Query. Marks & Spencers car insurance renewal.

Azimuth99

Hello,

Quick query.

Original car insurance for 2009/2010 with Marks & Spencers. OK.

Renewal notice arrives for 2011. I find a cheaper insurance through this web site, and pay up. Ignore M&S offer.

Today, Marks & Spencers take £362.02 from my account as default.

Query: I have no Direct Debit arrangment with M&S. How can they just take the money without my thumbs up? Yes, the renewal notice says 'phone to cancel', but my point is, what's changed recently. Surely professional coutesy should leave the decision with the customer. This current action means payment by default, which is inefficient from their angle (subsequent cancellations and insurance overlaps shortfalls), lazy (no onus to provide lower quotes), and psychologically dishonest (as its traps the unaware).

I've insured for 24 years without problem, and the onus has always been on the customer to get in touch if renewal quote is suitable or desired. If it's not OK, don't phone. Now I have to deal with phone calls, and letters at my expense.

Has there been a change in insurers tactics recently? It's a new one on me....

Any insights welcome.

Azimuth99

Mk14:37

Azimuth, I share your pain but I don't think it's an entirely new situation, particularly for car insurance.

Quentin

Azimuth99 wrote: »

............ Yes, the renewal notice says 'phone to cancel'......

That answers your question.

I would also say follow up that phone call with a recorded delivery letter!

Azimuth99

Thanks Mk,

But my next question is - Where's the regulator in all this? Asleep?

Basically, it's just a scam to cream money and stack the odds in their favour (costs wise), and gain interest (monetary) in the interim.

Saying 'phone to cancel, or we'll take your money' is dishonest. Yes, they've stated their intent in the renewal, but that is not professional courtesy or good business.

Pay-up by default shouldn't stand when the last day of business was the last day of the insurance (yesterday). Technically the transaction is complete. Business done. My choice to renew, not yours.

I wonder how many are getting caught out by this? Not a happy state of affairs. Ho hum!

@Thanks Quentin,

I shall to the recorded thing. Good tip. Thanks.

Az99

dunstonh

: I have no Direct Debit arrangment with M&S. How can they just take the money without my thumbs up?

If you paid by card then they have a continuous payment authority on that. They can "just take" your money as you agreed to it.

Yes, the renewal notice says 'phone to cancel', but my point is, what's changed recently.

Whats changed is the fact you didnt want to renew. So, you need to tell them that, as the letter tells you.

Surely professional coutesy should leave the decision with the customer.

Personally, I prefer not to have automatic renewal but its common and been around donkeys years and its no big issue unless you dont read the renewal letter.

This current action means payment by default, which is inefficient from their angle (subsequent cancellations and insurance overlaps shortfalls), lazy (no onus to provide lower quotes), and psychologically dishonest (as its traps the unaware).

Its actually very efficient from their point of view as the number of people that renew their policies with the same provider exceeds those that cancel. So, the majority benefit and it saves them money. It only traps those that dont read the renewal notice.

I've insured for 24 years without problem, and the onus has always been on the customer to get in touch if renewal quote is suitable or desired. If it's not OK, don't phone. Now I have to deal with phone calls, and letters at my expense.

That may be your experience but its not common. Auto renewals have been around for a very long time. It is entirely possible that you have managed to pick non auto renewal policies each time but someone else could have managed to pick auto renewal each time. Luck of the draw.

But my next question is - Where's the regulator in all this? Asleep?

Basically, it's just a scam to cream money and stack the odds in their favour (costs wise), and gain interest (monetary) in the interim

No law is broken and it benefits the majority. Many businesses do it in other areas.

Quentin

Azimuth99 wrote: »

......I wonder how many are getting caught out by this? Not a happy state of affairs. Ho hum!

@Thanks Quentin,

I shall to the recorded thing. Good tip. Thanks.

Check your policy, M+S car insurance is another BISl trading name, and the policy will have reference to them auto-renewing it unless you say "no".

Those getting "caught" are those who ignore what it says in their paperwork. But you are not alone!

If writing to them, enclose your certificate as this will save time (they won't process any refund you are due until they receive your cert)

vusys1

it also gives the company a chance to save the business if you do not wish to renew by matching the other quote or offering other incentives to stay with them.

I always search 1st then call to say Ive found cheaper, they match,wait until next year and do the same.

Azimuth99

Thanks dunstonh

No law is broken and it benefits the majority. Many businesses do it in other areas

Never claimed a law had been broken, but regulators are also in place to see 'fair play' - which I don't think this is.

The 'benefits the majority' is sadly, twisted logic. The majority are 'all' car users that need insurance (think bigger), not the subset of M&S clients that renew by default action. There is no benefit to the customer if they end up paying for more expensive insurance, and paying twice by 'no action' default. Your term 'majority' is being used in the business model sense, and is thus very narrow. This is a consumer forum. Benefits to the majority, would be cheaper premiums through preventing default payments. It forces insurers to compete and stops laziness.

@Vusys1. Many thanks. That last line is a good tip. I'll give that a go next year. Never thought of that before....

Az99

dunstonh

The 'benefits the majority' is sadly, twisted logic. The majority are 'all' car users that need insurance (think bigger), not the subset of M&S clients that renew by default action. There is no benefit to the customer if they end up paying for more expensive insurance, and paying twice by 'no action' default. Your term 'majority' is being used in the business model sense, and is thus very narrow. This is a consumer forum. Benefits to the majority, would be cheaper premiums through preventing default payments. It forces insurers to compete and stops laziness.

This may be a consumer forum but it benefits to know the commercial reasons behind decisions. Understanding why something happens helps when deciding if you think its right or wrong.

We see a lot of posts in this forum about people who have not read their renewal letter and auto renewed and bought elsewhere. However, we have also seen posts from people that forgot to renew or assumed auto renewal and have been caught without insurance. So, the consumer is not getting total benefit from one option or the other. There will be winners or losers if you made automatic renewal mandatory or outlawed it.

The bottom line is that auto-renewal does not prevent anyone from shopping around. It does cater for the majority of those buying insurance (majority not being a subset of one insurer) who dont shop around or decide to stick, for whatever reason that may be. It doesnt matter if its laziness or choice. It is up to the consumer to make that choice and they are free to make that choice.

I will repeat that I do prefer manual renewal. However, I really dont see it being an issue. I spent over 5 years with the same insurer using manual withdrawal but last year had to move an as it happens I am now with M&S (not their direct retail version but broker version) which is auto renewal. If it comes out ok next year I will stick and let it auto renew. If I dont like the price I will shop around and phone to cancel. If I was doing manual renewal I would still have to phone anyway to renew it. So, its not taking any extra time or effort.

There is a thread started today https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2978902 which basically complains about auto renewal. However, the insurer has taken a common sense approach and will give a full refund if dual insurance is proven.

dogbot

Given that continuous enforcement was laid before parliament yesterday auto renew is likely to become standard in every motor insurance policy very soon. This is the benfit to all customers. Without it, if you forget to shop arround or take action to renew, you will soon automaticaly face penalties for having a vehicle without insurance. At the moment, there is just the risk you will end up uninsured for a bit and possibly get caught.

There is nothing unfair about this - it was there, plain as could be, that all you had to do was call them if you didn't want to renew. This was also in the insurance policy you purchased a year before - which is, by the way a legal contract between you and in the insurer. If you couldn't be bothered to read any of this or take action on it, how is that their problem? If you don't want to read though a policy wording, then buy from an advised broker who will give you advice, maybe one local to you struggling to survive against big brokers taking negative comission like BISL.

Regulators are not there to remove personal responsibility from consumers.

Azimuth99

@dunstonh. Many thanks.

There is a thread started today http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....php?t=2978902 which basically complains about auto renewal. However, the insurer has taken a common sense approach and will give a full refund if dual insurance is proven.

Intersting thread. Thanks for that. Yet the consumer still has to incur additional costs of postage and phone calls to prove the duality. Shame there is no database link-up to prove insurance initiation, per car or per user (whichever). That might protect the consumer from the duality AND possibly protect from the no-insurance legal aspect.

Seems a bit of a mess to my Mk 1 brain. ho hum!

Thanks @dogbot

Regulators are not there to remove personal responsibility from consumers.

Very true indeed. But that is not the case here. It's not an issue of insurance avoidance or deliberate neglect of responsibility. It's a business technique/nuance that leaves some consumers in a 'lesser state', that could easily be avoided. I really worry for the older generation or those who missed the point (like me). Fairness can also extend to inefficiency of process. Anything that can lead to a dual insurance (dual anything) needs looking at. It's hardly optimum for the consumer is it? Interesting point about the continous enforcement. Didn't know that.

Az99

Az99