NAME Blacklisted for Car Insurance with Admiral Group?

mildred1978

GSMAnon wrote: »

Ok, great. And the price won't suddenly jump up when they change it to my correct name over the phone?

Never been an issue for me - they've kept the existing policy running, cross checked the info with the new quote and matched the price.

GSMAnon

mikey72 wrote: »

Can you use your first name and second name in the box, I would doubt they could find an excuse to void a policy based on you giving your full name, rather than a shortened one.

Don't get more than one quote that way though, put it in, buy the policy.
But be squeaky clean on the details now though, you will certainly set the alarms off if you need to claim.

I have a middle name. Interestingly when I put my first name and middle name in the first name box and my surname only in the surname box, it won't let me proceed, but if I put my first name in the first name box and put my middle name and surname in the surname box it does let me proceed. So perhaps that's the solution.

Surely they wouldn't have much to say about that?

movilogo

I had same problem with Elephant! When I called their customer service they explained in their database I had an extra claim which I didn't mention. In the end they could not explain how they got the fictitious claim they mumbled and rectified in their database!

GSMAnon

movilogo wrote: »

I had same problem with Elephant! When I called their customer service they explained in their database I had an extra claim which I didn't mention. In the end they could not explain how they got the fictitious claim they mumbled and rectified in their database!

Seems to me that most companies databases have a mind of their own these days.

I don't know how many times in the past 6 months I've had to phone a company about an issue that they know nothing about because it's just some erroneous entry in their database.

From Credit Expert adding accounts and addresses to my credit report to Admiral Group doing heck knows what with my profile in their database!

olly300

GSMAnon wrote: »

Seems to me that most companies databases have a mind of their own these days.

It's the people who program and test the checks in the system.

They can only check the few legitimate ways of doing things they can think of at the time, so if people do things they haven't thought off this causes a problem.

Unfortunately not all companies check why people are phoning them up to rectify the issue.

MarkyMarkD

I doubt very sincerely that it is anything to do with credit referencing.

Insurers share data with each other regarding quotes as well as policy/claim history. An indicator of suspicious behaviour is the same customer running many quotes with mis-matching details.

I don't quite understand comments like

All I did was add/ take away drivers/ alter details such as where I would park the car (road vs. car park) and profession and excesses.

Either a driver is, or isn't, a potential driver for the car. Either you are going to park it mainly off road, or mainly on road. These aren't things that you should be juggling around disclosing depending which gives the lowest quote!

Now, I do understand that some professions can be described in a number of ways and do not fit into the insurers' standard lists of professions; and that increasing excesses will improve insurance quotes. Changing excess is not, IMHO, particularly suspicious. But changing professions between ones which the insurers consider extremely disparate, might be seen as suspicious. (E.g. someone changing between different quotes from chartered accountant to professional stuntman, as a random and atypical example).

Rather than running multiple quotes with fictional details, how about simply completing the search engine with accurate details reflecting the lowest risk that you can achieve - i.e. if you can garage the car, say so. If you can't, don't.

It might not seem obvious, but running quotes with and without an accident - for someone who has never claimed for an accident - is a pretty good sign that the customer concerned HAS had an accident but is deciding whether to claim or not. Such a customer is a higher risk than someone who never had an accident, and never claimed - even if they do not choose to claim on this occasion.

GSMAnon

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

I doubt very sincerely that it is anything to do with credit referencing.

Insurers share data with each other regarding quotes as well as policy/claim history. An indicator of suspicious behaviour is the same customer running many quotes with mis-matching details.

I don't quite understand comments like Either a driver is, or isn't, a potential driver for the car. Either you are going to park it mainly off road, or mainly on road. These aren't things that you should be juggling around disclosing depending which gives the lowest quote!

But if it saves us money without actually changing the use of the car, then what's the problem? For example, my dad is a mechanic and when my car is getting MOT'd or taken for repairs, he drives it to his workplace and back - but he already has his own fully comprehensive insurance on his own car that allows him to drive mine, AND he's covered (fully comprehensively) on his company insurance policy. So technically, there's no need for me to add him as a named driver on my policy for my car. But if I can save £150 by adding him to it, why shouldn't I?

As for the parking thing - people may want to include it in their budgeting. For example, at my University there's an NCP, or you can pay for on-street parking. The NCP is more expensive than the on-street parking, but also more secure. So, it'd be good to know if parking in the secure NCP would reduce my premium enough to justify paying the higher price for the NCP, or whether having a slightly higher premium but lower parking costs for on-street parking gives me the best value for money.

As for jobs, as you said there are usually multiple ways to describe a person's job and any given person might legitimately fit into 10 different categories offered by the insurer. Obviously changing between chartered accountant, stuntman and professional engineer is very suspicious, but what about changing between "student", "post-graduate student", "student living away", "student living at home", or "medical student" for somebody doing post-graduate research in clinical studies?

Now, I do understand that some professions can be described in a number of ways and do not fit into the insurers' standard lists of professions; and that increasing excesses will improve insurance quotes. Changing excess is not, IMHO, particularly suspicious. But changing professions between ones which the insurers consider extremely disparate, might be seen as suspicious. (E.g. someone changing between different quotes from chartered accountant to professional stuntman, as a random and atypical example).

Rather than running multiple quotes with fictional details, how about simply completing the search engine with accurate details reflecting the lowest risk that you can achieve - i.e. if you can garage the car, say so. If you can't, don't.

It might not seem obvious, but running quotes with and without an accident - for someone who has never claimed for an accident - is a pretty good sign that the customer concerned HAS had an accident but is deciding whether to claim or not. Such a customer is a higher risk than someone who never had an accident, and never claimed - even if they do not choose to claim on this occasion.

Well, yes, for details like that it's obvious that you shouldn't be massaging them, because in order to choose one or the other you have to lie or omit information.

I've never played with details like convictions, claims, accidents (because I have none), or where I can park the car (no garage, no drive, only on-street parking for me), or where I live or anything like that.

The only things I've massaged in the past is my profession (I'm a post-graduate research student, so many of the categories for higher education describe my situation and some can be considerably cheaper), my yearly mileage (because I would genuinely curb it if it saved me a lot of money), etc.

There was one occasion, one week before my birthday, where I changed my D.O.B so that the system would think my age had changed one week prematurely, just to find out how much I'd save by leaving it another week before buying the policy (a whopping £46 saved by being 22 years old instead of 21 years, 11 months and 26 days old!). Maybe something like this could be seen as possibly fraudulent behaviour ... but let's have some common sense about it, anybody can see quite obviously what I was up to, and I never ever tried to buy a policy under the false details!

Obviously the system doesn't have the "common sense" required to see the innocence of what I did, but you'd think that after 10 calls to customer service and a complaint through the head office that SOMEBODY would be able to meet me someway between what the system thinks, and what is plain to any human.

Anyway, my general grief with it is that quoting system are advertised as flexible and tentative... i.e. you can play with them to change various details (without lying, of course) to see what the price would be and then make the appropriate changes to minimise your premium. I don't see the problem with playing with the details in this virtual, tentative and hypothetical world... the problem should come when somebody attempts to BUY a policy under false pretenses, not when they attempt to get a quote for a policy under "false", "massaged" or fine-tuned pretenses.

Quentin

GSMAnon wrote: »

Anyway, my general grief with it is that quoting system are advertised as flexible and tentative... i.e. you can play with them to change various details (without lying, of course) .......

But you told us previously that you did input lies over significant facts (regarding your own and your named drivers d-o-bs).

You seem cross because justifiably they are wary of you!

GSMAnon

Quentin wrote: »

But you told us previously that you did input lies over significant facts (regarding your own and your named drivers d-o-bs).

You seem cross because justifiably they are wary of you!

I moved it by one week to see whether it would be worth it to wait until after my 22nd birthday to buy the policy, and indeed I was right that it would hae been worth it, because the saving was £46.

My girlfriend's birthday is in the same week as mine, so I also changed hers to say what the combined saving would be (a whopping £63).

When those kind of savings are involved for the small inconvenience of waiting just a week, why shouldn't I be able to change the D.O.B on the quote just to see when the best time to buy is?

I never, ever got a quote with the intention of buying the policy with false details. I was only ever trying to ascertain the best timing to buy the policy, and I always thought that's the point in the online quoting system - in order for people to ascertain the policy-type, policy-timing and policy-drivers that give them the best deal.

Only if I attempted to buy a policy with false details would I expect to be blacklisted or accused of fraudulent activity.

MarkyMarkD

Sorry, GSMAnon, but the Dob explanation is silly.

You can specify a start date for any policy when you get a quote. To see the benefit of waiting until after your birthday to start the policy, you would delay the start date a week - not change both dates of birth by a week!

The point of online quotation systems isn't to enable customers to run dozens of permutations of possible (or false) details to see which is cheapest, it's to give them an accurate quote for their actual circumstances.