ESURE-Insurance increase 300% for no reason

dunstonh

As a customer, I would always say contact the FOS, it's free, so the customer can lose nothing, no matter what is decided.

its not free. Its a cost considered in the setting of charges on products retailed. i.e. if they expect x% of cases to go to the FOS then they can estimate costs and factor that into pricing.

Anyone with a genuine complaint should complain. Try-it-ons though are severely damaging the FOS and just giving ammunition to those that are seeking to introduce a charge for going to the FOS. The abusers also increase the timescale of the complaint at the FOS which is not fair on those with genuine issues. Plus, the try-it-ons do create a more cynical process that even the FOS are now taking into account when they phone people up to ask about their complaint only to be told that a claims company told them to do it.

starrystarry

mikey72 wrote: »

You are one, or at least you claim to be in other threads. To be fair though, it's the internet, anyone can claim anything from post to post.
I think most posters on here would affirm my view of insurers is usually consistent though.
The other MSE'ers can decide if it's relevant to the comments you have made to posters who are customers of the insurance business.
As a customer, I would always say contact the FOS, it's free, so the customer can lose nothing, no matter what is decided.
Personally I also don't normally call people stupid, in my private or public life.

I really don't care whether you believe I'm an underwriter or not, though why you think anyone would want to lie about that is a bit of a mystery. I'm hardly claiming to be a rock star am I?

You forget, I'm also a customer of the insurance business. Am I not entitled to a point of view as a customer?

mikey72

dunstonh wrote: »

its not free. Its a cost considered in the setting of charges on products retailed. i.e. if they expect x% of cases to go to the FOS then they can estimate costs and factor that into pricing.

Anyone with a genuine complaint should complain. Try-it-ons though are severely damaging the FOS and just giving ammunition to those that are seeking to introduce a charge for going to the FOS. The abusers also increase the timescale of the complaint at the FOS which is not fair on those with genuine issues. Plus, the try-it-ons do create a more cynical process that even the FOS are now taking into account when they phone people up to ask about their complaint only to be told that a claims company told them to do it.

I wouldn't disagree.
But there isn't any charge made until the FOS accept the complaint, and if they decide this one isn't valid, it won't cost for the advice.
It would be ironic to see the increase of premium justified by the insurers saying they have so many complaints taken to the FOS they have had to factor that increase into their pricing.
It may be a genuine price increase, the op hasn't said yet. If it isn't 300% is a lot to swallow for continued loyalty, so it does seem reasonable to ask the FOS to decide if it's treating the customer fairly in this case.

opinions4u

mikey72 wrote: »

But there isn't any charge made until the FOS accept the complaint, and if they decide this one isn't valid, it won't cost for the advice.

This process costs money. Staff time and all the on-costs. It will effectively built in to the fee that the FOS charges a provider for a complaint that does proceed through the process and will then be passed on accordingly to all consumers.

Nothing is really free.

dunstonh

But there isn't any charge made until the FOS accept the complaint, and if they decide this one isn't valid, it won't cost for the advice.

The problem with the FOS for getting advice is that the people you speak with at that point are not adjudicators or ombudsman. The responses are largely scripted and usually result in a "we would like to take a look at that" style response.

it would be ironic to see the increase of premium justified by the insurers saying they have so many complaints taken to the FOS they have had to factor that increase into their pricing.

Luckily, companies do not need to justify their premiums (or most charges). So, they can factor in all the costs they wont. Just in the last few weeks you have seen providers saying that they will have to increase charges to pay for the FSCS levies. I know from my own company that a third of the turnover goes in compliance and regulatory costs. Just 10 years ago it was a far smaller amount. You cant keep absorbing the costs at the rate of increase they have been happening
http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/james-hay-defends-warning-to-clients-over-fscs-bill/a473457

It may be a genuine price increase, the op hasn't said yet. If it isn't 300% is a lot to swallow for continued loyalty, so it does seem reasonable to ask the FOS to decide if it's treating the customer fairly in this case.

A 300% increase is almost certainly being done as a passive rejection. Rather than refuse cover they are pricing it to encourage shopping around. They dont want the person. The FOS cannot investigate commercial matters, such as cost of premium, unless it is due to discrimination. TCF does not cover premiums unless they are offering same cover via same distribution channel at 300% different where you could possibly make a good argument.

mikey72

opinions4u wrote: »

This process costs money. It will effectively built in to the fee that the FOS charges a provider for a complaint that does proceed through the process.

Fair enough then. But if it's in the premium, he's already paid. I've paid too, so he can have mine for this year, and I'm sure a lot of other MSE'ers will chip in what they've been charged, if it'll stop the over pricing. Say it's £500 a pop, then even if 1 in 5000 customers go to the FSO, I'll be prepared to put another 10p in the collection box for the poor hard done to insurers. If it's 1 in 50,000, they can keep the 10p for the next ten years subs.
(But if it gets past 1 in 500 customers making a complaint, I'll be making a complaint myself about the £1 a year)

mikey72

dunstonh wrote: »

The problem with the FOS for getting advice is that the people you speak with at that point are not adjudicators or ombudsman. The responses are largely scripted and usually result in a "we would like to take a look at that" style response.



Luckily, companies do not need to justify their premiums (or most charges). So, they can factor in all the costs they wont. Just in the last few weeks you have seen providers saying that they will have to increase charges to pay for the FSCS levies. I know from my own company that a third of the turnover goes in compliance and regulatory costs. Just 10 years ago it was a far smaller amount. You cant keep absorbing the costs at the rate of increase they have been happening
http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/james-hay-defends-warning-to-clients-over-fscs-bill/a473457



A 300% increase is almost certainly being done as a passive rejection. Rather than refuse cover they are pricing it to encourage shopping around. They dont want the person. The FOS cannot investigate commercial matters, such as cost of premium, unless it is due to discrimination. TCF does not cover premiums unless they are offering same cover via same distribution channel at 300% different where you could possibly make a good argument.

I think that means you agree with me?

lisyloo

Over 300%?

Yes, because it's 12th of the annual premium so less likely to get noticed.
So lets say your premium went from £120 -> £360 then you might notice the increase.
But if it went from say £10 -> £30 then the £20 could slip through unnoticed.

mikey72

lisyloo wrote: »

Yes, because it's 12th of the annual premium so less likely to get noticed.
So lets say your premium went from £120 -> £360 then you might notice the increase.
But if it went from say £10 -> £30 then the £20 could slip through unnoticed.

Let's say the op wasn't £10 to £30.

"Only noticed after a few months so have lost £100's"

starrystarry

lisyloo wrote: »

Yes, because it's 12th of the annual premium so less likely to get noticed.
So lets say your premium went from £120 -> £360 then you might notice the increase.
But if it went from say £10 -> £30 then the £20 could slip through unnoticed.

Good point. I'd notice, but I can see how it could go unnoticed.