Change of Address-£55

dj_flame

Hi Guys

Just a rant that I have been charged £55 to change my address for car insurance. Seems a bit excessive, Has anyone done this and paid similar?

Thanks
DJ Flame:beer:

System

You agreed to a set of contract terms and conditions when you took out the policy, read them to check what charges apply. (Policy booklet / documents)

The £55 may be part admin charge and part premium adjustment for the change of location

mikey72

Yes it's excessive, if that's just the admin fee.
FOS has only allowed up to a maximum of £50, so if it is just the fee it looks like they are trying to push the ceiling up.
Who's the insurer?

kingstreet

As requested, what's the £55 for?

If I moved from my current address in ST18 to my mother in law's in M30 the cost would be a lot more than £55.

The OP needs to tell us more...

anniecave

I moved from B16 to B20 and my old insurer said they couldn't cover my new postcode as it was too risky! So £55 assuming that is an admin fee and a premium adjustment sounds good to me!

dj_flame

Thanks for the replies.

The move was from wn1 3xt to wn1 3xx.

I've moved 400 meters at most, and only done so because our old house was 2 bed and we now have a little Boy and Girl.

I have checked the T+C's and yes it is in. I have no issue paying an admin fee, I don't expect anything for nothing (well not in this life) but just though that it was a bit steep.

The insurance company (One Call Direct) won't take in to account that the car is now parked orr road, behind 6 foot gates which are double bolted. You can't even see the car once parked up.

Interesting regarding FOS.....


Thanks
DJ Flame:beer:

dunstonh

FOS has only allowed up to a maximum of £50, so if it is just the fee it looks like they are trying to push the ceiling up.

No it has not. Many years ago, the FOS ruled on a case that charged £50 and in that case it considered £50 was fair. We dont know if that was their top level. We just know that £50 was considered fair. They may have ruled on dozens of others at £70 and considered those fair but we just dont know about it.

In theory if a company couldnt justify a £30 fee to the FOS, then they could see that was infair even though we know £50 was fair to another (unlikely but the FOS wording in that publication suggested that)

I have checked the T+C's and yes it is in. I have no issue paying an admin fee, I don't expect anything for nothing (well not in this life) but just though that it was a bit steep.

You either pay higher premiums and no/low admin fees or lower premiums and high admin fees.

mikey72

It seems that it's a trend to try it on at £55, so that suggests the insurer isn't aware of the £70 ones either, otherwise they'd all be charging £70. So probably safe to assume £50 is still the official ceiling.
So if they want to raise the ceiling, let them justify it, not just try it on repeatedly.

dunstonh

So probably safe to assume £50 is still the official ceiling.

There is no official ceiling. All we have is a known FOS outcome on an example where the charge was £50 and the FOS considered that acceptable.

So if they want to raise the ceiling, let them justify it, not just try it on repeatedly.

If the OP wants to complain about a charge they agreed to do so when he took it out then that is their choice.

mikey72

dunstonh wrote: »

There is no official ceiling. All we have is a known FOS outcome on an example where the charge was £50 and the FOS considered that acceptable.



If the OP wants to complain about a charge they agreed to do so when he took it out then that is their choice.

Indeed it is.
As the insurer knows it was excessive, as it may well be the most widely quoted fee about, it would be interesting to see them justify trying to put it in the t&c's originally.

dunstonh

As the insurer knows it was excessive, as it may well be the most widely quoted fee about, it would be interesting to see them justify trying to put it in the t&c's originally.

Given the nature of the near duplicate thread currently running, I will point the discussion to that one rather than repeat.