Car Insurance Cancellation Rip Off

Halloway

RodForte wrote: »

I admit the supermarket analogy is not perfect

Actually, thinking about it, I guess most insurance companies are really just re-insurance sellers. In other words they pass the risk onto other insurance companies. So perhaps the supermarket analogy isn't so poor after all.

RodForte

I think that all your replies are great and very informative and you are all correct withing the realms of the insurance, provider or mobile phone companies and that seems to be, if you pay for a service up front for a given amount of time and choose to pay for it over a period of time, if you then do not use all the cover/services you have purchased or are purchasing, then, too bad you will continue to pay for the service as agreed, (greed being the operative word I think), which is 'right' for the supplier(s), but not for the end user. From what you folks are saying here the end user is not only buying a service, (insurance cover, mobile airtime, gas, elec) but also entering into a financial deal which then becomes a risk to the 'lender' that has to be paid for by someone and yes you've guessed it's Joe Sucker the public

I really don't agree with paying for something that you are not using in any way shape or form.

This can only benefit the companies selling the 'service'. It does sound a little similar to the US banks that were selling each other mortgage debt on the promise that the public would pay it all back.

It's all too obvious that this type of agreement can only benefit the supplier, many times over

Inactive

Well you can rant on about your insurer til the cows come home, but you agreed to their annual terms and conditions in the first place, if you didn't like them, you had a choice, nobody actually forced you to agree to them.

A lot of members come on here and moan that their broadband or telephone supplier is holding them to an 18 month contract, when they no longer require the service, somple cure, don't sign up to a long contract, I don't.

Premier_2

Halloway wrote: »

I'm afraid that yours is the poor analogy. The insurance company, aside from some admin costs are not paying for and then reselling a physical item. Rather they are betting on a particular set of probabilities. Those probabilities are affected by the time that the risk exists. Once the policy is cancelled that risk no longer exists so any premium paid for the expired portion of that risk is pure profit to the insurance company.

I'm not saying that that is necessarily a bad or wrong thing, merely that the 'tin of beans' analogy doesn't really apply.

Could you come up with a better analogy involving a supermarket then?

Insurance, just like a tin of beans, is a product.

The OP purchased a product, or rather actually bought it and was paying for it on the drip. Then the OP decided after having used some of the product, no longer had any need for the remainder and considers it a rip-off that the supplier won't refund the unused portion.

RodForte

If we as the general public did "rant on" about the annual terms and conditions then some of the companies would have to make some of the term and conditions a little more favourable to their paymaster - the general public, and not to their own balance sheets.

As for the 18 month contracts I don't do them either, but, for people who don't have alot of money or want the 'cheapest deals' the companies make the cheaper options on the longer contracts and limit the services you can get on the shorter contracts if you cannot pay cash. As any company who has done their market reasearch knows, most people want the latest shinyest biggest etc etc car, phone, house, holiday, but want it cheap the companies make it 'cheap' and create lucrative options, (for themselves), for the masses. When Mr or Mrs sensible comes along who is not too fussed about the latest biggest etc etc, they find that any short term reasonable payment offer on a reasonable product, is either extortionate or unavailable. I mean why would a company bother with such items when they can increase their profit margins on the longer term products which the masses are desperate for, remember 125% mortgage, people wanted to buy bigger so the banks made it 'cheaper' so the buyer could have that house or second house, not unlike the car leasing companies people want the luxury new car that they have no way of being able to afford it so the leasing companies make it 'affordable' including all the extras they would not normally be able to afford.

Going back to car insurance, because it is a legal requirement to be insured, the insurance companies can make it up as they go along providing they all do the same, the end user has little choice as far as terms and conditions are concerned. If you need a car to go to work for example they have got you over a barrel, along with public apathy to agree that it is ok to create terms and agreements which result in the end user paying for a service that he or she is not using or has no use for.

I have not had such a good rant for ages, I must thank you all for that, I'm quite enjoying myself............next :-)

custardy

its quite simple ,vote with your wallet
next time you take out insurance and are checking quotes.
take time to weigh up the T&C's vs price in your choice

goldspanners

RodForte wrote: »

If you went to the supermarket and they charged you for food that you may buy next week and they all did the same would that be ok or products that you had picked up and put back on the shelf would that be OK because they all did the same and it's company policy

you took out a 12 month policy i asume, so you agreed to pay for 12 months. if you had only taken out insurance on a week to week policy then that would be like your supermarket analogy.

RodForte

That's a very good point, but do any of the insurance companies offer T&Cs on a monthly payment plan, that allow you to cease payments and not be penalised if you no longer require their services?

I bet, or hope, there are if your paid premium up front in cash. If there are this would take me back to my last post. Which would make me a wannabe bigger better bighter buyer as I should have purchased a car that I could afford to pay the insurance premium in full up front, but, the insurance company made it cheaper etc etc

goldspanners

RodForte wrote: »

That's a very good point, but do any of the insurance companies offer T&Cs on a monthly payment plan, that allow you to cease payments and not be penalised if you no longer require their services?

I bet, or hope, there are if your paid premium up front in cash. If there are this would take me back to my last post. Which would make me a wannabe bigger better bighter buyer as I should have purchased a car that I could afford to pay the insurance premium in full up front, but, the insurance company made it cheaper etc etc

http://www.dayinsure.com/ you could try this company or other short term insurance companies. last time i got a quote from them to insure a car for a few days to allow for transportation after purchasing it cam eout at around £25 per day. so if you get a qoute from them per day you will then be able to see how much you are saving by going for 12 month cover

Inactive

RodForte wrote: »

If we as the general public did "rant on" about the annual terms and conditions then some of the companies would have to make some of the term and conditions a little more favourable to their paymaster - the general public, and not to their own balance sheets.

Ranting on a forum will change nothing, voting with your wallet will.