Car insurance renewal 'scam'?

dunstonh

you appear disinterested in the actual question of the legality which was the point of my first post,

Legality is not an issue. There has been no court case to challenge whether they are unlawful. So, until there is then they are lawful. It is unlikely to be challenged as the FSA are quite happy with it, it has been around for 30 odd years now and its only a minority or people who, typically, only lose out because they do not read their mail.

have little regard for the customers preferences in favour of their own profit generating, probably unlawful practices.

As most consumers benefit from it, you cannot accuse them of having little regard for customers.

English_Electric

dunstonh wrote: »

Legality is not an issue. There has been no court case to challenge whether they are unlawful. So, until there is then they are lawful. It is unlikely to be challenged as the FSA are quite happy with it, it has been around for 30 odd years now and its only a minority or people who, typically, only lose out because they do not read their mail.



As most consumers benefit from it, you cannot accuse them of having little regard for customers.

Just because something has not been challenged does not make it lawful. the bank charges were found to be unlawful in retrospect, which is why many were reclaimed. The FSA at the time wre as usual sitting on their thumbs and it took a youg law student to make the challenge if I recall correctly.
As for the claim that most consumers benefit from this policy, I do not know how you can assert this any more than I can assert that most consumers are irritated by it, not without a poll.

mikey72

There has been no court case, as the insurers have never wanted to go to court.
When challenged, as here, they always refund.
I think that speaks for the legallity of it.

(If you where insured elsewhere, push for complete refund, don't agree to time on cover, as at best you where dual insured, so they would only pay 50%, if that. Go for complete refund, they'll pay)

mikey72

olly300 wrote: »

to get away with doing this the insurer has to:
1. Put it in the Keyfacts part of the policy documentation so it's highlighted, ..................If you have the keyfacts part of your policy document then you can put in a complaint to the FSA if it's not mentioned there.

That's well worth knowing.

I have never seen it in any keyfacts at all.

rs65

English_Electric wrote: »

and been assured of a full refund minus a couple of days

Why not a full refund? When did your old policy expire and when did your new one start?

dzug1

English_Electric wrote: »

Just because something has not been challenged does not make it lawful. the bank charges were found to be unlawful in retrospect, which is why many were reclaimed. The FSA at the time wre as usual sitting on their thumbs and it took a youg law student to make the challenge if I recall correctly.

But bank charges were NOT found to be unlawful - quite the opposite, though the T&C had to be tweaked.

dunstonh

Just because something has not been challenged does not make it lawful.

Take them to court then if you believe that.

the bank charges were found to be unlawful in retrospect

No they were not. The banks won the court case and no follow up was pursued.

As for the claim that most consumers benefit from this policy, I do not know how you can assert this any more than I can assert that most consumers are irritated by it, not without a poll.

Logic and common sense. If more people renew with the same company each year than do not renew then auto renew benefits more people.

There has been no court case, as the insurers have never wanted to go to court.
When challenged, as here, they always refund.

You do realise that that the financial ombudsman service is not a court of law and the reason they refund is that it costs around £1000 to review a complaint. So, its cheaper not to pursue it.

I think that speaks for the legallity of it.

Even you cant believe that mikey. Unless you have had a bit too much vino tonight.

mikey72

dunstonh wrote: »

..........You do realise that that the financial ombudsman service is not a court of law and the reason they refund is that it costs around £1000 to review a complaint. So, its cheaper not to pursue it...............Even you cant believe that mikey. Unless you have had a bit too much vino tonight.

It used to be £500.
Even better if it's gone up.

As to the last part, we'll have to wait and see, one day maybe when they don't back down, who knows?

jonnyd281

mikey72 wrote: »

It used to be £500.
Even better if it's gone up.

As to the last part, we'll have to wait and see, one day maybe when they don't back down, who knows?

Great so idiots who can't be bothered to read the terms and conditions, key facts documents or renewal documents cost the insurance companies £500 to £1000 for each vexatious complaints driving up the cost of insurance for those of us who actually read the documents sent to us.

dunstonh

It used to be £500.
Even better if it's gone up.

The explicit charge is £500 but the implicit cost is higher due to the workload in resolving such complaints.

You do realise that the cost of complaints, including totally pointless ones, is factored into the price of financial products. How can it be better for everyone to pay for the few that cant be bothered to read a letter?