Swinton Cancellstion fee

zppp

Brize wrote: »

There are two issues here: First, consumers can't reasonably be expected to read six multi-page documents when buying insurance online. This is why the FSA allow 14 days for cancellation after the policy documents have been received.

Well Swinton are asking for their customers to read all of the documents and tick a box to confirm they understand those conditions. If you choose not to read them thats up to you - you are still bound.

Brize

zppp wrote: »

Well Swinton are asking for their customers to read all of the documents and tick a box to confirm they understand those conditions. If you choose not to read them thats up to you - you are still bound.

I think we're all in agreement that it's legal; what's up for debate is whether it's fair and reasonable.

zppp

Brize wrote: »

I think we're all in agreement that it's legal; what's up for debate is whether it's fair and reasonable.

Right, so we have given the OP the information about the pre-contract informtion. That all seems in order. It is entirely your opinion that it is unfiar/unreasonable. I don't see how a moral arguement is going to help the OP.

I for one am fed up of arguing, and I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this issue.

Brize

I should preface this post with the caveat that what follows is only a lay interpretation of the FSA regulations surrounding cancellation rights; it is not intended to be authoritative.

Having looked through the FSA handbook, ICOBS 6.2.5 prescribes that a firm should provide information on cancellation rights, including any charges, in good time before the conclusion of the contract and in a 'durable medium'.

The definition of a 'durable medium' is woolly, but appears to require that the information be 'addressed personally' to the client. This includes email, but would appear to exclude 'internet sites':

http://fsahandbook.info/FSA/glossary-html/handbook/Glossary/D?definition=G1286

lisyloo

repeated use of caps is aggressive and unnecessary

Ok, I'll use italics for emphasis.

but please don't try to foreclose discussion by telling other forum members to 'get over it'.

What I am saying is as a consumer yo don't get to dictate the business model.
That's a fact.
You don't get to dictate it at airlines or supermarkets either.
We have guidelines for this sort of thing and it has already been considered.

Are you suggesting that consumers should be expected to go to a third-party website before buying insurance?

I would NEVER buy insurance without checking third party information.
Do you think you get objective information about how great they are from the insurer direct?
Surely you aren't that naive?

lisyloo

FWIW - I did tell tonyeglish how he could "get his own back" and cuse some financial/inconvenicnce to the insurer.

Personally I think this is morally wrong, but I did at least tell him of his options even though I don't agree with that route.

Brize

lisyloo wrote: »

We have guidelines for this sort of thing and it has already been considered.

You're quite the authority, aren't you?

I think we're all agreed that the OP ticked the box to say that he had read and understood the terms and conditions when he hadn't. This may render his complaint null and void, although I still think there's a question mark over whether Swinton have fulfilled their regulatory responsibilities.

I don't think that there's any expectation on Swinton's part that consumers will read through those six documents before checking the box to say that they have. In fact, I'm willing to bet that the website would time out on anyone who tried to read all of the documents before clicking the 'pay now' button.

There's no direction to the consumer to print or download the documents, and no option to receive them by email. Accordingly, I don't see how the information could have been provided in a 'durable medium'. I also think it's questionable that the information was provided 'in good time' before the conclusion of the contract, given that the document links were on one side of the screen and the 'pay now' button on the other.

Altarf

An insurer is allowed to charge a 'reasonable administration charge' for a cancellation within the statutory cooling off period. The question is, whether a flat fee of £50 is 'reasonable' when a policy has been cancelled after 10 minutes.

If it happened to me, I would write to Swinton and ask that it be looked at under their complaints procedure, as £50 seems excessive. If they still declined to refund, I would ask for a deadlock letter and take it to the Financial Ombudsman. That way, if they have had more than three complaints looked at by the ombudsman that year, they will pay £500 to defend their £50 fee.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/QG1.pdf

darich

Couple of other points to note
NCD is rarely, if ever, mirrored from one company to another so Swinton were never likely to give the OP his NCD based on his first car given the first car is insured with another company.

Matthewsguide website is at best, subjective. At worst it's rubbish.
It claims that my current insurer RAC is very expensive yet it was cheapest for me and I tried numerous. Some wouldn't even insure my car since it's modified.

EDIT : Swinton are actually entitled to charge the OP more than £50. It states on their conditions that within the cooling off period they will charge £50 cancellation fee PLUS any service provided.
The OP has already bought the car. He arranged insurance on the internet. Later made a call to ask a question and during the call, wanted to cancel. At this time Swinton have insured the OP's car for a period of time, whether that's 1 minute or 1 hour is unclear but there was a period of cover. That entitles Swinton to charge an extra fee. They could front load the policy to get a large amount or split 365days by 365x24 to get an hourly rate for insurance cover. How they do that is up to them but the OP could have had a higher charge than £50. It may be worth checking that their cancellation fee hasn't been reduced due to the (presumably) short period of time and when adding a charge to cover the period of insurance they're calling it a round £50.

Presumably the OP has now arranged suitable cover and doesn't have an uninsured car on the road?

dacouch

darich wrote: »

Matthewsguide website is at best, subjective. At worst it's rubbish.
It claims that my current insurer RAC is very expensive yet it was cheapest for me and I tried numerous. Some wouldn't even insure my car since it's modified.

Matthews guide says E Car are the best overall "All Round Quality" Motor Insurer Insurer even though they only got 3 out of 5 stars and when awarding stars they take into account high tariff phone numbers (£1 a minute).

http://www.matthewsguide.co.uk/LIN/e_car.php

http://www.matthewsguide.co.uk/LIN/comp.php

E Car do spend a few quid advertising on Matthews Guide though...

Quinn get 4 out of 5 stars!

http://www.matthewsguide.co.uk/LIN/quinn_direct.php

Apparantly Quinn have no admin fees, although their standard admin fee is £17.

This one is also amusing... http://www.matthewsguide.co.uk/LIN/home_hiscox.php

They also recommend increasing your policy excess to reduce your premium, however they do not give any warnings about compulsory excesses or tell people to balance out a voluntary excess with the actual saving you an make.