CO Operativeinsurance reviewed by

trustpilot stars
trustpilot stars
trustpilot stars
trustpilot stars
trustpilot stars

bad, not to be confused with other co-op companies, which are good where this one's bad

I've been with CIS (Co-operative Insurance Society, recently rebranded as Co-op Insurance) for 20 years but only because they're the only company that'll insure a house with gas fires instead of central heating.
To cut 5 long stories very short,
1) I used to let 3 rooms &, although I insured with them because they agreed that that was OK, they repeatedly refused to put it in writing at all, & so I had to record a conversation of their staff member saying that they were including it in the agreement! - ridiculous way to carry on a business!
2) they ordered minor damage to my home to cover up evidence of a potential claim (ordered cornice removed, which was only thing showing where heavy rain cause crack to widen) & after I got the damage fixed at my own expense, it took me 2 years to get them to put right the damage they'd ordered
3) I used to let 3 rooms but reduced it to 2 - I'd had a policy that'd allowed me to let 3 but changed it to a cheaper one that allows only 2 - then when I wanted to change it back, they said they no longer do such policies - they could've told me that before I changed! - not remotely happy!
4) my new policy says on my bank statements direct debits "F&A Insurance" & so I pointed out to CIS that it's not just a Fire & Accident policy - they just said that's not what F&A means but wouldn't say what it does mean - I feel they can't even lie properly!
5) I recently found that CIS should've offered me Co-op membership points & so I asked Co-op membership how to get them & they told me that CIS has to give me them, so I asked CIS for them but they just referred me back to Co-op memberships, totally doging their responsibility in this matter - one'd think I was asking for a claim not just for points, cos their reply treated me as though it were from a Loss Adjuster / claim refuser!
I have paper proof of all of 2-5 but obviously not of 1.
    Comment (?)