Pet insurance - but not really. The IPID which is the key information document fails to point out the ridiculous limitations they apply which would mostly leave you with a claim total below the excess. In the policy wording it is not highlighted or clearly set out in a table as required by the Ombudsman, therefore easy to miss, it looks like it’s been added later. It’s not really insurance for accident or illness on the basis that they limit claims in the following ways; 1. See a vet within 12 hours of issue - but they’ll only cover £90 of emergency or in home fees which are typically at least £250. (What they will cover is lower than their excess) 2. Claim within 48 hours - even though they ask if the treatment is completed on their claim form which makes you think you have to wait. (Although they point out you failed to claim accordingly and then suggest as goodwill they’ll overlook it…mmmm). 3. Excess of £100 - but see below for limitations. This has to be paid up front when claiming rather than when it’s accepted and a proposed settlement is made. 4. Limited to vet consultation at £45 total. Under £100 excess. 5. Limited to medication at £50 total. Under £100 excess, even when combined with vet consultation. 6. Based on timings and claim criteria - you must submit multiple claims for ongoing treatments for things like arthritis medications instead of it being considered part of the same claim. Pay excess again and go through idiotic and archaic claim process all over again. 7. Can’t speak to anyone in either the broker firm or the claims manager. 8. Suspect that the independent Claims Manager is the same company or at least linked as the tone in their replies is exactly the same as the Nova Direct chat responses. Suggesting that any questions to clarify inclusions and exclusions would be ‘advice’ for example so they can avoid confirming the absurdity in writing. Oh and forget any chance of them actually answering any of your questions, instead you’ll be patronised and lectured on completely unrelated matters. 9. They don’t cover any investigations at all - not any. X-rays, scans and so on…you know the costly bits. 10. You won’t find any of this bulleted or clearly pointed out anywhere on their site or partner sites. It’s all conveniently hidden in their policy wording without even a clear heading ‘LIMITATIONS’ to make it obvious. The Financial Ombudsman should investigate their practices as the other reviews show it’s across the board. They are shoddy at best and potentially deliberately deceiving consumers at worst (aka obtaining money for services that they won’t be able to rely upon!).