Changing Address with car insurance firms

dacouch

Atermis, do you know the first rule of Insurance Club?

pedro123456

Here they come nevica, see, told you they would appear :rotfl::rotfl:

pedro123456

Nevica.

You have got nearly 1000 veiws on your post, why? is what you started the thread not of any interest?, well of course it is, you have expressed your concerns and suggested what in your opinion is an except able solution

However in expressing your opinion you dare to cast dispersions on the Insurance Industry and you are being and challenged about your opinions and that is healthy to a degree, but you have no doubt seen as you resolve remains firm and your opinions remain this healthy debate has started to take a more sinister turn.

John Thomas, has started with the abuse, he will be followed by the like of Atermis, OshayAway, mattymoo, Quentin somewhatstupid. All we want now is a Snow White.

Greed and maintaining profits is the driving force behind the IC’s, nothing more nothing less, keep the money rolling in at any cost.
The supply has got to dry up though, as the policy holder wises up to the stunts IC’s pull every day, and they are allowed (for the mo) to get away with it.

The Insurance bods cant defend their Industry that’s in pieces because they aint willing to listen to other view points, IMO the Insurance Industry like the banking Industry is in pieces BECAUSE of this short sighted monetary gain frenzy by IC’s

mattymoo

pedro123456 wrote: »

John Thomas, has started with the abuse, he will be followed by the like of Atermis, OshayAway, mattymoo, Quentin somewhatstupid. All we want now is a Snow White.

???? What abuse would that be then Pedro? I don't recall posting in this thread?

mattymoo

Can I suggest somebody starts a poll. Give two options, motor policy at £300 with no admin charges or £250 with £25 admin charge each time you change address or car.

raskazz

nevica wrote: »

Thanks Pedro,

Thanks for adding this. This is exactly what I mean. All I want is consistency in how the insurance companies behave. I believe that consumers have become confused by the shear amount of different insurances which a consumer can choose from. Companies like confused.com etc make it very easy for a consumer to quickly and easily choose the cheapest insurer and they do not realise that there are loopholes and hidden charges later on in the contract. I am not saying that confused.com is bad for business but it is obvious to me that competition promotes cheaper prices but there should be a governing body controlling how customers are treated and told the facts. Unfortunately Dunstonh, Dan Thomas and raskazz fail to recognise this. They are interested in promoting competition while I am of the opinion that the customer is a company's most important asset.

When I have been treated as I have by my own insurance company (ie paying £25 to print of my own insurance policy, on my own printer and with my own paper and then they have the audacity to call it an administration charge when it obviously isn't, then it strikes me that there is something wrong with the system and company and such companies will not last long if they continue to treat their customers in such a way. This is why I agree with what Pedro has said above.

As I can see Pedro's post quoted in yours I will respond to it:

He is wrong when he says that insurers are being 'governed more'. They are simply being regulated in a different way - in a way that focuses on outcomes rather than reams of prescriptive rules. In accordance with this, the book of prescriptive rules (ICOBS) is much shorter than it used to be - in a way you could say that insurers are governed less than they were before, but in a more effective way.

He is wrong (again) whne he says that insurance companies are "Judge, Jury and also the Law Maker". It is exactly this sort of dimwitted rhetoric that means his arguments generally hold no water. Of course insurers have to (and overwhelmingly do) abide by the law of the land, the regulation of the FSA, the verdicts delivered by the courts and the FOS.

He is also wrong in his generalisation that "are written in such a way you have to have a degree to follow them half the time". Most general insurance policies are drafted in Plain English and many carry the Crystal Mark.

If you think policies should be standardised you must have a screw loose. No competition, no innovation, stifled consumer choice and higher premiums? No thanks.

He is wrong yet again when he says that "inconsistencies within policies, small print and definitions are partly responsible for the FSA imposing TCF". That was not the reason for the move away from a regulatory regime of prescriptive rules.

And as for this:

nevica wrote: »

It is OK for Dunstonh, Dan Thomas and Raskazz to continue in their quest for cheaper and cheaper insurance but at the expense of what. The market has become crowded, confusing and I say that it needs reform. Here and now.

Nevica

You are wrong that the market has become overcrowded as there are actually fewer insurers competing in general insurance than there have been historically. You are also wrong that I have 'a quest for cheaper insurance' - when did I ever indicate such an attitude? Indeed, I mentioned earlier that it is consumers that have become too focused on price rather than quality - this isn't the fault of insurers.

raskazz

nevica wrote: »

Glider,

I truely find your post offensive. You have failed to give a reason why an insurance company can charge so much for getting me to do all of the work.

You didn't do all the work though did you? You said yourself that you spoke to someone to amend the details. Do the person and the infrastructure that allows that person to talk to you cost nothing? Of course not.

nevica wrote: »

Many people I know find insurance policies difficult to understand and I myself am one of them. I have a doctoral degree and studied at Cambridge University, UK and find them difficult to understand so I can honestly say that you must be in the minority of people who can understand the small print of an insurance policy.

I don't believe your professed educatonal acheivements. You cannot even understand that a call centre costs money to run.

nevica wrote: »

Just because the FSO allows fees of up to £75 as has already been stated in this feed then it doesn't make it right. Where does it end?

They don't generally allow fees from £50 to £75, no idea where you've plucked that figure from. Maybe from your imaginary doctoral thesis? The fact that you were too lazy to research the policy that you purchased doesn't make it wrong either.

nevica

raskazz wrote: »

You didn't do all the work though did you? You said yourself that you spoke to someone to amend the details. Do the person and the infrastructure that allows that person to talk to you cost nothing? Of course not.



I don't believe your professed educatonal acheivements. You cannot even understand that a call centre costs money to run.



They don't generally allow fees up to £75, no idea where you've plucked that figure from. Maybe from your imaginary doctoral thesis? The fact that you were too lazy to research the policy that you purchased doesn't make it wrong either.

Rascazz,

You don't achieve anything by being abusive and disrespective. In fact you lower yourself to the lowest of the low. I hope that you can learn from your bad behaviour. In fact I find you funny when I read your comments and I'm sorry to say it. I'm sure you are a good guy with meaningful intentions but still you continue to misunderstand me and where I am coming from.

I have heard many people go through the same experience which I have gone through and feel they have been ripped off by financial institutions. And this is what my discontent is. That insurance companies can treat their customers terribly and charge extortionate fees.

Nevica

raskazz

nevica wrote: »

Rascazz,

You don't achieve anything by being abusive and disrespective. In fact you lower yourself to the lowest of the low. I hope that you can learn from your bad behaviour.

Nevica

Like I said, I refuse to accept that someone who has a doctorate:

1) Cannot appreciate the fact that provision of an amendment service incurs an average cost per amendment which is much, much, greater than the marginal cost of one amendment.

2) Agrees with someone (i.e. Pedro), and takes at face value their points - which are manifestly incorrect - without actually researching the topic at hand and applying some logical thought.

I might be wrong, but I'm fairly sure I'm not.

raskazz

nevica wrote: »

extortionate fees.

Nevica

Again, I don't believe that someone with a doctorate would resort to such emotional and inflammatory vocabulary. No one has been the subject of extortion. The fees would have been available to you prior to the point of sale if you had queried them. The fees were also specified in the policy wording which you received. You clearly did not read the policy wording and as such did not bother to exercise your cooling-off right to cancel. You also did not have to pay the fee - you could have chosen to cancel the policy and take your business elsewhere. Furthermore, the fee is in line with the rest of the market and will be considered to be fair by the FOS.