Welcome to the Money blog, Sky News' consumer and personal finance hub. We help a reader who was stung by his pet insurance company in today's Money Problem. And we've launched a Money newsletter, bringing exclusive tips and features to your inbox - sign up below.
Tuesday 10 June 2025 07:07, UK
Sky News is keen to hear from people who are due to refix their mortgages this year, are on variable rates or are trying to get on the housing ladder.
Send us a message on Whatsapp or email your stories at AG百家乐在线官网.today@AG百家乐在线官网.uk.
Every Tuesday, we get an expert to answer your financial problems or consumer disputes. WhatsApp us yours or email moneyblog@AG百家乐在线官网.uk. Today's problem is...
My dog Benji died last month at the age of 11. But when I went to cancel his insurance, they told me I was still liable for paying the remaining five months of his policy (at 拢138 a month). They took 拢691.75 out of my final claim. They told me this was standard because if you make a claim in the same year the pet dies, you are then liable for the remaining year's premiums. Is this right? I've had the policy with them since 2020.
Alex*
Our cost of living specialist Megan Harwood-Baynes tackled this one...
I鈥檓 so sorry to hear about your dog. You told me he died unexpectedly - he was going for tests and died before the results came back. It took you a couple of days to summon up the strength to call HealthyPets and cancel his insurance, but when you did, you were shocked to be told you were liable to pay the remaining 拢691.75 on your premium.
As someone who has also been stung by pet insurance (with a different insurer), I was sad but not surprised to find out this clause exists.
Your insurance policy says this: "Any claim resulting from the death/permanent loss (referred as Total Loss) of the insured animal will result in the immediate cancellation of the contract and no refund of the annual premium will be allowed."
So, unfortunately, it does seem to be the case that you had to pay the premium. And look, we are all guilty of not reading the small print, and even when we do, it's so dense it can be really difficult to take it all in.
When you have an older animal (usually over the ages of eight to ten), your policy changes significantly, as certain things stop being covered. For example, you can claim if your kitten dies, but not your 12-year-old cat.
If you stay with the same insurer, this can be particularly tricky to navigate because they rarely flag any policy changes from year to year. Personally, I'm not sure why not - it wouldn't be difficult to include a PDF highlighting what things have changed once your pet reaches a certain age.
My main advice to anyone with a pet over a certain age would be to read and reread the small print - and call the insurer before you need to claim to make sure you fully know what you are signing up for.
But is this policy fair?
That being said, you said what upset you the most was the way you were dealt with by HealthyPets - for an insurer that presumably deals with this situation every day, you said there was no acknowledgement of the shock or grief you were going through.
Overall, you felt the approach was rather blunt and cold, especially given you'd been with them for four years (and presumably paid them thousands of pounds) and not claimed for Benji in that time. You felt it could have chosen to be more courteous to you or show some discretion with this clause.
I reached out to HealthyPets to ask if it felt it was fair for you to pay premiums on a deceased animal. To me, it seems a particularly cruel clause, designed to hit just when you're grieving your pet.
The official reply was this: "We would like to express our deepest condolences to Alex for the loss of Benji as we fully recognise the pain and stress the loss of a pet can cause. Thank you for bringing her complaint to our attention. We have reached out to her directly to discuss her concerns."
So, it was not the most helpful reply, but the next day, HealthyPets phoned you to say a formal complaint had been raised on your behalf. You said what mattered most is that in that phone call, the company apologised to you and expressed condolences for Benji's death.
A few days later, you had a final response to your complaint. HealthyPets apologised for the fact that its service had not met expectations. It said it tried to make policy wording as clear as possible (I'll let you decide if you agree that is the case鈥�) and explained exactly why, in accordance with their terms, the premium was due to be paid.
But it concluded by saying that while it couldn't change the terms of your policy, it arranged for a goodwill payment of 拢450 in recognition of the distress and disappointment caused by the situation.
You told me you were pleased with the outcome - you genuinely weren't expecting any money, but the acknowledgement and apology were what you had hoped for.
How to complain about an insurer
If you also feel unhappy with how you've been dealt with by an insurer, the first thing you need to do is raise a formal complaint directly with them. They should issue you a final response within a couple of months.
If you don't agree with their final decision, you can then go to the Financial Ombudsman - they will make a final decision, which is then binding. If you are still not happy, you can then take your insurer to court, but this should be an absolute last resort.
You can find out more about making a complaint on the .
*Names have been changed
This feature is not intended as financial advice - the aim is to give an overview of the things you should think about. Submit your dilemma or consumer dispute via:
By Mark Kleinman, City editor
Half of Britain鈥檚 2,500 remaining smaller housebuilders could crash into insolvency by the end of this parliament as a consequence of the cost of industry regulations, a report will warn this week.
Sky News has seen a document to be published on Tuesday - ahead of the government's spending review - which will refer to "a perfect storm of costs" that threatens to wipe out the profits of SME housebuilders.
The bleak forecast is the principal conclusion of a report produced jointly by the public affairs firm WPI Strategy and ChamberlainWalker, an economics consultancy specialising in housing and planning.
It casts a fresh shadow over the government's target of building 1.5 million homes during the course of this parliament - one of its most important manifesto commitments ahead of last year's landslide victory.
Northumbrian Water has agreed to pay out 拢15.7m after failures in the maintenance and operations of its sewage and water network.
Water sector regulator Ofwat said its failures led to "excessive spills from storm overflows".
The water company will pay out the "enforcement package" to local environmental causes and improvements to the region's water infrastructure.
Ofwat also said the package agreed with the company means it will be spent on local improvements for customers, rather than being directed to the Treasury's consolidated fund.
News of the payout last week came after Thames Water was fined a record 拢122.7m. It was found to have broken rules over sewage treatment and paying out dividends.
Waitrose shoppers will be allowed to "borrow" a reusable cup in order to redeem their free coffee.
Those using the supermarket's loyalty scheme will be able to take a cup from a dispenser by tapping their card.
They can then use the cup for seven days before returning it to the store, or they will be charged 拢3.
The concept has been rolled out across nine stores as part of a trial so far.
Money understands the stores involved are:
"It kicked off last week and is available for My Waitrose members to use when redeeming their free coffee, or for our cafe customers to use if purchasing one," a spokesperson said.
Waitrose brought back its free hot drink offer in 2022 after scrapping it during the pandemic to reduce costs.
A special investigations team at HMRC has doubled its tax haul in a crackdown on wealthy people.
The unit, which focuses on people who earn more than 拢200,000 a year or have assets above 拢2m, yielded more than 拢1.5bn in the 2023/24 tax year, figures obtained from HMRC by law firm Pinsent Masons showed.
That's up from 拢713m raised in the previous year.
The overall amount collected across HMRC from wealthy taxpayers increased to 拢5.2bn 鈥� up from 拢4bn.
"HMRC have been set some very hard targets for extra tax collection by the chancellor. It is hard to see how they can achieve those targets without a sharp rise into tax investigations into the wealthy," Ian Robotham, one of the legal directors at Pinsent Masons, said.
"The scale of specialist investigations into wealthy taxpayers shows HMRC has already been clamping down much harder on those suspected of underpaying tax."
Charities have welcomed the government's decision to make winter fuel payments available to more pensioners.
Earlier today, Chancellor Rachel Reeves confirmed all pensioners earning less than 拢35,000 a year will be eligible for the payment, which is worth up to 拢300.
The benefit used to be universally available to those above pension age, but this was scrapped by the government last year, which opted instead to means-test it.
This meant the number of eligible people dropped from 11.4 million to 1.5 million.
Today's change means around 9 million pensioners will be eligible this winter.
Age UK said the U-turn was "the right thing to do" and will "bring some much-needed reassurance for older people and their families".
Caroline Abrahams, the charity's director, called it a "good day for older people".
She said: "We have always said what really matters is that the estimated 2.5 million older people who lost their winter fuel payment when they couldn't afford it get the money back, by one means or another.
"This new policy will help all these people by restoring their winter fuel payment, and we welcome it as a result."
The Centre for Ageing Better also welcomed the decision, with its chief executive Carole Easton saying it will help "avoid unnecessary suffering this winter".
But she warned that there needs to be a "longer-term solution which eventually could reduce or remove the need for such payments".
Nine million pensioners in England and Wales will get the winter fuel payment this year, the chancellor has confirmed after a major government U-turn.
Last year, one of Labour's first acts in government was to scrap the payment for almost all pensioners.
Only those who received pension credit or similar benefits were eligible for it - a drop from 11.4 million to 1.5 million.
The decision was aimed at balancing what was described as a 拢22bn "black hole" in the public finances.
But Sir Keir Starmer announced there would be a partial U-turn in May, after the policy drew heavy criticisms from charities, opposition parties and voters, and Labour suffered poor local election results.
So, who will be eligible this winter?
The payment, worth up to 拢300, will be given to pensioners with an income of less than 拢35,000 a year.
Those with an income above this threshold (around two million pensioners) will also receive the payment, but it will then be reclaimed from them in tax.
To be eligible, you will need to have reached state pension age by 15 September this year.
You do not need to do anything to claim the amount. It will be paid into your account automatically.
Pensioners who do not want to receive the payment will be able to opt out, according to the Treasury.
How much is it costing?
The Treasury claims the new arrangement will cost 拢1.25bn, but it is not clear how it will be funded.
We should find this out at the Autumn budget, which is usually delivered by the chancellor at the end of October or early November.
You can read more about this in our Politics Hub...
Regulators have joined forces for an international effort to protect social media users from rogue promotions by some financial influencers, also known as "finfluencers".
Nine regulators from a number of countries, including Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Italy, the UAE and the UK, took part in a global enforcement effort that began on 2 June.
In the UK, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has issued 50 warning alerts, which the regulator said will result in more than 650 take-down requests on social media platforms and more than 50 websites operated by unauthorised finfluencers.
It has also sent seven "cease and desist" letters, and invited four "finfluencers" for interview.
The FCA said it has also made three arrests with the support of the City of London Police and authorised criminal proceedings against three people.
What are 'finfluencers'?
Finfluencers are social media personalities who may promote financial products and share insights and advice with their followers.
Many are acting legitimately and not breaking any laws - but others may tout products or services illegally and without authorisation through online videos and posts, where they use the pretence of a lavish lifestyle, often falsely, to promote success, the regulator said.
Elsewhere, the Treasury Committee said it had sent a letter to Meta, the owners of Facebook and Instagram, asking for information on its approach to financial influencers.
A restaurant deliberately designed to give customers a bad service experience will close its final UK site this month.
Karen's Diner in London's Islington will shut up shop on 29 June after two years of trading due to the "additional burden" of increased costs.
"People don't understand how hard it is to run both a restaurant and a theatre simultaneously, especially in such fierce trading conditions," a statement from the owner of the site, shared with The Caterer, said.
The chain's parent company, Viral Ventures UK LTD, entered liquidation last year due to "mounting financial pressure".
Karen's Diner became a TikTok sensation, with clips of the staff insulting customers racking up millions of views.
It takes its name from the meme "being a Karen", which refers to people who are rude to those who work in customer service, or are particularly difficult.
First launched in Australia, the restaurant came to the UK in 2022, with sites in Sheffield, Manchester and Birmingham.
