Change of Address Fee - Rip Off - Views Please

kingstreet

I'm just waiting for someone to come along and say "my insurer makes no charge for address changes or alterations to the policy, so I'm subsidising policyholders who do that because my premiums must be higher to pay for them."

If people know they are going to move a couple of months after taking out cover, why don't they check what the implications of that might be before they proceed?

Likewise if you're moving from rural Scotland to inner-city Salford or Liverpool, why not test out the move on a comparison site before you take your next cover?

lisyloo

I'm just waiting for someone to come along and say

To be honest, I tend to stick with the same address, car and husband :-) and I am not keen on the idea of subsiding less "stable" customers.
Where genuine work and costs are incurred I don't logically see why I should subsidise for other people.
I often compare it to no-frills airlines. If you take a bag you pay for the baggage handling, if you don't take a bag you don't pay.
No-one has an issue with this concept logically (although some may think the actual fees are too high).

If people know they are going to move a couple of months after taking out cover, why don't they check what the implications of that might be before they proceed?
Likewise if you're moving from rural Scotland to inner-city Salford or Liverpool, why not test out the move on a comparison site before you take your next cover?

I totally agree and I would always do that for a known change, but sometimes things happen that people don't know about - illness, death, disability, job change, redundancy, divorce, breakdown of car etc.
I would still say that people should check out the charges and that they are happy with them.
The fact is that people get a large booklet and generally don't read ANY of it.
I try to find the important bits and read those but you do need a bit of knowledge to do this (for example I might focus on auto-renewal, cancellation charges, short term and amendment fees but you would need to know about these things first).
To be honest, it is not easy for someone who doesn't know a lot about insurance to find these details without the underlying knowledge of what to look for.
That doesn't mean it's not their responsibility to familiarise themselves with their contract, I'm jsut saying it's not that easy in practice.

kingstreet

Fair enough if it's unforeseeable. There's not a lot you can do about that.

I just think the pendulum has swung too far in terms of "caveat emptor." At one time it was loaded very much in favour of providers where stuff was hidden away in the small print on the back of page 417 and joe public had no chance.

Now, we seem to have hit the point where no-one wants to accept any responsibility for their actions. They get the same points made in a key facts document, in an illustration, in a policy schedule. It's emailed to them, posted to them, told to them over the phone but still they fail to grasp the importance of anything other than the monthly premium.

Outside of insurance, I have to interact with other businesses and make contracts for things I need. If I don't know about it, I do my homework and research what I'm going to do and ask others opinions before I do it. The net is a wonderful resource for practically everything if you have a computer.

losgiganteskid

lisyloo wrote: »

For example with ebike I've often been charged nothing but no human was involved it was done automatically.

Thats interesting, as you have suggested that the cost of mid term amendments which incurr a fee should be paid by those policyholders that alter their policy and not be spread across the companies book of business - so if you paid nothing, exactly who did pay for all the in house running costs that you showed in your posting ?, presumably all other policyholders, so in fact your change of policy was paid for by other policyholders collectively, which seems to be not quite what you advocate.

lisyloo wrote: »

Where genuine work and costs are incurred I don't logically see why I should subsidise for other people.

But you appear to be enjoying that yourself, when you had your change of policy for "free" - at the expence of other policyholders

dunstonh wrote: »

No. I read the FOS publications to get an idea of their train of thought to make sure I remain complaint. As do many prudent business owners who are regulated by the FSA.

It also helps consumers know what the FOS is saying on complaints as they can see if they are likely to be successful or not.

Is that really what you do each night before you climb into bed !! - I suppose it would send you to sleep though !! :cool:


Given that certain postings on this subject are in favour of the price of amendments be borne by those policyholders wishing to change their policies it does seem ironic that those same posters are in fact paying a "surcharge" within their premium for a companies "failed quotations", whereby costs are incurred in providing the quotation/service but cannot be funded by the enquirer cos the quotation was uncompetitive and business went elsewhere. In other words we don't want to subsidise policyholders who have mid term adjustments but accept that withing the premiums we pay there is an allocation of monies that go to pay for time given in providing quotations that fail to secure business.

lisyloo

so if you paid nothing, exactly who did pay for all the in house running costs that you showed in your posting ?

Many of the costs would not exist (all the ones associated with having human staff).
But I agree it has to covered somewhere.

presumably all other policyholders, so in fact your change of policy was paid for by other policyholders collectively, which seems to be not quite what you advocate.

Agreed.
I don't get to choose that insurer run their business as I advocate.
But there is some choice in the market.

But you appear to be enjoying that yourself, when you had your change of policy for "free" - at the expence of other policyholders

Agreed.
I can't dictate to the company to run their business as I advocate.
I can only research policies and find the one best suited to all my needs which usually involves some compromise somewhere along the line.
I don't feel morally it's my fault if I have a limited set of choices that aren't perfect and don't 100% fit into what I advocate.

In other words we don't want to subsidise policyholders who have mid term adjustments but accept that withing the premiums we pay there is an allocation of monies that go to pay for time given in providing quotations that fail to secure business.

Business have NO choice but to pass on the costs of failed sales to customers.
That applies to any business of any kind.
They do have a choice as to how to pass on fees to exising customer.
As customers we cannot dictate what we advocate.
We can only choose from a limited set of choices.
But the problem is most people DON'T make a conscious choice.
They get the cheapest policy without reading it and then whinge when it's not what they want.

losgiganteskid

lisyloo wrote: »

Many of the costs would not exist (all the ones associated with having human staff).
But I agree it has to covered somewhere.



Agreed.



Agreed.

I rest my case !

lisyloo

I rest my case !

and your case was what?
That I chose a policy without amendment fees (oct 2009-> oct 2010)?
Yes - I familiarise myself with contracts/features before I purchase and make conscious decisions (based on a LOT of features not just one).

Read the contract and then either chose one that cross-susidised or chose one with explicit charges.
It's called personal choice, but it does require some up front reasearch.
That's not the same as buying ther cheapest one from a comparison site and then whinging afterwards.

dzug1

kingstreet wrote: »

I just think the pendulum has swung too far in terms of "caveat emptor." At one time it was loaded very much in favour of providers where stuff was hidden away in the small print on the back of page 417 and joe public had no chance.

.

Possibly - but if anything it's going to get worse. The present government is all for making a bonfire of regulations and red tape.

dizzie

dunstonh wrote: »

They are not hidden. They are in the published T&C, It's just that many people don't bother looking at them at the time of purchase. I do think that quote comparison sites should show more data and not just price and a couple of cost addons. However, the information is available at point of sale and when the docs arrive in the post where you asked to read them in case you wish to exercise your right to cancel.

Precisely....and insurers KNOW that many people do not thoroughly read the T&C when the documents arrive which is why I suggested earlier that they should have to produce a KEY FACTS document which prominently details all extra charges. You are passed through to the insurer's website once you go through a comparison website so KEY FACTS could be prominently displayed on the insurer's website at the time of purchase, and then included with the documents in the post.

Maybe you think that people who don't thoroughly read T&Cs are stupid and deserve to be hit with extra charges when the need arises. But when all is said and done, this comes down to advertising and marketing...the attractive things they think you want to hear are printed in LARGE BOLD TYPE on the front of documents (although I concede that the excesses on policies are usually prominent too)...but the unattractive things are buried in reams and reams of other stuff in the small print on the backs of documents

I confess that I am a stickler and read everything from start to finish. I don't trust things at face value and tend to be fairly cynical. That's just me. But in the end, it comes down to human psychology...some people are more trusting.....and some people are just so busy that they don't take the time to read everything from start to finish. That is unlikely to change, but it IMO it is a little underhand of companies to exploit human psychology and not give equal advertising/marketing prominence to all costs and fees.

lisyloo

You are passed through to the insurer's website once you go through a comparison website so KEY FACTS could be prominently displayed

If you go through a website you have to actively tick a box a box that says "I agree to the terms and conditions".
The fact that this has to be a conscious action does mean that it cannot be skipped.

You are asking for the things that YOU think are important to be highlighted and put "in your face".
The problem is that those might not be the things that I consider to be key.
The point I'm making it that it's impossible to highlight everything.

Maybe you think that people who don't thoroughly read T&Cs are stupid and deserve to be hit with extra charges when the need arises.

I don't agree with that emotive statement, but I do think cusomers have to accept responsibility for the contratual agreements they make.
When they tick a box that says "I agree to X" they have to accept that they have agreed.
If they do so without reading then they have to accept repsonsibility for that.
I do not agree with people being treated unfairly or ripped off, but on the other hand businesse have genuine costs which sometimes need to be passed on.

the attractive things they think you want to hear are printed in LARGE BOLD TYPE on the front of documents (although I concede that the excesses on policies are usually prominent too)...but the unattractive things are buried in reams and reams of other stuff in the small print on the backs of documents

ANY product will highlight it's good points.
If Mcdonalds put up an advert they aren't going to advertise obeisity are they???
The financial industry is one of the best for providing you with all the facts.
They cannot be ALL in large print. There are too many.
You want the ones that are important to YOU higlighted and I udnerstand that, but they aren't the things that I want highlighted.

Do you not think that if the inforamtion is provided and the customer agrees (as a conscious action) then the customer has some responsibility to check it out ?
I certainly do and I don't think it can all be put in large print and spood fed to them.
If they want that then they should chose a borker and not go DIY. The someone knowledgeable will explain it all to them.

and some people are just so busy that they don't take the time to read everything from start to finish

I know people are busy, we all are, but this does not excuse not taking responsibility for a contract you consciously agree to.
If you are too busy, too trusting or simply not inclined then get someone else to do the work.
I don't like doing car/motorbike mechanics - solution simple - pay soemone else.

it is a little underhand of companies to exploit human psychology and not give equal advertising/marketing prominence to all costs and fees

I think you are being completely unrealistic and also unfair to insurers (for whom I do NOT work).
We do not insist on this for airlines or ANY other business.
What other business gives equal prominence to costs/fee/downsides.

Check out airlines prices or any kind of "bad" food.
Very little pominence give to anything negative there.
I think you'll find insurance/finance is ahead of the game here.

Being blunt/harsh - if you can't be bothered to read your contract then it's your problem/reposnsibility.
If you're not inclined or don't have the time then that's fine - use a broker.
It's not possible to spoon feed and highlight every factor that MIGHT be important to people.
All the information IS currently provided and it IS a conscious action to accept it.
Insurance/finance (where I do not work) is better than any other industry I can things of in terms of providing this information currently.
£26 is a very fair fee for an amendment.

Is this just not a case of people not wanting to take responsibility for their actions???