Fronting - played by the book & got $hafted!

mcjordi

try admiral or bell.. (same company i think) they seem ok for new drivers

vikingaero

realaledrinker wrote: »

My 17 year old son bought his first car in April & stumped up £2,500 insurance from his savings after we insisted that it was insured in his own name & with him as main driver - done by the book. Me & the missus got put on as additional drivers.

He passed his test today so his mum phoned M&S to inform them of his change in circumstances - done by the book.

M&S then kindly informed us that they no longer wished to insure him & cancelled the insurance - apparently they require two years driving experience post qualification before they will quote for a newly qualified driver.

Now I accept that M&S are at liberty to increase the premium, as he is now a bigger risk in their eyes, but it seems unbelievable that they would accept a premium from a learner in full knowledge that they would not insure him once he passed his test.

The best quote we can find now is £3500 from Endsleigh.

All this leaves a very bitter taste in the mouth & a young lad who went from euphoric to deeply distressed in a matter of a couple of hours. Where is the incentive to be open & transparent with the insurers if they treat young drivers in this manner. All his mates at school who have gotten a car in the last few months seem to be fronted & he can't understand why we can't do the same.

I would definitely invoke their complaints procedure and make it clear you are going to escalate the complaint to the FOS. Not only will he be losing a disproportionate amount of premium, he will also be losing months of no claims.

The problem with call centres is that you can get one jump up mong who's got out of bed the wrong side and thinks he/she can do what they want.

bryanb

dunstonh wrote: »

What is the make and model of the car? It may be that it is outside their accepted risk levels.

Whilst the parents were the primary drivers, it may have been acceptable. When they cease to be the primary drivers, it isnt.

Many companies will return the outstanding premium without charge applied when it is they that cannot offer cover.

Post 1 states he was main driver, parents were additional

But it makes me wonder when in the next para his mum phoned M&S, surely they only deal with the policy holder?

vaio

dunstonh wrote: »

What is the make and model of the car? It may be that it is outside their accepted risk levels.

Whilst the parents were the primary drivers, it may have been acceptable. When they cease to be the primary drivers, it isnt.

Many companies will return the outstanding premium without charge applied when it is they that cannot offer cover.

Yep, but the whole point of the OP was that the son was listed as main driver from inception, the only thing that has changed is that when he passed his test his parents notified the company despite not having to do so under the terms of the policy.

This has resulted in the significant black mark of a cancelled policy against his record and to me seems to breach the fair & reasonable and/or mis-selling of suitable products rules.

dunstonh

Yep, but the whole point of the OP was that the son was listed as main driver from inception, the only thing that has changed is that when he passed his test his parents notified the company despite not having to do so under the terms of the policy.

Yes. That is what it says but bryan spotted it too in that the mum phoned M&S. Not the son. So, I took that to read that mum is the policyholder.

This has resulted in the significant black mark of a cancelled policy against his record and to me seems to breach the fair & reasonable and/or mis-selling of suitable products rules.

Not necessarily. We need clarification on how it was set up and who was what. Also, M&S may have accepted business one way but not another. The insurer is not obliged to accept a different level of risk on an amendment. If a broker was used then absolutely as they have a duty but bypassing the broker removes some of the duty to make sure the product is right.

mikey72

dunstonh wrote: »

Yes. That is what it says but bryan spotted it too in that the mum phoned M&S. Not the son. So, I took that to read that mum is the policyholder.

That's not uncommon. On my daughters policy, I'm a named driver, and they asked if she wanted to authorise me to speak to them on her behalf.
Partly as they accept inexperienced drivers won't know what to ask when getting insurance, and won't appreciate the meaing of some of the answers, and even that they just don't like dealing with strangers on the phone.
That and the fact it went on my credit card for ease of payment.

vaio

dunstonh wrote: »

....... The insurer is not obliged to accept a different level of risk on an amendment........

But it’s not an amendment according to the T&C of the policy, it’s just a proud mum stupidly telling the insurance company where some call centre monkey says “the computer says no”

dunstonh wrote: »

.......If a broker was used then absolutely as they have a duty but bypassing the broker removes some of the duty to make sure the product is right.......

As an IFA I’d have thought you would be fully aware that if an insurance company sells direct to consumers then they are responsible for using ‘best endeavours’ to ensure the policy was suitable.
In the case of a learner driver it’s blindingly obvious that the intention is to progress as soon as possible to being a qualified driver and any policy that doesn’t take that into account is unsuitable.

If I was the OP I’d be pushing either for the cover to continue or for the policy to be treated as cancelled by the policy holder (rather than the company) together with a refund of unused premiums and maybe even a contribution to the additional insurance cost of going elsewhere.

nearlyrich

mikey72 wrote: »

That and the fact it went on my credit card for ease of payment.

This surprised me because when my daughter passed her test she was 17 and I was paying for her first year insurance, the policy was in her name, Tesco said it was illegal for me to pay using my credit card and she had to use her's, she was too young to have a credit card. :mad: They said it would be money laundering!! if I paid:eek: sad when they get mixed up but very frustrating when they won' budge....

jamesd

nearlyrich, it's not money laundering, but it might have been described that way because of the Tesco money laundering identification checks, which might not accept a third party payer.

pompeyrich

vaio wrote: »

This has resulted in the significant black mark of a cancelled policy against his record and to me seems to breach the fair & reasonable and/or mis-selling of suitable products rules.

Surely this wouldn't count as a cancellation in the "have you ever been refused insurance/had special terms applied or had a policy cancelled" type of way. Yes the policy has been cancelled but only because the driver no longer fits the required profile. I would like to think that having a policy cancelled because you passed a driving test would be viewed positively as opposed to someone who had a policy cancelled for failing to disclose a conviction/fronting etc. All young/inexperienced drivers have special terms applied in the way of higher excesses, so should they declare that at renewal or the fact that some companies refuse to quote them?
Maybe I'm niave but surely this won't lead to "a significant black mark"