Car Insurance - Mis-sold?

pigpen11

Hi All

Need some advice - I insured my sons Clio with the post office fully comp back in April - He was a learner driver and just 17 - Having heard so many tales of woe with young driver Insurance I telephoned them about the quote and asked them if the premium would increase when he passed his test - The premium was already £1700 - I explained to the chap on the phone that this would make me change my mind from using them if this was the case. I especially said "was this a learner driver premium/policy"

Son has now passed his test and The helpful chappies at the PO said and I quote" unable to give me a price to cover him fully comp for at least 48 hours" but the current provider will not insure him at all - I pointed out to the operator that this policy then had been to all intents and purposes a learner driver policy as the company obviously had no intention of insuring him when he passed his test. To date they have had £500 out of me for 2 months insurance - But in order to cancel the policy they are insisting I pay them another £170 and a £35 admin fee which represents 40% of the policy

All quotes currently coming back for him are in excess of £3000 - Now I understand that young male drivers are more of a risk but this is getting way out of hand - Everyone else I know insures their kids on a policy in their name- Insurance fronting and saving about 70% - I am so frustrated at trying to be upright and honest and teach my son that things should be done properly and legally but what's the point - You can fully understand why kids drive around with no insurance - They risk a slap on the wrist and probably a £100 fine as opposed to £3000 premium they can't afford

Any wise words anyone? My Financial Advisor friend has said to threaten to make a complaint to the Ombudsman as this costs me nothing and will cost them £600

lisyloo

You can fully understand why kids drive around with no insurance

No sorry, that's not justified.
If you can't afford something you don't have it.
It doesn't justify immoral/illegal acts like stealing just so you can have what you want.
No wonder we have a broken society if parents encourage their offspring to do illegal/immoral things just because they can't gett what they want easily.
When I was a kid, if I couldn't have something I worked and saved up until I could.
Now people just do what they want and to hell with the consequences for anyone else.

To get abck to the question I don't think you get to dictate terms to the company.
They decide the terms and send them to you in paperwork/oplicy booklet.

If you don't like them you shoul reject the policy - but I think you'll find most polciies similar in the respects you are talking about - most are 12 months, have short term rates and cancellation fees.
Yes it will cost them money if you complain.
Why don't you do that after all what do you care about the consequences for other motorists (higher premiums for them to cover the cost of your complaint).

The main point I see here is that you don't get to dictate terms for their products
They do and they would have sent them to you.
You are unlikely to have a recording of the cnoversation whereas they can prove and produce the information they sent to you.

Young boys are charged high rates because as a group they have lots of accidents.
As a individual I'm sure yours is an angel, but as a group if they want lower premiums then they need to stop having claims.

pigpen11

Gosh what a rant - I suggest you re-read my original question. A legitimate one I think

I, in no way suggested that I would not insure my son legally or encourage him no to do so either - I quite clearly put that I have brought my son up to do everything legally and that I just feel that having asked the questions beforehand of the Insurance company, I took out a policy that is no longer fit for purpose - Through their doing not mine/ my sons. Basically they are saying they won't inusre him but it is going to cost me more money for them not to do so by cancelling it !!! How is that fair and justified ?

I do not condone unisured drivers in any way nor "Insurance fronting" for that matter which seems to be the norm nowadays as the only alternative. Mine was merely a comment as to the reasons why kids may not bother to insure their cars.

dunstonh

Everyone else I know insures their kids on a policy in their name- Insurance fronting and saving about 70%

Well they are stupid. Committing fraud and running the risk of prosecution is not excusable because it costs more. Just let them realise how expensive that decision would be in the event of a claim. I suppose your friends are burglars as well as they cant afford their living standards and that is acceptable as well.

You can fully understand why kids drive around with no insurance

Again, no excuse for committing crime.

My Financial Advisor friend has said to threaten to make a complaint to the Ombudsman as this costs me nothing and will cost them £600

The FOS have a filter system in place now to get as many complaints dealt with before the £550 charge is applied. They FOS can also waive the fee on frivolous complaints. As it stands, the FOS will not take on a complaint that deals with pricing of insurance. So, it will be rejected as outside their remit and no charge made. The FOS has also ruled on a number of occasions on cancellation charges and generally, anything up to £50 is considered acceptable. So, £35 is under that threshold. The refund should be relatively pro-rata but a few months out is acceptable. Especially near the start where the bulk of the costs are incurred.

edit:

Basically they are saying they won't inusre him but it is going to cost me more money for them not to do so by cancelling it !!! How is that fair and justified ?

You may have some scope there on a complaint but you cant go straight to the FOS. You have to use the internal complaints process first.

pigpen11

Well I seem to have really hit a hornets nest here

I know all the reasons why things should be done legally and I think I put that quite clearly in both of my posts.

This is what I have been doing and trying to do still but in so doing I feel I have been mis-sold a policy. Simple really. I never suggested I would do, or condone anything illegall or immoral. I work hard, pay my bills and taxes and bring my children up the same way.

I just wanted some advice - Not a personal slur against me and my family which is unkind and certainly unjustified.

foggytown

dunstonh wrote: »

I suppose your friends are burglars as well as they cant afford their living standards and that is acceptable as well.

Well, there's your first ridiculous statement.

[/QUOTE]Again, no excuse for committing crime.[/QUOTE]

Second. Understanding is NOT the same as excusing.

[/QUOTE]The FOS have a filter system in place now to get as many complaints dealt with before the £550 charge is applied. They FOS can also waive the fee on frivolous complaints. As it stands, the FOS will not take on a complaint that deals with pricing of insurance.[/QUOTE]

But they will take on a complaint based on misselling, won't they.

Pigpen, you have had the misfortune to be assailed by two of the less helpful in this group. They seem to enjoy defending the shortcomings of a badly-behaving industry - at the expense of the punters. Don't judge this group by their examples.

noh

But they will take on a complaint based on misselling, won't they...

.

Yes but only when the insurance companies own complaints procedure has been exhausted. The complaint will still be filtered and not taken any further if there is no credible evidence.

corbyboy

Are there two different insurance companies here or is it just Post Office? This sentence confused me slightly:

Son has now passed his test and The helpful chappies at the PO said and I quote" unable to give me a price to cover him fully comp for at least 48 hours" but the current provider will not insure him at all

You say Post Office won't quote him for 48 hours but the "current provider" won't insure him at all. This seems contradictary to me. Is the "current provider" not the Post Office?

Your initial post turned into a bit of a rant by the end. If you can just clarify a few points that would be helpful.

From what you have posted it doesn't seem like you have been missold. You have paid £1700 for 1 year of cover for a learner driver. That is exactly what you have got. The insurance company didn't know the date he was going to pass his test.

I understand your frustration but unless they make some promises in their T&Cs as to what happens when you pass your test and are no longer a learner driver they probably haven't done anything wrong.

bouncydog1

Firstly, who is the policy with and what are the terms and conditions? Is it definately a policy for learner drivers only - it will say so if that is the case.

It could well be that the underwriter has changed their stance on insuring young drivers, which is why they will not indicate terms for him now he has passed his test.

There must also be a reason why the terms indicated are in excess of £3k - do you live in a high risk area e.g. centre of a city for instance? Is the Clio a very basic one or a high performance version etc?

As others have said you may be able to get the cancellation fee reduced if you write to the Post office, but at the end of the day the onus is on the policyholder to read the documentation for the policy they buy to make sure that it is what they require.

Of course there is a point in demonstrating to your son that things should be done legally - it means that if he is involved in an accident his insurance will provide cover for him - unlike your friends who are fronting who could very possibly end up getting sued by the insurers if insurers have to pay out on a claim. They should also be checking the documents they have very carefully as insurers are very aware that fronting occurs and your friends may find something in the certificate and policy conditions that means their offspring are not insured!

lisyloo

They seem to enjoy defending the shortcomings of a badly-behaving industry - at the expense of the punters.

What evidence do we have that they behaved badly?
The OP tried to dictate the terms and I'm afraid you cannot do that.
Car insurance is not a bespoke product, it has standard terms.
You are meant to read those when they send you the information.
The £35 cancellation fee seems very reasonsonable to me.
They can legally charge more, so they are clearly not profiteering. If they were doing that, they would charge the maximum they could under the guidelines.

It is possible the OP had a conversation with a not very knowledgeable call center person. That happens ALL the time.
But I suspect the paperwork overrides that and that there is probably no recording of that conversation (otherwise it would have been mentioned before now).

You can fully understand why kids drive around with no insurance

Sorry but this is trying to justify immoral/illegal behaviour and deserving of the rants IMO.
I genuinely hope the OP (or anyone else) never has anyone in their family injured or put to serious problems by an un-insured driver.
It's totally inexcusable and in no way understandable.
It's like a 2 year old child stamping their feet and having a tantrum because they can't have something.
It's unfortunately if youngsters can't have the car they want, but they have to live with that.
I'd like a Ferrari but I wouldn't put anyone else at risk or act immorally/illegally to get one.

Of course it's going to stir up a hornets nest if someone suggests it's ok to take risks with others peoples life/income without insurance.

foggytown

lisyloo wrote: »

Of course it's going to stir up a hornets nest if someone suggests it's ok to take risks with others peoples life/income without insurance.

Is there some reason you can't understand what you read? The OP has said several times, and quite forcefully, that SHE DOESN'T RECOMMEND OR APPROVE OF ILLEGAL INSURANCE PURCHASING. I can understand why Germany accepted Hitler as a leader in the 30s. That doesn't mean I approve of it.