Cornhill Online Ripoff/Swindle

dacouch

Pretty_in_Pink wrote: »

Yes they are up to date and current. My bf has had no other insurance, made no claims etc.

They were provided with the original , dated, renewal quote they asked for.

Where does it say it must be concurrent or... In the last 30 days?

It's open to abuse and pretty much what they deem to be "current"

"The documents must be up to date"

Also see Quentins recent post

raskazz

dacouch wrote: »

"The documents must be up to date"

Also see Quentins recent post

But this isn't the problem. The problem is the break in cover.

If the OP supplied an up to date document, i.e. an NCD confirmation letter from the last insurer dated 16th June 2010 (but that confirmed an expiry date of xx December 2009), then - despite the policyholder satisfying the particular condition that you have quoted - Cornhill would not accept it due to their bizarre rule on not accepting NCD where there has been a break in cover of more than 30 days.

Pretty_in_Pink_2

Quentin wrote: »

Don't shoot the messenger. You say he has turned the site upside down, yet ignored the small print when answering the quote questions!

When you complete the quote form, there are many questions that have small print - they have an "I" (information) button to click on. These include questions on the type of licence, claims, convictions, owner, annual mileage and NCD.

He's sat next to me now

Quentin - If this is true then he is wrong and he stands corrected. A lesson learnt. Next time will be a different matter one to put down to experience.

Still it doesnt remove the bitter taste does it?!

600 pounds to 1200. Yet they decided they would call him and offer honour the NCD in the higher quote which was now a "telephone" quote.

The website is not allowing me to submit a quote to verify it.

dacouch

raskazz wrote: »

But this isn't the problem. The problem is the break in cover.

If the OP supplied an up to date document, i.e. an NCD confirmation letter from the last insurer dated 16th June 2010 (but that confirmed an expiry date of xx December 2009), Cornhill would not accept it due to their bizarre rule on not accepting NCD where there has been a break in cover of more than 30 days.

I agree, I think Cornhill intend it to mean no break in cover but it could be interpreted as meaning the letter confirming the ncd is up to date.

It's a bizarre rule and the sort of underwriting that Cornhill are well known for.

I once had Cornhill try and settle a claim at the trade price as the client had bought the car from auction even though it was worth considerably more. I spoke to a very very senior claims manager who tried to tell me all insurers work this way. Their / her reasoning was they pay the price based on "The Channel" you buy it from. I asked her to point to where it said this in the policy and also asked her if she would pay an inflated price if a customer had bought a car at well over the market price from a Mayfair dealer because they had good Customer Service. She obviously could not explain it but would not back down.

raskazz

It is a very bizarre rule.

The only reason I can think for it is if they felt that the time spent querying breaks in cover was not worth it. But firstly the resources devoted to complaints on the matter - and, evidently, the phone calls - would surely outweigh those savings; and secondly, if this was the intention, then why not make it a more prominent rule on their website. Odd.

Quentin

Pretty_in_Pink wrote: »

He's sat next to me now

Quentin - If this is true then he is wrong and he stands corrected. A lesson learnt. Next time will be a different matter one to put down to experience.

Still it doesnt remove the bitter taste does it?!

600 pounds to 1200. Yet they decided they would call him and offer honour the NCD in the higher quote which was now a "telephone" quote.

The website is not allowing me to submit a quote to verify it.

You may have a bitter taste, though why you keep aiming at me is a mystery!

You seem to now be suggesting my help is suspect and needs you to verify it! Why do you now want a quote from them - you have some harsh things to call them?

Pretty_in_Pink_2

Thanks all he feels better for sounding off and hopefully it might help a couple of people in future.

He knows Cornhill are not getting his business next year and he's learned the lessons.

Pretty_in_Pink_2

Quentin wrote: »

You may have a bitter taste, though why you keep aiming at me is a mystery!

You seem to now be suggesting my help is suspect and needs you to verify it! Why do you now want a quote from them - you have some harsh things to call them?

No i was actually thanking you (1st line)

2, 3 and 4 were personal thoughts

I wanted to find it for myself to show him!

raskazz

Pretty_in_Pink wrote: »

Thanks all he feels better for sounding off and hopefully it might help a couple of people in future.

He knows Cornhill are not getting his business next year and he's learned the lessons.

Think of it as a lukcy escape. Avoid any insurer that uses international call centres.

dacouch

I remember a few years ago Zurich got very very picky on NCD, the rep had advised me that they had been looking at data and found that they received a significantly higher incidence of claims and the claims were higher where there were gaps in NCD and / or discrepencies eg the broker accident (On purpose) increased the ncd by a year or so for certain clients (or friends) as they knew the chances of it being audited were very remote.

The figures she quoted me were quite shocking so I could semi understand their logic although the logistic costs of checking everyone as they would have liked were very high.