Swinton Cancellstion fee

Brize

zppp wrote:

People don't take insurance out to cancel it. If they are looking to cancel it, they should check the relevant terms regarding cancellation prior to purchasing.

That's a self-defeating argument, but it serves to illustrate a useful point.

Indeed, no one takes out insurance with the intention of cancelling it, which is why people don't usually check the cancellation terms! This is why the FSA draw particular attention to cancellation rights, and why they stipulate a statutory cooling-off period.

In my view, levying a £50 fee undermines the cooling-off period, because it could influence consumers to remain with an unsuitable policy.

zppp wrote:

Your reading of the FSA handbook is an interpretation, a reading of how you view the regulations. Why not write to the FSA to ask for an explanation?

It doesn't work like that, unfortunately. Have you actually read the FSA's definition of a durable medium that I've now posted twice? I'd be interested in your interpretation, given the express exclusion of 'internet sites'.

zppp

Brize wrote: »

It doesn't work like that, unfortunately. Have you actually read the FSA's definition of a durable medium that I've now posted twice? I'd be interested in your interpretation, given the express exclusion of 'internet sites'.

'it excludes Internet sites, unless such sites meet the criteria specified in the first sentence of this paragraph'

Therefore looking at the first part of the paragraph as instructed it states;

'any instrument which enables the recipient to store information addressed personally to him61 in a way accessible for future reference for a period of time adequate for the purposes of the information and which allows the unchanged reproduction of the information stored 45'

Thus, the PDF format is correct, as it has permissions so cannot be altered, it can be printed or stored for an indefinite period.

It also states; 'For the purposes of this definition, the provision of information by means of electronic communications shall be treated as appropriate to the context in which the business between the firm and the client is, or is to be, carried on if there is evidence that the client has regular access to the internet.'

It is appropriate given that a purchase is being made online, that the terms are online pre-contract.

Brize

zppp wrote: »

Thus, the PDF format is correct, as it has permissions so cannot be altered, it can be printed or stored for an indefinite period.

But it's not addressed personally to the recipient.

DCFC79

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.

Of course its fair and reasonable, its £50 to cancel a policy early,

Brize

zppp wrote: »

It also states; 'For the purposes of this definition, the provision of information by means of electronic communications shall be treated as appropriate to the context in which the business between the firm and the client is, or is to be, carried on if there is evidence that the client has regular access to the internet.'

What evidence would Swinton have that people buying online have regular access to the internet? This refers to 'member zones' and the like, where policyholders can login to access documents that would be deemed to have been personally addressed to them.

This document on the durable medium makes for interesting reading:

http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/securities/docs/esme/durable_medium_en.pdf

The implication is that websites can provide information in a durable medium if they allow users to send themselves emails attaching PDF files, or if they give clear direction to the user to print or save documents, perhaps even requiring it before the user can proceed to the next stage.

You and I know that PDF files - or even a webpage - can be saved to the hard drive, but this won't be apparent to everyone. On a Mac, for example, PDF files accessed from a website open seamlessly in a browser window, rather than in a separate application like Adobe Reader.

zppp

Brize wrote: »

But it's not addressed personally to the recipient.

But the terms will be specific to the quote regarding the excesses etc. This need not be personalised prior to purchase. Upon completion, the policies are sent by email/post which are personalised and thus meet the durable medium rules. It doesn't state a requirment that it should be personalised pre contract.

Anyway, I am not continuing here anymore, as I think you are going to sit here continuing to argue over semantics. I wish you the best of luck with your arguement.

Brize

zppp wrote: »

It doesn't state a requirment that it should be personalised pre contract.

Yes, it does:

ICOBS 6.2.5:

(3) The information must be provided in good time before conclusion of the contract and in writing or another durable medium.

Oscar_The_Grouch

Oh dear! This thread has turned into the "I'm right and your wrong" argument for Brize and Zppp. What a complete waste of everyones time, especially when you get this:

Brize wrote: »

That's something different. We all approach insurance contracts with a set of pre-formed requirements, and we go looking for the relevant information to ensure that those requirements are met.

The levying of a substantial fee for cancelling the insurance within the cooling-off period is something that, I believe, should be foregrounded by the insurer, not relegated to page 10 of 14 in one of six documents.

Let's be honest here: Brize, you didn't bother reading my post. If you had, you would have realised that I don't care what your requirements are; they are different to mine. I think it's important to show the things that I think are important. You thing your things are more important than mine. Guess what? We're both wrong!!! What's important is listing the things that are important to MOST people. That's what the T&C's & SOC are for and you fail to read them at your own risk.

Ok? Can we move on now? Can we stop going on about things that, frankly, no one on this site is really worried about? OP has already moved on, so it would be great if you could too.

I'm not going to bother reading this thread anymore as, frankly, it's not worth my time now I've finished on this rant. So if you want to respond to this post, don't waste everyones time putting it on here - send me a PM. I won't read it, but it will probably make you feel better.

Helen_J_3

tonyenglish wrote: »

None of this was carried out over the phone except the converstaion regarding the NCD. The time spent between accepting the quote, calling the local branch to query the NCD and cancelling the product was less than 10 mins! The NCD part was a genuine misunderstanding on my part.

£50 does seem excessive but if it's in their t+cs then there's no comeback unfortunately. What annoys me is they all charge fees for stuff like this, so although you can say 'well you don't have to take insurance out with company X' actually you don't have much choice in terms of avoiding these fees altogether.

Altarf

Helen_J wrote: »

£50 does seem excessive but if it's in their t+cs then there's no comeback unfortunately.

Of course there is. As I said before they are only allowed to charge a 'reasonable' administration fee, and if it was me I would argue all the way to the Financial Ombudsman that it was not reasonable, no matter what their T&Cs said. After all, if they want to pay the £500 Financial Ombudsman case fee to justify their £50 administration fee, that is up to them.

And I bet if you did progress it through their complaints procedure, at the stage before they issued the deadlock letter, you would get an ex-gratia £50 payment.