Swinton Insurance - County Court Threat

mikey72

dunstonh wrote: »

The problem is that we dont know the phone discussion and there appears to be a lack of proof. It could be "i will let you know if I dont want to" or "i will let you know if I do want to". Without proof, anybody can say anything was said.

Swinton are not known for their good service and call centre staff are not known for their initiative or common sense.

Equally, Swinton can't prove nothing was said, by the same token.

ILW

Why will the OP not just provide Swinton with the documents requested. Seems there is more to it.

dunstonh

mikey72 wrote: »

Equally, Swinton can't prove nothing was said, by the same token.

They are not the ones making an accusation though.

lets say this goes to FOS complaint. The FOS are going to have to look at what evidence exists and take account of the accusation. Then make a decision based on balance of probability.

The insurer hold the upper hand as they say they will refund on proof of dual insurance. FOS are likely to consider that fair (as its industry standard). The unwillingness to provide the new policy details is suspicious. i.e. is there really a new policy in place?

foggytown

dunstonh wrote: »

They are not the ones making an accusation though.

lets say this goes to FOS complaint. The FOS are going to have to look at what evidence exists and take account of the accusation. Then make a decision based on balance of probability.

The insurer hold the upper hand as they say they will refund on proof of dual insurance. FOS are likely to consider that fair (as its industry standard). The unwillingness to provide the new policy details is suspicious. i.e. is there really a new policy in place?

And I am still waiting for someone (perhaps your good self?) to explain what difference it makes to Swinton whether the OP does or doesn't have another policy. When did it become "industry standard" and for what reason.

dunstonh

And I am still waiting for someone (perhaps your good self?) to explain what difference it makes to Swinton whether the OP does or doesn't have another policy.

Because anyone could say they had another policy when they didn't and try to get their money back just because they haven't claimed. Whilst you may think that is unlikely to happen, if you visited the reclaims section of this board you do see people trying to get back premiums because they haven't claimed. Unfortunatly, whilst some companies can be difficult and you feel less honest at times, the same applies to consumers. A company has a right to ask for proof if you are asking them to void a legal contract and return the money. Even the FOS has stopped taking consumers on face value as well with complaints and looks for evidence. Mainly due to consumer abuse in certain areas (biggest example was mortgage complaints where people used retirement age as a reason for mis-sale and started saying they were retiring at age 50 or 55 - early cases often upheld on that point but it soon became clear it was being abused by people, evidence was then asked for of retirement plans and scheme retirement ages and almost overnight, complaints stopped on that basis).

When did it become "industry standard" and for what reason.

I dont know when but I recall doing dual insurance refunds back in the late 80s and requiring evidence of both back then.

mikey72

dunstonh wrote: »

Because anyone could say they had another policy when they didn't and try to get their money back just because they haven't claimed. Whilst you may think that is unlikely to happen, if you visited the reclaims section of this board you do see people trying to get back premiums because they haven't claimed. Unfortunatly, whilst some companies can be difficult and you feel less honest at times, the same applies to consumers. A company has a right to ask for proof if you are asking them to void a legal contract and return the money. Even the FOS has stopped taking consumers on face value as well with complaints and looks for evidence. Mainly due to consumer abuse in certain areas (biggest example was mortgage complaints where people used retirement age as a reason for mis-sale and started saying they were retiring at age 50 or 55 - early cases often upheld on that point but it soon became clear it was being abused by people, evidence was then asked for of retirement plans and scheme retirement ages and almost overnight, complaints stopped on that basis).



I dont know when but I recall doing dual insurance refunds back in the late 80s and requiring evidence of both back then.

I'd agree with that stance is any situation where the customer has asked for insurance.
As far as we know, the op phoned and Swintons had no authority to issue insurance.

dunstonh

As far as we know, the op phoned and Swintons had no authority to issue insurance.

They deny such contact. There is no evidence of that contact. Even if there was contact, was it to say dont renew unless I tell you or leave it for the moment unless i tell you. Nobody can say what was said (remember the 4 truths principle. What they said happened, what the firm say happened, what actually happened and the interpretation of what is believed to have happened). I am not saying Swinton are right. However, there doesnt appear to be much evidence to say they are wrong. Evidence is King in a complaint. Lack of it leaves balance of probability decisions and interpretations which may not go in your favour.

With that in mind, wouldnt it just be simpler to provide evidence of dual insurance and get the money back that way?

mikey72

dunstonh wrote: »

They deny such contact. ..................

That's always going to be an issue with trying to stop an auto-renewal.
You say you phoned.......they say you didn't.
There has to come a point when a decision has to be made over its legality, and how to agree it can or has been stopped, or what action should be taken in a disputed case.

dunstonh wrote: »

With that in mind, wouldnt it just be simpler to provide evidence of dual insurance and get the money back that way?

That's a different question, there may be times when no further cover is even required, and needs to be considered if required when disputing auto renewal.

dunstonh

That's always going to be an issue with trying to stop an auto-renewal.

Its an issue on any telephone contact. Thats why we always record full name, date, time and telephone number when we speak to insurance companies.

mikey72

It's a bigger issue when inertia selling is now illegal, and the insurers are trying to rely on a clause that tries to make you waive that right, and deny any specific contact over it.
It's going to be ruled on by the FOS, as they are going to get complaints.
Possibly by the op in this case.