Changing Address with car insurance firms

jackieb

GrammarGirl wrote: »

I was charged nearly £55 by Direct Line for updating my policy with my new car details. I find this a bit excessive - I'd be happy to pay £25 as that seems like a fairly reasonable charge for an admin job, but £55? Didn't have any choice in the matter though, so there you go.

Wasn't the insurance more expensive though, as I presume it was a newer car and more expensive car you bought? I hohestly can't remember being charged for changing our details when we changed our car either. And I definitely wasn't charged when I wanted to change it so I could use my car at work (private to business use? )

glider3560

GrammarGirl wrote: »

I was charged nearly £55 by Direct Line for updating my policy with my new car details. I find this a bit excessive - I'd be happy to pay £25 as that seems like a fairly reasonable charge for an admin job, but £55? Didn't have any choice in the matter though, so there you go.

Direct Line charge a £25 admin fee, so the other £30 would have been the difference in premium between having your old car on the policy and your new car.

jackieb

glider3560 wrote: »

Direct Line charge a £25 admin fee, so the other £30 would have been the difference in premium between having your old car on the policy and your new car.

I've just checked my online bank statements and I wasn't charged anything for changing address last year.

glider3560

jackieb wrote: »

I've just checked my online bank statements and I wasn't charged anything for changing address last year.

I've just double checked my information and you are correct, Direct Line don't have an admin fee for amendments (I mis-read and looked at cancellation fee).
The £55 must have been the different in premium between having the two cars insured.

pedro123456

Nevica, the IC’s are being governed more. The FSA have brought in TCF (treating Customers Fairly) and although this will no doubt (IMO) turn out to be a worthless exercise at least it’s a start.

TCF was brought about because of its obvious insinuation via its title, the IC weren’t treating customer fairly. IMO being allowed to be Judge, Jury and also the Law Maker has led to a obvious unhealthy balance of power in favour of the IC’s

The IC’s are allowed to swap/change small print, loopholes, definitions as they see fit and when they see fit.

It is the contention of some on here that these inconsistencies some how promote competition?, they don’t all the do is muddy the water for the IC and that enables them to stalk their prey (policy holder )easier.

These inconsistencies within the policies serve only to confuse the customer, indeed they are written in such a way you have to have a degree to follow them half the time, and of course this is purposeful, it puts the policy holder of going through them and therefore the IC can cite a unforeseen loophole should you make a claim.

Not only do the IC need regulation I am of the opinion that all their T&C, small print, definitions should be standardised, and that they should be overseen to provide equality/fairness between IC/Policy holders by some independent body.

The ABI (IC minders/protectors) are campaigning to “Promote Public Confidence”, the IC’s have to pay subscriptions to become a member of the ABI (and 90% are members)
This promotion by the ABI again is self explanatory through its title, there is Lack of Public Confidence in Insurance products.

So to conclude inconsistencies within policies, small print and definitions are partly responsible for the FSA imposing TCF, until such times as these are standardised by an independent body it will continue to be a unfair/unbalanced product, and of course this wouldn’t be easy or straight forward, it may go some way to promoting public confidence.

The way in which insurance Products are sold also raises issues but that’s a different topic.

dunstonh

I was charged nearly £55 by Direct Line for updating my policy with my new car details. I find this a bit excessive - I'd be happy to pay £25 as that seems like a fairly reasonable charge for an admin job, but £55? Didn't have any choice in the matter though, so there you go.

No you were not. You were charged a revised insurance premium to cover the higher risk. There was no admin charge.

So its not excessive as the admin charge was zero.

nevica

pedro123456 wrote: »

Nevica, the IC’s are being governed more. The FSA have brought in TCF (treating Customers Fairly) and although this will no doubt (IMO) turn out to be a worthless exercise at least it’s a start.

TCF was brought about because of its obvious insinuation via its title, the IC weren’t treating customer fairly. IMO being allowed to be Judge, Jury and also the Law Maker has led to a obvious unhealthy balance of power in favour of the IC’s

The IC’s are allowed to swap/change small print, loopholes, definitions as they see fit and when they see fit.

It is the contention of some on here that these inconsistencies some how promote competition?, they don’t all the do is muddy the water for the IC and that enables them to stalk their prey (policy holder )easier.

These inconsistencies within the policies serve only to confuse the customer, indeed they are written in such a way you have to have a degree to follow them half the time, and of course this is purposeful, it puts the policy holder of going through them and therefore the IC can cite a unforeseen loophole should you make a claim.

Not only do the IC need regulation I am of the opinion that all their T&C, small print, definitions should be standardised, and that they should be overseen to provide equality/fairness between IC/Policy holders by some independent body.

The ABI (IC minders/protectors) are campaigning to “Promote Public Confidence”, the IC’s have to pay subscriptions to become a member of the ABI (and 90% are members)
This promotion by the ABI again is self explanatory through its title, there is Lack of Public Confidence in Insurance products.

So to conclude inconsistencies within policies, small print and definitions are partly responsible for the FSA imposing TCF, until such times as these are standardised by an independent body it will continue to be a unfair/unbalanced product, and of course this wouldn’t be easy or straight forward, it may go some way to promoting public confidence.

The way in which insurance Products are sold also raises issues but that’s a different topic.

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.

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

pedro123456

GG

"I was charged nearly £55 by Direct Line for updating my policy with my new car details. I find this a bit excessive - I'd be happy to pay £25 as that seems like a fairly reasonable charge for an admin job, but £55? Didn't have any choice in the matter though, so there you go".

You were charged what the IC wanted to charge you, they make and enforce their own rules if and when it suits and stick them in their small print, so you are right no options.

glider3560

I'm going to be absolutely blunt in this post and then I won't post in this thread anymore as I feel I've made my point enough.

Here goes...

If you don't read your policy booklet, then you are stupid. They are not difficult to understand as they are written in plain English. If you aren't sure about something, then phone up the insurance company and they'll explain it to you.

Surely any idiot could work out that if a policy is cheaper than another company, it must be lacking in something. Whether that is a difference is due to a lower level of cover, not covering something or charging fees. You are free to find out the information upfront, but due to people's laziness and unwillingness to take responsibility for themselves, they don't bother then try to blame someone else for their mistakes.

Competition is healthy. Without competition, we would all be paying too much. Back to my supermarket example again, if all supermarkets were forced to sell the same products at the same price, there would be no competition so people would only shop in one place. Same with insurance companies.

Also, differences in what is covered/what is charged etc allow for people to choose a policy that is suited to their needs. E.g. I may wish to choose a car insurance policy that doesn't have an admin fee because I know I'll be moving many times in the next year. Alternatively, I may choose the company who provide £10,000 of personal accident benefit as oppose to the one who provides £50,000.

It is all about making an informed choice based on your own personal needs. Only you know your needs and therefore you need to fully understand what you are buying before you buy. However people's laziness prevents this from happening then they try and find someone else to blame.

With regards to this comment by pedro

"I was charged nearly £55 by Direct Line for updating my policy with my new car details. I find this a bit excessive - I'd be happy to pay £25 as that seems like a fairly reasonable charge for an admin job, but £55? Didn't have any choice in the matter though, so there you go".

You were charged what the IC wanted to charge you, they make and enforce their own rules if and when it suits and stick them in their small print, so you are right no options.

You are wrong. Mid-term adjustments are based on the pro-rata price you would have paid, had the adjustment been made when you were given the quotation. You aren't paying any more than if you had been given a quote for the adustment at inception (just paying pro-rata).

pedro123456

Nevica

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.:T

Stick around their quest will become obvious to you

They aint about making Insurance cheaper, they are about being the only ones on this Insurance forum with an opinion, I don’t know what part stars under their names plays in this misconception, and I don’t care either.

It doesn’t take long for them to be talking down to people and trying to bully them into being quiet, and while I’m on that subject there are more than these 3 that try to commandeer this forum

If you stick around long enough you will see them come out of the woodwork soon