Been charged £26.50 to change DD details on my car insurance!!!

mikey72

Valli wrote: »

And, just so you know, Tesco (and other shops) 'do' add a little bit to their prices to cover wastage and theft.

Seriously, - you do your shopping in tesco's, it adds up to £26 on the till, and £26 on the receipt, and you would be ok to pay £26.50 if they asked you to, to cover wastage and theft?

(So you know, you don't have to pay, only pay the £26, they add the extra onto the goods in advance, when they work out their pricing)

Valli

mikey72 wrote: »

Seriously, - you do your shopping in tesco's, it adds up to £26 on the till, and £26 on the receipt, and you would be ok to pay £26.50 if they asked you to, to cover wastage and theft?

(So you know, you don't have to pay, only pay the £26, they add the extra onto the goods in advance, when they work out their pricing)

So you didn't READ my post then...I didn't say they add 50p to the BILL I said they add it to their prices. Which is exactly what YOU said in brackets.

mikey72

AND I said PAY the bill, not pay MORE.

(Whatever is wrong with your caps lock appears to be catching, makes it harder to read though)

Spiderham

Valli wrote: »

So you didn't READ my post then...I didn't say they add 50p to the BILL I said they add it to their prices. Which is exactly what YOU said in brackets.

Valli, your point of increasing prices to cover waste etc is akin to justifying admin fees, something Mikey is not trying to argue against. If the admin fee is properly advertised, you should pay that amount.

The problem is that one price is advertised for admin fees and another charged. If that is the case you should not have to pay the higher amount, only the figure contractually agreed in your policy.

Valli

I was merely illustrating that most companies 'adjust' their pricing structure, one way or another, in order to cover costs and make a profit. Because that's what they are in business to do - they're not in it for philanthropic reasons.

This is why it's so important to read T&Cs. The OP is angry that he/she has had to pay to amend details - not, as far as I am aware, quibbling about the 50p.

However if he/she wants the 50p back it's going to end up costing at least 50p in phone calls. So maybe, if the OP wants his/her 50p back e mail will be cheaper.

mikey72

No, they are entitled to claim compensation for their time, and phonecalls, of at least £10.
The contract is not one sided, Sheilas Wheels have broken it, and are liable to pay the op.
(Unless they have a different agreement to the t&c's on the website, which is a different arguement)
I would be asking for the entire £26.50 as a goodwill payment personally.
And Sheilas Wheels would be finding out why it's important they read the t&c's as well.

dunstonh

Personally, I find it frustrating that people complain about charges that were published and disclosed when they took the policy out. They are blaming the company for the fact they chose not to read about what they were buying.

mikey72

I've never disagreed with you on that.

I only ever disagree with unfair charges, excessive charges, and in this case, charging more than the published charge.

antrobus

Hadrian wrote: »

Years ago I heard that one DIDN'T need car insurance if one deposited some 1000£'s with some govt dept. Anyone know/heard of that?

Yes, it's section 144 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (as amended) - you need to deposit £500,000 with the "Accountant General of the Senior Courts".

dunstonh

I only ever disagree with unfair charges, excessive charges, and in this case, charging more than the published charge.

I think the only thing we really disagree about is whether the £50 charge is the ceiling to what the FSA would consider acceptable. And that I play a bit more devils advocate more than you do.

In this case, it does seem funny that a £26 charge has gone through as £26.50. However, it may just be a simple typo that is easily corrected. However, the OP's post was more about the fact they were charged. Not the 50p difference.