Post Office Insurance fleecing my widowed mum

TEssery

I thought MSEers would be amused to know how Post Office Insurance have responded to the notification that my Dad had died. He was a named driver on my Mum's insurance policy. Apparently, she can't just have him taken off the current policy, which has only two months to run. It has to be cancelled, and then she has to take out a new annual policy AT TWO AND A HALF TIMES THE COST OF THE OLD ONE!

Naturally we plan to tell the Post Office where to stick their policy.

And never buy their products again.

vaio

As long as he was a named driver rather than main driver I can’t see any reason why the policy needs to be changed at all as the only requirement on named drivers is that they drive the vehicle less than the specified main driver.

I’d give them a ring and make sure wires haven’t got crossed, even if he does have to be removed I’d certainly have though that the existing policy could be amended (subject to the mandatory admin fee)

PNPSUKNET

just let it run to the end , no prob

TEssery

Vaio, you were right. I called on Mum's behalf and explained the situation. It appears that the policy was underwritten as a second car and the first operator had simply assumed that there was now only one car in the family and hence the original policy was no longer valid and had to be cancelled and a new one issued.

I explained that Mum was for the moment the owner of both cars (and hence two insurance charges) and that surely the current policy could simply be amended to sole driver. After some time on hold, the friendly female operator confirmed that this could be done, and even waived the admin fee, although there was an additional charge of £28.75 as a sole driver is apparently more expensive to insure than two drivers (go figure).

A pity that the operator that Mum spoke to wasn't more thorough and empathetic but in the end a victory for common sense and persistence. Mum now has until she disposes of Dad's car, or until her policy comes up for renewal, to find a better quote. Naturally I've pointed her in the direction of Martin's advice on the subject!

Quentin

PNPSUKNET wrote: »

just let it run to the end , no prob

An interesting thought though - if the widow did this, wouldn't she be guilty of,errr, how to put it,err.....fleecing the post office??

vaio

TEssery wrote: »

Vaio, you were right.........

Think I'll use this as a signature (if I can work out how to do it )

TEssery wrote: »

............A pity that the operator that Mum spoke to wasn't more thorough and empathetic but in the end a victory for common sense and persistence........

Common humanity dictates that, when dealing with a recent widow, you turn the empathy control right up and make sure you establish exactly what is required and advise as necessary.

I'd have thought there will be an audit trial on the policy which will identify the person who took the first call and if you feel it was below reasonable treatment you could drop them a complaint. You'll probably get an apology but there might be few lines added to the training manual which might prevent someone else getting the same treatment