Changing Address with car insurance firms

nevica

Dan_Thomas wrote: »

So you'd be happier paying a greater up-front premium and not paying admin charge for adjustments?

I think that the law should be changed to make insurance more transparent in what a customer actually gets. In the real world not many people have the time, inclination or the interest to read the small print. Therefore what a person actually gets for his money should be made much clearer. £25 administrative fees I believe should be scrapped to reduce the risk to the customer and if not then this should be stated ery clearly in the policy. At the moment these fees are not made clear like the fees for cancelling a policy, fees for rolling over a policy to the next year which is automatic for an insurance company.

Insurance companies now require a customer that they cancel a policy otherwise they roll over for another year. Many customers do not realise this because it is in the small print and have found that they are stuck with a policy they do not want. Is this ethical, is this just? NO. It is just another case of insurance companies trying to get the last ounce of money out of their customers. This is why consumers loose faith in insurance companies because they are sneaky in the way they go about business. They find a loophole in which they can make money and push it for all it is worth and that is to make money and that is called GREED. Which is no good for anyone!!

Nevica

nevica

Raskazz,

You have said it succintly -

"because consumers (like yourself) in general don't bother to ascertain the quality and terms associated with the product which they are buying, they just look at the upfront cost, especially since the proliferation of the aggregators."

They buy the cheapest policy and don't realise there is risk in case they will have to change their policy and so fork out large fee payments which for them is expensive (they wouldn't have bought a cheap policy otherwise).

Nevica

dunstonh

But you said it from your own fair pen. "Because consumers (like yourself) in general don't bother to ascertain the quality and terms associated with the product which they are buying, they just look at the upfront cost, especially since the proliferation of the aggregators."

I didnt say that.

you seem to be avoiding answering the key question here.

Are saying is that you think its fairer that everyone should pay a higher premium so the minority of people that make amendments to their policy during the policy year dont have to pay an admin charge?

raskazz

nevica wrote: »

I think that the law should be changed to make insurance more transparent in what a customer actually gets.

Administration fees are always specified as per the FSA's existing Insurance Conduct of Business rules.

nevica wrote: »

In the real world not many people have the time, inclination or the interest to read the small print.

You keep referring to it as 'small print'. There is no 'small print' - just the policy terms and conditions. There is a cooling-off period of 14 days specifically so that the insured can assess whether a product meets their requirements if they have not done so prior to the purchase. You could read an average policy wording in this time if you read 2 pages of A5 per day.

nevica wrote: »

Therefore what a person actually gets for his money should be made much clearer. £25 administrative fees I believe should be scrapped to reduce the risk to the customer and if not then this should be stated ery clearly in the policy.

So, for the sake of clarity, can you confirm that you are in favour of consumer choice being restricted?

nevica wrote: »

Insurance companies now require a customer that they cancel a policy otherwise they roll over for another year.

No, you have phrased this in a very disingenuous way. Some insurers put in place an inertia renewal system which you are usually perfectly at liberty to opt-out of. This system suits the majority of people who do renew their insurance with the same provider, and is particularly suited to motor insurance due to the legally compulsory nature of the cover.

nevica wrote: »

Many customers do not realise this because it is in the small print and have found that they are stuck with a policy they do not want.

Again, there is no 'small print' involved. The renewal process is laid out at inception and a renewal invitation is sent giving ample notice and making it quite clear what the situation is and what action is or is not required.

raskazz

nevica wrote: »

They buy the cheapest policy and don't realise there is risk in case they will have to change their policy and so fork out large fee payments which for them is expensive (they wouldn't have bought a cheap policy otherwise).

Nevica

So we are in agreement then - only consumers who are stupid buy a policy without checking the terms then complain about it after the event.

nevica

raskazz wrote: »

I think it is entirely right and ethical that those who actually cause the costs of administration pay for those additional costs. I virtually never alter my insurance details and I certainly don't want to subsidise those who do so.

With respect, I think not reading a policy and not understanding the issues beyond knee-jerk reaction makes you look quite silly.



I think that you will find that there is every difference if you actually take the time to consider the circumstances:

1) The legal challenge against bank penalty charges is on the basis that they are a penalty for a breach of contract which is greater than the cost incurred by the bank due to that breach. Insurer administration fees are not penalties for breaches.

2) General insurers, and specifically car insurers, make nowhere near the supernormal levels of profit which were generated by banks in the last few years.

3) Banks did not really levy these fees to alter the incidence of the costs of providing amendments, as insurers did.

4) On a more general moral note, by their nature banking penalty charges particularly impact on those who are financially the worst off. This is not the case for insurer administration fees.



Presumably you work for a charity then?

Banks in general including the selling of sub-prime motgages.

Nevica

pedro123456

Stop the bus I want to get off !!!!!!

The words, moral and ethical do not exist in the IC’s vocabulary, the concept is totally incomprehensible to them.

Profits and greed are common aims at any expense to the policy holder, short term gains long term loss I say

Anyway IC’s make millions/year, there is a lack of public confidence in their products, the FSA have decided enough is enough and imposed TCF, and although this will be a waste of time its at least a step in the right direction, bring the IC’s into line just like the corrupt banks

raskazz

nevica wrote: »

Banks in general including the selling of sub-prime motgages.

Nevica

Your point being what, exactly? Your thoughts on points 1, 3 and 4, and your answer to the question in that post are noticeable by their absence.

nevica

raskazz wrote: »

Administration fees are always specified as per the FSA's existing Insurance Conduct of Business rules.



You keep referring to it as 'small print'. There is no 'small print' - just the policy terms and conditions. There is a cooling-off period of 14 days specifically so that the insured can assess whether a product meets their requirements if they have not done so prior to the purchase. You could read an average policy wording in this time if you read 2 pages of A5 per day.



So, for the sake of clarity, can you confirm that you are in favour of consumer choice being restricted?



No, you have phrased this in a very disingenuous way. Some insurers put in place an inertia renewal system which you are usually perfectly at liberty to opt-out of. This system suits the majority of people who do renew their insurance with the same provider, and is particularly suited to motor insurance due to the legally compulsory nature of the cover.



Again, there is no 'small print' involved. The renewal process is laid out at inception and a renewal invitation is sent giving ample notice and making it quite clear what the situation is and what action is or is not required.

Does not this automatic renewal go against the customer wanting to get the cheapest policy. You have contraticted your statements in wanting to promote fair trade and limiting the average customer to sticking with the same company through automatic rollover. You cant have it both ways.

Nevica

raskazz

nevica wrote: »

Does not this automatic renewal go against the customer wanting to get the cheapest policy. You have contraticted your statements in wanting to promote fair trade and limiting the average customer to sticking with the same company through automatic rollover. You cant have it both ways.

Nevica

Erm, no, because if you bother to actually read the thread, you will understand that I was referring to new business premiums - not renewals - when I made the remark about the consumer seeking the lowest premium over other factors.

Perhaps you are now ready to answer my quesions and dunstonh's question? I will reiterate them for clarity:

raskazz wrote: »

So, for the sake of clarity, can you confirm that you are in favour of consumer choice being restricted?

raskazz wrote: »

Presumably you work for a charity then?

dunstonh wrote: »

So, what you are saying is that you think its fairer that everyone should pay a higher premium so the minority of people that make amendments to their policy during the policy year dont have to pay an admin charge?