Changing Address with car insurance firms

nevica

raskazz wrote: »

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.

Unfortunately, I did have to pay £25 for a change of address. I need to move because of my job. I could have cancelled my policy with the company but they would have charged me a cancellation fee. So, whichever way I look at it I am out of pocket.

How was I to know when I took out the policy that I would be moving in six months. Life is not predictable and that is why people take out insurance policies in the first place. The insurance companies have a tendancy to extract as much as they can from us the consumers. My taking out a cheap policy I was taking a risk. (As Martin Lewis states in the three things he has learnt about business. 1. A company's job is to make money from you. This company is making money from me alright. They are not providing a good service and they are doing very little work for a lot of money). This is what I disagree with. The fee should be in line with the work done. Anything else and it is unethical. This is not unlike overdraft charges applied by banks.

JUST BECAUSE THE FEE IS IN LINE WITH THE REST OF THE MARKET DOES NOT MAKE IT FAIR AS I HAVE ALREADY STATED A NUMBER OF TIMES IN THIS FEED. THE FOS ALLOW THE INSURANCE COMPANIES TO CHARGE FEES BUT THIS DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT AND ETHICAL.

Nevica

nevica

Dan_Thomas wrote: »

And you still don't read policy wordings?

How do you know this. Do you know me? Have you sat by me when I have taken out a policy?

Nevica

raskazz

nevica wrote: »

How was I to know when I took out the policy that I would be moving in six months. Life is not predictable and that is why people take out insurance policies in the first place.

No, life isn't predictable, which is another reason why you should have chosen the product which you purchased more carefully (or indeed exercised your cooling-off right to cancel) if you felt that the product was not one which was suitable to your needs. Then you could have purchased a (probably more expensive) policy to which amendment fees do not apply.

nevica wrote: »

The insurance companies have a tendancy to extract as much as they can from us the consumers. My taking out a cheap policy I was taking a risk.

So companies tend to aim to maximise profit? Surely not! You'll be telling me that bears defecate in forested areas next. May I ask what line of business you work in?

nevica wrote: »

(As Martin Lewis states in the three things he has learnt about business. 1. Companies try to extract as much money out of consumers as much as possible. It is our job to stop that.)

That's a pretty simple-minded viewpoint. I think a more appropriate aim would be to maximise value for money (i.e. the ratio of quality to price) rather than simply to minimise cost.

nevica wrote: »

You are taking the line of companies in this debate.

Yes, well spotted! I am also taking the line of the right-minded consumer who takes responsibility for his own actions or inactions, instead of blaming someone else.

nevica wrote: »

JUST BECAUSE THE FEE IS IN LINE WITH THE REST OF THE MARKET DOES NOT MAKE IT FAIR AS I HAVE ALREADY STATED A NUMBER OF TIMES IN THIS FEED. THE FOS ALLOW THE INSURANCE COMPANIES TO CHARGE FEES BUT THIS DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT AND ETHICAL.

You keep saying that it is unethical without actually explaining why it is unethical.

Why is it unethical that a firm operates a business model where certain costs of policy administration are not incorporated in the annual premium, thus making the annual premium cheaper for those who do not place any administrative burden on that firm, when:

1) The fees are specified in the terms of the policy, and

2) The consumer has a cooling-off period to cancel the policy if he feels that it is not suitable for his needs, thus

3) Allowing him to place his business elsewhere with an insurer which does not charge said fees; and

4) The fee is proportionate, not excessive and has been found to be legitimate by an independent arbitrator?

raskazz

nevica wrote: »

How do you know this. Do you know me? Have you sat by me when I have taken out a policy?

Nevica

So you did read the policy wording then? In which case, why did you buy the policy if if you don't agree with the terms of the policy in relation to amendment fees?

nevica

raskazz wrote: »

So you did read the policy wording then? In which case, why did you buy the policy if if you don't agree with the terms of the policy in relation to amendment fees?

Rascazz,

You just want to win this argument don't you. You still do not see my point of view. You think that your view is right and woe betide anyone who disagrees with you. I have already explained why I think it is unethical to charge £25 to change an address many times already. I will say it again, just because it has been agreed by an independent arbiter does not make it right. The government thought they were right when they loosened the rules for banks and look where Britain ended up. 3.3 million unemployed. That is not a good thing. I get the impression that you think logic and reason rules. Well YOU ARE WRONG!

Nevica

raskazz

nevica wrote: »

Rascazz,

You just want to win this argument don't you. You still do not see my point of view.[ You think that your view is right and woe betide anyone who disagrees with you.

No, you're wrong. I see your point of view very clearly actually, but I certainly don't think it is a view which is logical, grounded in facts or unbiased.

nevica wrote: »

I have already explained why I think it is unethical to charge £25 to change an address many times already. I will say it again, just because it has been agreed by an independent arbiter does not make it right.

Please don't be so disingenuous. I have never claimed that such fees are legitimate "just because they have been agreed by an independent arbiter". I refer to the bottom of post 108 - please answer that question for me. Also please answer the other question in post 108 - namely which industry you work in.

nevica wrote: »

The government thought they were right when they loosened the rules for banks and look where Britain ended up. 3.3 million unemployed. That is not a good thing.

Which has no relevance to the topic at hand.

Lokolo

I just had to pay £32 to change my car insurance address to somewhere nicer area

losgiganteskid

nevica wrote: »

The insurance companies have a tendancy to extract as much as they can from us the consumers.

Nevica

Yes they do, it's called maximising profit. Insurers sell the core product ( the motor policy) and then cross sell "add ons" such as breakdown cover, legal expenses etc etc.

Most will operate the now infamous "auto renewal" whereby silence is acceptance - (it wasn't when I went to law school)

Nevica - the question you need to ask other learned (or not, as the case may be) posters who shout from the rooftops that the insurers carry massive overheads (previously listed) and need to charge an admin fee is how come with all these massive overheads they manage to set themselves up and give a service "free of charge" when they provide new business quotations ?? - find me a motor insurer who charges for a motor quotation.

They don't simply because they would be out of sinc with the market. It's only when they have you on board that they can squeeze you for admin 'cos it's a contractual obligation.

mattymoo

If you look back 5, 10 or 15 years you will see that none of these admin charges existed. They might be mid-term adjustments for a car change or change of address if that altered the rating, e.g. poorer postcode or higher group car.

The blame for admin charges can be laid firmly at the door of the comparison websites. They search out the best deal looking at price alone. To gain business the insurer has to be at or very near the top of the list by having a lower premium.

In some areas an insurer might be competetive but since they are looking to grow the business they need to adjust the policy offering so they could offer it at a lower price. This would be done by increasing a policy excess or putting in admin charges. By taking out the admin cost they could lower the rated premium and hit the coveted high spots in the comparison tables.

Customers shop on price, the comparison sites facilitate this and so the insurer is giving the market what it asks for. All the time the charges are clearly set out.

raskazz

losgiganteskid wrote: »

Most will operate the now infamous "auto renewal" whereby silence is acceptance - (it wasn't when I went to law school)

You should maybe go back to law school because the position is now exactly as it was then. Silence cannot be construed as acceptance of a contract but it can certainly be construed as acceptance of extension or renewal of an existing contract if the contract terms specify that this is the case!