Home Insurance - Wrong Address, Refund due?

lisyloo

particularly lisyloo who seems to have the idea that I'm waiting on her golden stamp of approval to "go for it" and get a refund.

Not at all.
I explicity said in one of my posts that you didn't need agreement from people here to go ahead and complain, so I said the exact opposite. of your interpretation.

I find the chat about "low-level clerks" and "low-skilled staff" very derogatory also.

I've been given wrong information from call center staff lots of times and the company will NOT be held to be liable for any decision you make on the basis of information given by their staff even if you make a financial loss.
I always now get anything important about which I will base a fiancial decision in writing because too many times I've been told it was a "mistake" and the comapny say sorry but won't compensation you for financial losses.
You have also been told clearly by dunstonh that the person was not authorised to give this information and he knows what he is talking about.
It's a fact that phone service has become de-skilled.
You often talk to someone who ahs a set number of options.
Sometimes they even work for multiple companies and just read off a script.
Unfortuantely they are not expert.
I'm not being derrogatory, that's just the way it is and you'll struggle to get recompense for any mistake they make.

Lisyloo - you've stated on numerous occasions that I would be covered - I'm supposed to take your word for it am I?

No, I've told you numerous times to go and complain.
My feeling is still that the "group" on here is right, but I've said you should complain for your own satisfaction.
You shouldn't just automatically dismiss things you don't want to hear though, othwerwise - why ask?

She's definitely wrong then, and you are 100% correct? What makes you so special?

You wanted opinions you got them.
If you didn't want them then why ask?

You've asked me to provide "proof" that I would not be covered. It doesn't exist.

You won't win a case in court without some kind of argument at least.
That's what I'm trying to point out to you.

But where is your proof then that I would be covered?

Well I'm not a defendant in court but I strongly suspect the insurer will have a similar case where they've paid out.
But if you want to test it - go ahead.
I'm just pointing out that you need to put together some sort of case to win a complaint.

that doesn't require proof, its subjective

I'm not dimissing anything objective. But a court of law may well do so.
You need objective arguments and facts.

Heaven forbid somebody actually tried to help you without there being an ulterior motive?

I'm sure she was trying to be helpful.
But she isn't authorised to advise you on that policy and her advice won't stand up in court about another companies policy as she knows nothing about it.

You seem to have had your nose put out of joint and as a result this thread has taken a turn for the worse

Huh???
Very confused.
My nose isn't out of joint at all. Why do you think that?
I've told you to complain and many people have tried to help you out about how to do that.
If you want a professional level of advice then pay someone, otherwise you'll get the non-professional advice that people are willing to give in their spare time.

It now appears to be nothing more than a point-scoring exercise.

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.
I was just trying too help????

I don't have an argument.

That's the problem.
If you want to argue a complaint with someone you need some evidence/points/a case/an argument.
You need some reasons.

I find your posts impertinent, ignorant and arrogant.

I'm genuinely sorry about that. I was just trying to help.
I have honestly expressed my opinion and also told you to go ahead with the complain anyway to satisfy yourself as I can see you don't agree with the opinions. So why not just do it?

I seem to be getting frowned upon, am I in the wrong place???

You appear to be taking it personally because people don't think you have a case.
There's no reason why you should take it personally.

and it gets turned into this type of thread!

What type of thread???
The recent discussion was about which way to complain and Mikeys given you some useful links.

You've made it very confrontational.

Well I though it was fine until your last post.
Perhaps that's in your interpretation cos I can honestly not see anything wrong with it.

As for closure I tried to explain that.
I felt I had a duty to do the best for my partner and it was nagging away at me, so I complained to get it sorted once and for all.
Whether I won or lost it would be sorted.
I call that "closure".
I don't think there is any need to get upset about the wording, but I think you need to "satisfy yourself".

I mean this point-scoring nonsense, your assumptions that you nonchalantly make, and the general lofty perch you seem to reside upon that is prevalent here

I honestly don't know what assumptions you mean or what you mean about point scoring. What does that refer to???

whilst I've to provide you with evidence

You are not getting the point.
You don't have to provide ME with evidence, but if you want to win a case in court (or the ombudsman) yes you need facts, arguments, evidence.
The reason I suggested you put it here was not for ME personally but to get help from the forum in putting together your case.
We quite often help people with template letters etc.

In my opinion, and I'd guess a lot of people (particularly "low-level" diwits?) would hazard a guess that insurance companies tend to wriggle out of paying you out. Am I wrong to suggest that?

Absoltuely not, which is exactly why you need to present a case to win.

You either have to accept advice here in the spirit it's given (which I don't think has been in anyway offensive) or pay for some professional advice then you can treat the advisors as hired help.

lisyloo

24/7 like lisyloo

You have a very high opinion of yourself if you think I've thought about you at all. I haven't.

ANY company out there who can take you for a ride on a technicality WILL

No they won't.
Try to do some reasearch on the companies you go with.
As I haven't got my nose out of joint :-) then try taking a look at Hiscox.

dunstonh

Lets be honest here - unless I actually make a claim I'm never going to get the real answer from the insurance company am I?

I don't agree. You ask them to verify it in writing that you were covered and they will either do that or they wont. If they wont, you complain, if they do then you have your answer.

Remember that if you complain to the FOS, the FOS are just going to ask if you were covered or not and they will almost certainly say yes and the FOS will accept their word.

o they just pay out willy-nilly (hey who needs the small-print eh?)? Or do they actually analyse every single avenue to AVOID paying you out? Based on nothing but pure imagination...

Depends on the level of misinformation. In this case the only thing wrong is the house number not showing but the plot number. A very common event with new builds and why people on here are saying its not an issue. You told them how many bedrooms, if its detached, semi etc You answered the insurance questions and there is nothing to indicate they would not pay out. Especially if you look at the FOS non-disclosure rules which cover cases far worse than this.

I actually find it quite surreal that an innocent predicament gets posted on here and it gets turned into this type of thread!

To be honest, your responses come across as if you were hoping we would all give you a cuddly response telling you that the big bad insurer was very wrong and you would get all the years premiums back and when you didnt get that response you didnt like it.

TheMac

I'd like to know where the assumption that - I'm somehow not happy with the responses I've garnered here because they don't think I've a case - come from? I can do without sniping comments like "Sorry if that's not what you want to hear" - what is the point of that comment? Where does it come from? You are making assumptions. Let me be clear - this was a bit of research before acting upon it. Too many have read something else into this entirely. Would I be chancing my arm? Probably. But I'm looking at it from the point of view that if they would not have paid me out over this, then I am very entitled to a refund - its ok for them screw over customers on a technicality? Due to some small-print in the policy? Some posts I have taken them to be confrontational rather than helpful:

"Why should you have 5 years free insurance?" (JonesMUFCForever). Where this comes from I've no idea. Not once have I mentioned getting free insurance. The point was - was I paying and getting NO insurance?!

"But you would have been covered. This sort of situation occurs all the time.
You are relying on what a low level employee at a competitor has told you and taking it as gospel." (lisyloo). Ironic, and I wasn't impressed with your tone.

"You would have been covered. That's the flaw in your argument." (lisyloo). I'm merely stating that I cannot be sure I was 100% covered. I'm not arguing anything, but you seem to be on a crusade to prove me wrong - that is my point here, its gone beyond 'help' - it now feels like you're out to try and show me up in some way.

"And you've had two opinions that you were indeed covered." (lisyloo). So again your opinion carries more weight than the "low-level" 'idiot' who told me about it? Its hard not for me to see this as somewhat ironic. The 'idiot' in question was not working from a script - I didn't switch mortgage over the phone. I did it face to face.

"That's doesn't mean she's correct." (lisyloo) - It doesn't mean she's incorrect either.

"You don't need lots of people agreeing with you in order to do that." (lisyloo) - Correct. But this is a forum, where we discuss things...again am I in the wrong place? I've read from this that I've been waiting on your stamp of approval the whole time...it can't be interpreted any other way.

You are speaking as if I'm about to go to court, I'm not, I'm merely researching my position and asking for opinions to see if its worthwhile or not.

This "closure" business really took the biscuit though. Almost patronising. But its your general tone in some of your statements that do not sit well with me.

The last bit you've read wrongly - not that its on your mind 24/7...rather you believe it is on my mind 24/7. I mean "closure"? I'm not some love-sick puppy who has just been dumped!

This business about her being unathorised to comment. Zurich have distribution partnerships with other banks...banks that sell mortgages. This is what allows banks to comment, I mean - are you telling me she shouldn't have mentioned that the home insurance is down as "Site 366" rather than "131"? Crazy. She needs a copy of all of our important documents like that in order to switch the mortgage - she can't legally do it if its the wrong address. Then because the banks look after the deeds...when the number changed, is it not their reponsilibilty having sold me the policy....to update it?

My point is if I had claimed would they have wriggled out over this technicality? So I phone up and say "I need to claim due to a burst water pipe at 131"...response could be: "We don't have that address in our records." So that being said if they had wriggled out, then I'd be entitled to the refund...yes?

So here's a snippet from the generic home insurance policy:

Buildings are:
• the main structure of your home at the address shown in your schedule, including its permanent or soon-to-be fitted fixtures and fittings if they are your property;

The address was not the same as that shown in the schedule - any fool could successfully argue that. That's the point and it would take either me making a claim or going to court to find out if they'd do me over due to this.

But I'm not worried about it. I just don't like the thought of institutions pulling one over on customers - regardless of who is at fault. I'm not hankering after some payout, this has annoyed me - the attitudes and assumptions expressed here are wrong. I'll go for something if I feel I've been wronged or overpaid for anything, they'll happily take your money...its more the principle for me and the fact that I may not have been insured this whole time which annoys me.

dunstonh

This business about her being unathorised to comment. Zurich have distribution partnerships with other banks...banks that sell mortgages. This is what allows banks to comment, I mean - are you telling me she shouldn't have mentioned that the home insurance is down as "Site 366" rather than "131"? Crazy. She needs a copy of all of our important documents like that in order to switch the mortgage - she can't legally do it if its the wrong address. Then because the banks look after the deeds...when the number changed, is it not their reponsilibilty having sold me the policy....to update it?

You are wrong. Bank staff are not allowed to give advice or make comment on products issues by other providers unless it is factual or generic. She should have stuck to saying that the correspondence address is wrong and should be corrected.

My point is if I had claimed would they have wriggled out over this technicality? So I phone up and say "I need to claim due to a burst water pipe at 131"...response could be: "We don't have that address in our records." So that being said if they had wriggled out, then I'd be entitled to the refund...yes?

You are a making an assumption with no basis of fact.

scheming_gypsy

you paid 5 years insurance and didn't need to claim. so whether it was on the right address or the wrong address, you paid insurance premiums and didn't need to claim.

If the insurance company turned round and told you that your actual address was a higher risk and you owe them £1800 additional premiums for the last 5 years, would you pay up?

Dangermac

TheMac wrote: »

I'd like to know where the assumption that - I'm somehow not happy with the responses I've garnered here because they don't think I've a case - come from? I can do without sniping comments like "Sorry if that's not what you want to hear" - what is the point of that comment? Where does it come from? You are making assumptions. Let me be clear - this was a bit of research before acting upon it. Too many have read something else into this entirely. Would I be chancing my arm? Probably. But I'm looking at it from the point of view that if they would not have paid me out over this, then I am very entitled to a refund - its ok for them screw over customers on a technicality? Due to some small-print in the policy? Some posts I have taken them to be confrontational rather than helpful:

"Why should you have 5 years free insurance?" (JonesMUFCForever). Where this comes from I've no idea. Not once have I mentioned getting free insurance. The point was - was I paying and getting NO insurance?!

"But you would have been covered. This sort of situation occurs all the time.
You are relying on what a low level employee at a competitor has told you and taking it as gospel." (lisyloo). Ironic, and I wasn't impressed with your tone.

"You would have been covered. That's the flaw in your argument." (lisyloo). I'm merely stating that I cannot be sure I was 100% covered. I'm not arguing anything, but you seem to be on a crusade to prove me wrong - that is my point here, its gone beyond 'help' - it now feels like you're out to try and show me up in some way.

"And you've had two opinions that you were indeed covered." (lisyloo). So again your opinion carries more weight than the "low-level" 'idiot' who told me about it? Its hard not for me to see this as somewhat ironic. The 'idiot' in question was not working from a script - I didn't switch mortgage over the phone. I did it face to face.

"That's doesn't mean she's correct." (lisyloo) - It doesn't mean she's incorrect either.

"You don't need lots of people agreeing with you in order to do that." (lisyloo) - Correct. But this is a forum, where we discuss things...again am I in the wrong place? I've read from this that I've been waiting on your stamp of approval the whole time...it can't be interpreted any other way.

You are speaking as if I'm about to go to court, I'm not, I'm merely researching my position and asking for opinions to see if its worthwhile or not.

This "closure" business really took the biscuit though. Almost patronising. But its your general tone in some of your statements that do not sit well with me.

The last bit you've read wrongly - not that its on your mind 24/7...rather you believe it is on my mind 24/7. I mean "closure"? I'm not some love-sick puppy who has just been dumped!

This business about her being unathorised to comment. Zurich have distribution partnerships with other banks...banks that sell mortgages. This is what allows banks to comment, I mean - are you telling me she shouldn't have mentioned that the home insurance is down as "Site 366" rather than "131"? Crazy. She needs a copy of all of our important documents like that in order to switch the mortgage - she can't legally do it if its the wrong address. Then because the banks look after the deeds...when the number changed, is it not their reponsilibilty having sold me the policy....to update it?

My point is if I had claimed would they have wriggled out over this technicality? So I phone up and say "I need to claim due to a burst water pipe at 131"...response could be: "We don't have that address in our records." So that being said if they had wriggled out, then I'd be entitled to the refund...yes?

So here's a snippet from the generic home insurance policy:

Buildings are:
• the main structure of your home at the address shown in your schedule, including its permanent or soon-to-be fitted fixtures and fittings if they are your property;

The address was not the same as that shown in the schedule - any fool could successfully argue that. That's the point and it would take either me making a claim or going to court to find out if they'd do me over due to this.

But I'm not worried about it. I just don't like the thought of institutions pulling one over on customers - regardless of who is at fault. I'm not hankering after some payout, this has annoyed me - the attitudes and assumptions expressed here are wrong. I'll go for something if I feel I've been wronged or overpaid for anything, they'll happily take your money...its more the principle for me and the fact that I may not have been insured this whole time which annoys me.

To be honest, I think that this thread has been over-complicated.

It is fair to say that insurers, these days, look (far too) closely at the policy cover before paying out.

However, in this case, I cant see how any reasonable insurer could refuse to pay a claim, simply because the name/desigation of the house has changed. If Plot 9 if now number 37, the property is just the same.

Ultuimately, I am pretty certain that the FOS would rule in this way.

I cant see any reason why the OP would not have been covered, therefore, I cant see any reason why the insurer would refund 5 years of premium.

I guess this isnt the answer that the OP wants, therefore, please feel free to ignore my post.

DM

gordikin

TheMac wrote: »

Thanks for that insight gordikin, I may as well not have bothered to post the above explaining the whole thing, you think this is on my mind 24/7 like lisyloo I guess (rollseyes). ANY company out there who can take you for a ride on a technicality WILL, why shoudn't I scout this out?

Scout it out by all means...but the consensus is you would have been covered if you had to claim. You've got your replies...do what you will.

lisyloo gives some good advice on this forum....please don't try to demean her...you will look silly if you do.

Give me an example of Co-operative Insurance (my car insurer BTW) of taking me for a ride on a technicality when I claimed last year?

It was my wife's car and I was driving....and due to be being made redundant earlier on I ended up the main driver....they didn't query the claim at all.

hcb42

I think everyone agrees..

gordikin

...why start a thread if you won't listen to the vast majority of the replies?

Posting words in capitals just makes you look silly by the way.