Insurance refund (onto a credit card in a different name)

Leeds_lad_2

Hi Guys

Im after a bit of advice on the following situation.

My girlfriend paid for her car insurance on her fathers credit card in one lump sum, due to selling the car the policy was cancelled mid term and a refund was agreed by the insurance provider.

Now this is where it gets interesting, my girlfriend is no longer in contact with her father and stressed this point to the insurers and requested a cheque be sent in her name. This was agreed over the phone and she was told a cheque would be sent, a few days passed and she called up to chase the matter and was advised it had been dispatched.

A few days later still no cheque and a third call was made, this time advising they have to refund the card and it had all been processed.

Now i can understand why this has to be done but she was told on two occasions that a cheque would be sent, had she been advised otherwise we would have stayed with the insurer and got her insured on another vehicle.

Any ideas where she stands? Surely if she was given the wrong information they are at fault?

Thanks for reading

lisyloo

Has she spoken to them about it?
What have they said?
Do they admit it or are they denying it?

Does she have any names, dates and times of phone calls?

Normally refunds go back to the same card because the charges connected with the credit card (2.5%?) are refunded as well.

She can complain but the success will depend on what evidence she has because they might just deny all knowledge.
If she know the dates and times it may help to get recordings of phone calls.

Leeds_lad_2

They have simply appologised for the wrong information, i accept that it is normal practice for a refund to be sent to the card. However had we been told that the money can ONLY be sent to the card then we wouldnt have cancelled it.

Ultimately they have given the wrong info,we are currently taking this up with the ombudsman.

Tygermoth

Hi,

I also believe as much as the OP was inconvenienced the insurer is obliged to return funds to the issuing card due to the possibility of money laundering. This is a requirement by the insurers regulatory bodies.

The insurer may apologise due to the poor customer service but they would not have been able to change the outcome.

Now this bit I am not sure on...

If the policy was to be cancelled my thinking would be the refund would have had to go back on the card and a complete new payment requested (which as she is not talking to the card holder in question would not have occurred)

I base this assumption on the dim a distant past where there was a cancelation mid term, they gave me a refund then deducted the new policy premium as a whole new transaction... but things may be different now.

I also cannot see how an insurer would be deemed at fault for the fact you are not talking to the card holder or you have issues gaining payment from the card in question. They would only be liable for poor customer service..



You have not 'lost' any money... as it was technically not yours............. it was her dads?



Tyger

lisyloo

I have certainly had similar experiences where call centers will not accept liability for consequential loss as a result of false information.

You will need to pursue a formal complaint with the insurer before going to the ombudsman. I would do that ASAP otherwise you could wait 3-4 weeks only to be told this by the ombudsman.
Do you know how much money you have lost?
I think you need to be clear on it.
You can only go to the ombudsman once your complaint has been dealt with and you've got to a "deadlock" situation.
It will cost the insurer about £500 if you complain to the ombudsman so I would quanitfy your loss and mention your intention to take it all the way. If it's less than £500 and you make it clear you know your rights then there is a chance you might win without too much delay.

sophievenusdoom

Tygermoth wrote: »

Hi,

I also believe as much as the OP was inconvenienced the insurer is obliged to return funds to the issuing card due to the possibility of money laundering. This is a requirement by the insurers regulatory bodies.

The insurer may apologise due to the poor customer service but they would not have been able to change the outcome.

Now this bit I am not sure on...

If the policy was to be cancelled my thinking would be the refund would have had to go back on the card and a complete new payment requested (which as she is not talking to the card holder in question would not have occurred)

I base this assumption on the dim a distant past where there was a cancelation mid term, they gave me a refund then deducted the new policy premium as a whole new transaction... but things may be different now.

I also cannot see how an insurer would be deemed at fault for the fact you are not talking to the card holder or you have issues gaining payment from the card in question. They would only be liable for poor customer service..



You have not 'lost' any money... as it was technically not yours............. it was her dads?



Tyger

Absolutely right. Insurers cannot issue refunds into any other name that the person that is/did pay the premium for money laundering reasons. Whilst they might accept responsibility for mis-information, they would advise your partner to take it up with her father. As the previous poster mentioned, did he loan her the money, or did he simply gift it to her?