Automatic renewal mugging

JPreston

mattymoo wrote: »

Unfortunately the system was not working. Correct, there are many drivers out there who stick 2 fingers up to the idea of insuring a vehicle. Things like the MID database and ANPR cameras are steadily removing these from the road.

I've seen the situation from quite a few angles during my insurance career. As a surveyor I've seen the car pounds where the uninsured vehicles go pending crushing. You'd be surprised how many late reg Audi's and BMW's are in these places. These are the "forgot to renew" brigade.

I've dealt with the claims on behalf of the MIB. This was pre-MID and ANPR / auto renewal etc but the failure to renew or put alternative cover in place was the number one reason for having no cover at the time of the accident....

Well, were I to allow my insurance to lapse and get caught driving uninsured what else would I say other than I 'forgot'?

It's interesting though, even if I had an expensive car that was crushed (why don't they auction at least some them?) through my failing to insure it, it wouldn't even cross my mind to point the finger at the company that I last bought insurance off (more than a year ago!). In the same way that no-one writes to me to tell me that my MOT is about to expire, I just think it's down to me as a motorist to ensure that I have a valid MOT and insurance certificate every day I drive.

That's a good point that auto-renewal shifts the cost of 'honest mistake' uninsured drivers having accidents from everyone else, although I wonder how many such mistakes are truly honest (and will reiterate that I'm not using my bike!). I suspect that's the only way in which it can be said to benefit the consumer, but I believe is more than outweighed by stealthily increased premiums, non-refundable renewal fees, cancellation fees etc. (I fully understand the need for and support cancellation fees in general....but within the cooling-off period of an unrequired policy renewed in the consumer's absence? No way....)

I hate autorenewal. I have now started emailing the provider when I take out a new policy, telling them I do not wish to renew automatically. Email means I have a record of the contact if they don't bother, so I can refer them to it when they send me the usual 'you don't need to anything' carp. The policies usually say you have to notify them if you don't want aut-renewal, but they don't say when, so doing it at the start of the policy means its fresh in my mind. An alternative to email is to send a signed note in when you send your no claims or acceptance forms back to them.

Good tips, and something that I will be doing from now on, now that I am aware of the reasonably new (isn't it?) practice of automatic renewal. In Bennett's case however, they specify that you have to do so on their 0844 number so I suspect had I emailed them at the start it would have done nothing. Hopefully other insurers are more helpful towards their customers.

Auto renewal was very useful for me on one occasion as it meant that my car remained insured when I unexpectedly spent a few months in hospital.

I would never normally renew with the same insurer though and usually start shopping around the month before my policy expires.

Agreed, even though I seem to stay with the same insurer more often than not for my car I always shop around first. Now I'll also have to add 'opt-out' of autorenewal afterwards to the task list :rolleyes:.

I almost wonder if the best way to tackle dishonest practices like this (as it surely can't be confined to insurance companies) would be for the credit card companies to offer products that insist that cardholder-not-present transactions must be individually consented to by the cardholder (in the same way that you don't just enter your PIN once if you go to Tesco every week). I certainly did not consent to having my card details retained by Bennett's for the purpose of being stung in this way, and would definitely sign up to a card provider that would reject Bennett's shenannigans outright (and slap them with an admin fee into the bargain)

Altarf

dunstonh wrote: »

In this case, the bennetts T&Cs are quite clear

Actually I would argue that point. The T&Cs says

Renewal Arrangement Fee
When you renew your policy, a non-refundable fee of up to £30.00 may apply.

It says "may apply" without defining the circumstances when it might and when it might not.

If it is applied in 100% of cases then I would expect the T&Cs to say "you will be charged" or "are subject to" or "you will have to pay" as in the case of their other charges.

So as it is not a mandatory charge and they have decided to apply it in the OP's case, I would ask them to justify why they have applied the charge. And at the end of the day, if they won't refund the £30, I would stick in a complaint to their regulator, the Financial Services Authority (FSA).

lisyloo

I cannot see how this behaviour is intended to do anything other than harm the consumer.

In general there are a lot of other people involved i.e. everyone else using the roads and pavements.
That might not apply in your case, but the policy is not written purely for you.
The rest of the world should be protected, although I appreicate it does not apply in your case.

I think it is reasonable for consumers to take minimal interest in what they buy if they so wish

I would take issue with this.
If you want to drive several tons round the roads (ok, again not in your case, but in general), then you really ought to take an interest in everyone else who's party to that risk. It's not only a legal but a moral obligation.
I am talking about the general case for auto-renewal.

If you don't want an auto-renewal policy then it's easy. DON'T BUY ONE.
My last policy from Sheilas wheels was not on auto-renewal.

Altarf

Sorry, but that is a spurious argument, cars being insured is a "good thing". Insurance companies acting without a specific authority to take an unlimited amount of money, and then charging them to give it back, is not.

As for not buying an auto-renewing policy, if all these insurance companies are so virtuous and not doing it because people just forget to cancel, and well there goes another year, I assume that they all have a "No thanks, I would rather not take you up on your kind offer. If I want to renew I will let you know" box.

lisyloo

Altarf wrote: »

Sorry, but that is a spurious argument, cars being insured is a "good thing". Insurance companies acting without a specific authority to take an unlimited amount of money, and then charging them to give it back, is not.

As for not buying an auto-renewing policy, if all these insurance companies are so virtuous and not doing it because people just forget to cancel, and well there goes another year, I assume that they all have a "No thanks, I would rather not take you up on your kind offer. If I want to renew I will let you know" box.

Ok, so insurance companies do some things that aren't "good" in your opinion.
What are you going to do?
1) Whinge on here ad nauseum to no avail.
OR
2) buy a product that suits you with a method of payment that suits you.

I'd suggest you go for option 2.

There are ways of refusing auto-renewal, but no your bottom doesn't get wiped, you have to do the legwork if you want to opt out of the standard way of doing things for that insurer.
OR (of course) choose an insurer whose methods you are happy with.
OR send then a cheque.

If you think some of these insurers are so immoral then why give them your business anyway?

BTW - i don't think they are virtuous. i think they do it because they get a lot of buisiness from apathetic customers or those who forget. But you DON'T HAVE to use those companies. It's your choice.

Altarf

lisyloo wrote: »

BTW - i don't think they are virtuous. i think they do it because they get a lot of buisiness from apathetic customers or those who forget. But you DON'T HAVE to use those companies. It's your choice.

I am glad that you have given up on your previous spurious argument and now admit that insurance companies do it to to boost profits.

And yes I do use option 2. I use an honest local insurance broker who doesn't engage in such deceptive practice, so no I don't give the dishonest companies my business.

lisyloo

I am glad that you have given up on your previous spurious argument and now admit that insurance companies do it to to boost profits.

No I haven't give up on any previous arguments.
(I have never claimed profit was not involved, are you mixing me up with someone else?)
I still think there is a huge moral obligation if you want to drive a few tons of metal around the streets.
I think insurers do things for MANY reasons and not just one.
Ease of admin is probably another reason.
But I personally have never denied profits or maintain market share would be reasons.

I'm glad you make your purchasing decision on a moral basis.
I bought mine from Shielas Wheels last year and at that time they didn't auto renew.

Altarf

lisyloo wrote: »

No I haven't give up on any previous arguments.
(I have never claimed profit was not involved, are you mixing me up with someone else?)

I don't think so, lets see what you said last time -

lisyloo wrote: »

I cannot see how this behaviour is intended to do anything other than harm the consumer.

In general there are a lot of other people involved i.e. everyone else using the roads and pavements.
That might not apply in your case, but the policy is not written purely for you.
The rest of the world should be protected, although I appreicate it does not apply in your case.

I think it is reasonable for consumers to take minimal interest in what they buy if they so wish

I would take issue with this.
If you want to drive several tons round the roads (ok, again not in your case, but in general), then you really ought to take an interest in everyone else who's party to that risk. It's not only a legal but a moral obligation.
I am talking about the general case for auto-renewal.

If you don't want an auto-renewal policy then it's easy. DON'T BUY ONE.
My last policy from Sheilas wheels was not on auto-renewal.

Nope, no mention about the companies doing it to increase profits, just a spurious justification of it being a "good thing".

To be followed by some gratuitous insults and

lisyloo wrote: »

BTW - i don't think they are virtuous. i think they do it because they get a lot of buisiness from apathetic customers or those who forget. But you DON'T HAVE to use those companies. It's your choice.

That looks like giving up your argument to me. Feel free to insult me some more.

lisyloo

just a spurious justification

I would argue that protecting 3rd parties (pedestrians - some of whom are children, cyclists) etc. is not in the least bit spurious at all.
There are various ways of implementing it, yes.
One way would be to bombard you with reminders.
Another way would be to give you a certain "grace period" which of course would have to paid for.
No doubt people would complain about these methods.

To be followed by some gratuitous insults

I don't believe I've insulted anyone.
If you want someone to sit down and go it all through with you, then that service is available from a broker.
Many people chose to forego this and do it "DIY" to save money.
It's not ON to do this to save a few pennies and them complain the company didn't point everything out to you in painstaking detail.
There are advisors available if you want them.

That looks like giving up your argument to me

Whether we like it on not, these are legitimate legal operations.
If you want to change things I think you are honestly wasting you time on here.
You have a couple of choices.
You can try to change things through the demoncratic process.
That's lengthy and there is little chance of success in my opinion, but you won't change anything here.
Personally I siply don't have enough life to change every minor detail of every tiny thing that I don't like, so I generally find ways to deal with it so that i can spend my time enjoying my life.
This means either buying a policy without auto renewal
OR
keeping a spreadsheet (where I also keep dates of tax, MOT, servicing, dental checkups etc.)
You also have the option of sending a cheque.

That means I can get on with enjoying my life.

If you want to claim vcitory that I've given up on the argument, then well done, I hand you the victory (FWIW).
I don't have enough life to spend it on arguments.
I'd rather keep a spreadsheet and enjoy the time I have left on this planet.

That's not insulting, I'm just getting on with my life.

If you want to try and change things, then good for you - but I know for a fact that you won't acheive changing any insurance business by writing thread on this site.

ukgent

I keep getting demmands for payment to Ibuyeco for having the gall not to renew with them and switch to Saga Insurance.
Why on earth should anyone pay for something that they dont posses.
I am amazed that anyone here should even try to defend these bully boy tactics.
I am the customer and I choose who to insure my vehicles with, do they expect me to auto-renew for the next 50 years.
Enough is enough I will see them in court, it will be interesting to see who they side with
Ukgent