fraud investigator in Double Indemnity - Aviva’s fraud investigators do not seem to burn the midnight oil or work through lunch hours or at weekends so it was only after a whole weekend of worry that my policy would be cancelled and I would be put on some kind of insurance blacklist that I received another perfunctory reply from Aviva thanking me for the information, saying that I was no longer under investigation and stating that my policy would continue as normal and that I could now download my documents.

It occurred to me later in the week that this is a funny way to conduct a business.  Why if you want to double check someone’s claim history would you loudly announce yourself to them in voicemails and emails as a “Fraud Investigator” or from the “Fraud Department” instead of just saying that you are some kind of underwriter and you are policy checking?  Adding the word “Fraud” into correspondence and conversations is quite accusatory – to the point of bullying.  Furthermore why not just tell me what it is I’ve told them and ask me to confirm it is correct?  The whole thing felt like a bit of a fishing expedition as if they were cross questioning me to see if they could get me to incriminate myself.  Had they simply sold the policy too cheaply?  One even wonders if this is a rouse to put the price up and start renegotiating the policy after sale.  Not that I’m saying that’s what happened by one has to wonder…