Home Insurance - Wrong Address, Refund due?

TheMac

dunstonh wrote: »

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.

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

How come First Trust Bank sold me Norwich Union home insurance (then changed to Aviva)? How come Santander switched me over to Zurich insurance? You're telling me that two banks have been engaging in illegal business? The other comment was a hypothetical situation (i.e. they don't pay out if I claim), of couse there is no fact here.

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

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?

A bit far-fetched this one.

Dangermac wrote: »

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

I was just about to hit the thanks button, but you had to go and ruin it at the end didn't you?

gordikin wrote: »

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.

I've no problem with that consensus. Demean her? Excuse me but I'll not have anyone pontificating at me in an arrogant manner. I was expecting the cavalry to arrive, I guess you jumped on your white horse. I've no idea about your car insurance claim, I guess you got lucky. Maybe I'll throw back at you that a travel insurance company tried to take me for a ride when the snow hit badly in December. Because I live in N.Ireland and got a connecting flight to London, they wouldnt pay out. Luckily I had spoken to them about it to confirm N.Ireland is indeed in the UK (what exactly is UK Mainland anyway? No such thing. Thats Great Britain.) before I bought the policy and they were forced to dig out the telephone conversation and had to pay out. That's my most recent experience with insurance companies.

gordikin wrote: »

...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.

I don't know where you are getting the idea that I don't listen from. You want to preach at me. Not engage in discussion. I'll post WORDS anyway I LIKE buddy. It doesn't make me look anything. What is this childishness? If I were operating on the same level as you, I'd point out that you don't need to quote my (by any standards) very long posts, its just clogging up the thread and making it longer than it needs to be. Or I'll point out that you've now posted TWICE since I last posted. Kind of proves my theory that this has become more than offering help, you're deliberately attempting to rile me.

Thanks to the others though, you kept it short, sweet, informative and above all I didn't feel like I was standing in the SChool Principle's office getting a dressing down!

scheming_gypsy

TheMac wrote: »

A bit far-fetched this one.

what's far fetched? the fact that you haven't needed to claim so whether you were paying for the right or wrong house, is irrelevant. Or just couldn't you answer so you decided that there's no way possible that you could have under paid by £360 a year for five years and wouldn't be expected to pay it back?

dunstonh

How come First Trust Bank sold me Norwich Union home insurance (then changed to Aviva)? How come Santander switched me over to Zurich insurance? You're telling me that two banks have been engaging in illegal business? The other comment was a hypothetical situation (i.e. they don't pay out if I claim), of couse there is no fact here.

That doesnt mean that Santander staff can discuss the products and services of anything issued by Zurich. They can only discuss the products they distribute within their authorisation. I think you have misunderstood this. Using third party suppliers is perfectly fine. However, the remit for the staff is only on those particular products, other than factual information or generic information. Not advice or unqualified opinion.

Tygermoth

Wow.

On the ignore list - I cant stand people who a just plain rude to people that are trying to help them.

TheMac

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

what's far fetched? the fact that you haven't needed to claim so whether you were paying for the right or wrong house, is irrelevant. Or just couldn't you answer so you decided that there's no way possible that you could have under paid by £360 a year for five years and wouldn't be expected to pay it back?

I could answer, I just thought it was a silly post. Why would I have underpaid??? So - you are effectively saying that that the insurance company would need to come out again to my house, assess it again, and charge me more....because the address has changed from a site number to its proper number? A proper number adds value???? You've baffled me there. If you can explain it I'll be happy to reply.

How is it irrelevant just because I haven't needed to claim? That frankly is a ridiculous statement.

scheming_gypsy

you said they had the wrong address, so if the address was incorrect and there was a difference in premium, would you be happy to pay it?
Your plot number is still your house number, just like naming your house doesn't change it's house number or plot number.

and why is it a ridiculous statement? except for the fact you can't grasp common sense?
You've paid for 5 years insurance and you're whittering on about a refund because it was the wrong address. Right address or wrong address, you've never needed to use it which makes your entire thread pointless and irrelevant. You paid for 5 years insurance and never made a claim that's all there is to it.

TheMac

dunstonh wrote: »

That doesnt mean that Santander staff can discuss the products and services of anything issued by Zurich. They can only discuss the products they distribute within their authorisation. I think you have misunderstood this. Using third party suppliers is perfectly fine. However, the remit for the staff is only on those particular products, other than factual information or generic information. Not advice or unqualified opinion.

OK I'll have to take your word on that - but when the Northern Bank are switching my mortgage over..the insurance needs to have the correct address, that is all that was said, and that technically speaking I may not have been covered all this time. I can't think of anyone who wouldn't be upset to hear that. I've heard a lot about the fact she's low-level and unqualified, but the irony here is that some folk have posted here when they too are not qualified to speak about it - but I'm supposed to take that as "gospel" and leave it unchallenged? So if we all accept that this is merely discussion, and discussion is healthy, then there doesn't need to be these kind of point-scoring posts - thats how I see them. That you're correct and I'm wrong. I haven't made a bona fide statement about it, I've merely posted here what I was told...I haven't made any judgement on it to say that I agree. That's basically the question. To say that she's not qualified does not mean she's incorrect. I don't think anyone can categorically say either way - so for all those who say the clerk is wrong and they are correct...I can equally say vice-versa to them. This is what I mean when I say I'm being preached at - some are using the fact that she's low-level and unqualified as their main arguing point...but I don't see any difference if she says black is white and they say white is black. Its all down to interpretation of the policy, and in my opinion it could be argued that my address is not covered because it is the wrong address on the schedule. Of course it can also be argued that I am covered, due to it being identified as a site/plot. There is no way anyone can definitively say either way. But I was interested in the thoughts of this community on this topic. Sadly it went wayward from an early stage. An innocent question got turned into something else - I almost felt like I had to defend myself on here, which is absurd, I've put the question out for discussion, but I've been told I have a "flawed argument"...I don't have an argument! Bemused.

TheMac

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

you said they had the wrong address, so if the address was incorrect and there was a difference in premium, would you be happy to pay it?
Your plot number is still your house number, just like naming your house doesn't change it's house number or plot number.

and why is it a ridiculous statement? except for the fact you can't grasp common sense?
You've paid for 5 years insurance and you're whittering on about a refund because it was the wrong address. Right address or wrong address, you've never needed to use it which makes your entire thread pointless and irrelevant. You paid for 5 years insurance and never made a claim that's all there is to it.

Eh? The house is still physically on the same street...it didn't decide to upsticks and walk across to the more plush estate 10 miles down the road! Lets say the address was "Site 366 Sesame Street"...it should have been "131 Sesame Street". Its still Sesame Street mate. Why would the premium go up? Does anyone else "grasp" this "common sense"? You got me there. 1-0 to you eh. :T

You don't think its relevant to pay for something and receive....nothing in return? I'll give you my paypal account...I'd happily let you pay me and you'll get jacksh1t in return. Nonsensical! :rotfl:

And you speak of "common sense"?

mikey72

Have you spoken to the FOS yet?

dunstonh

OK I'll have to take your word on that - but when the Northern Bank are switching my mortgage over..the insurance needs to have the correct address, that is all that was said, and that technically speaking I may not have been covered all this time. I can't think of anyone who wouldn't be upset to hear that.

If we could all talk about the different things then there would be no need for classifications like tied agent, panel of insurers, whole of market or independent. Your bank should have given you a document titled "key facts about our insurance services". You will find that it almost certainly has the box ticked that says they can only offer products from a single insurer (although it may include limited number as sometimes they have a couple available to cover non mainstream cases).

What you said in post #1 was:

We've just been told that the address on our Home & Contents Insurance is wrong, and in reality we haven't been covered for 5 years.

That indicates you were told it was wrong (which is fine and correct) and that in reality you havent been covered for 5 years. This last bit differs from what you are now saying.

if the bank said you need to sort it as you may not be covered then that is fair enough. If that had been said in post #1 then i suggest the thread would have been a whole lot shorter. If it was what you said in #1 then that is a rule breach as they cannot offer an absolute opinion on another providers product.

I've heard a lot about the fact she's low-level and unqualified, but the irony here is that some folk have posted here when they too are not qualified to speak about it - but I'm supposed to take that as "gospel" and leave it unchallenged?

For all you know, I could be unqualified and telling porkies. Very few on this site are verified. So, you shouldnt leave things unchallenged. However, whether a bank tied to one or a limited panel of products can give advice on a product they themselves are not authorised to sell is not opinion. It is fact. It is also the reason why the FSA make advisers issue the documents so you can see that is the case.

To say that she's not qualified does not mean she's incorrect.

Depends which version of events you are now looking at. May not be covered is correct whereas telling you that effectively you have not been covered is not correct when you have no evidence or authorisation to know that.

and in my opinion it could be argued that my address is not covered because it is the wrong address on the schedule. Of course it can also be argued that I am covered, due to it being identified as a site/plot. There is no way anyone can definitively say either way.

It is something that requires no argument either way as its easily resolved. You contact the insurer and ask them. It is a statement of fact. If you doubt the person at the insurer on the phone then get them to put it in writing.