NAME Blacklisted for Car Insurance with Admiral Group?

GSMAnon

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

But why disadvantage a customer without explanation?

There has to be transparency and/or warnings if the insurer believes that the customer is overstepping a boundary.

Yes, this too.

To this very day I still have had no communication from the insurer offering an explanation of why this has happened. I've called their customer service desk about 10 times and everybody says that changing a password should solve it (and it doesn't), or that they simply have no idea why it would happen.

The only reason we're presuming that it's because I've made many quotes with different details (innocently) is because that's what people in this forum seem to think... but how do they know, if even the insurer doesn't know?

rs65

GSMAnon wrote: »

To this very day I still have had no communication from the insurer offering an explanation of why this has happened. I've called their customer service desk about 10 times and everybody says that changing a password should solve it (and it doesn't), or that they simply have no idea why it would happen.

I wouldn't even consider using an insurer that I have any concerns about.

Have you bought cover elsewhere?

raskazz

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

But why disadvantage a customer without explanation?

There has to be transparency and/or warnings if the insurer believes that the customer is overstepping a boundary.

Splitting hairs a but but until a quote is accepted they are only a potential customer really. Insurers are not required to disclose underwriting criteria, rating or anti-fraud measures to potential customers.


I don't think people on this thread appreciate how much application fraud goes on on aggregators. Whilst some may "experiment" with quotes out of curiosity, aggregators are not intended as some sort of sandpit. When details are extensively changed, especially dates of birth, it is an obvious indicator of fraudulent activity so Admiral seem to have put in place sensible counter-fraud measures to prevent this - this is one of the many reasons why they continue to offer keen rates for a lot of customers and (seemingly) still do so at a profit.

raskazz

GSMAnon wrote: »

They should not be accepting customers they presume fraudulent, they should be reporting such people to the police. But it's more profitible for them to accept those customers at an inflated premium, so that's what they do.

Are you aware what action the police would take if an insurer reported someone for changing their details on quotes? Begins with "sweet" and ends in "F.A.". Far more efficient just to price out.

mikey72

It's something I do.

I always check out car insurance costs, change the excess, change named drivers, change use, and see which out of up to say ten different variations works best, before I even look at a car.

I have noticed yesterday the quote changes upwards, dramatically, even if I just requote a second time, without any changes, instantly.

So, if I do make a mistake, and put wrong digit in, I can't correct it, without being penalised.

I suspect there is a problem with the software, rather than this being intentional, it's far too sensitive.

GSMAnon

raskazz wrote: »

Are you aware what action the police would take if an insurer reported someone for changing their details on quotes? Begins with "sweet" and ends in "F.A.". Far more efficient just to price out.

Absolutely. And so it should be... because changing the details on quotes is not at all fraudulent behaviour or even indicative of fraudulent behaviour.

If the police would do nothing about it, it's because they have the good sense to recognise that it's not the crime of the century. Which is my point...

Insurers should be asking for proof of details when a customer attempts to buy a policy. If the proof is there (and for me, it is), then give them the price they deserve. If the proof is not there, then refuse their custom. If the proof contradicts the application, then pass it on to the police (attempting to buy a policy with false details IS something the police would interest themselves with).

I've contacted Admiral and set up a complaint, and I've explained to them that IF the issue is about concern over fraudulent activity, then I'm more than happy to send them all the proof in the world of my true details so that they can be completely satisfied that I am of no risk to them whatsoever where fraudulence is concerned.

And they're not really pricing me out, they're adding £100 to my quote and even at that they're still amongst the cheapest to insure with. You might then say "what are you moaning about then?", but I do resent paying an extra £100 because the company have decided I'm high risk of fraudulence (which I don't even know is the case, that's just what everyone here seems to think) when I'm more than happy to provide as much evidence as they need to back up all the details on my application.

GSMAnon

rs65 wrote: »

I wouldn't even consider using an insurer that I have any concerns about.

Have you bought cover elsewhere?

No. I haven't tried extensively, but the nearest premium to the ones I get from these companies can be as much as £500 more, which is £500 I don't really have, so I don't really have the luxury of telling these companies where to stuff it.

I don't even have a car yet, and it's likely I won't be getting one for another 3-4 months, but I'd quite like to get these issues sorted so I can get proper quotes from these companies before I need to start searching.

GSMAnon

raskazz wrote: »

Splitting hairs a but but until a quote is accepted they are only a potential customer really. Insurers are not required to disclose underwriting criteria, rating or anti-fraud measures to potential customers.


I don't think people on this thread appreciate how much application fraud goes on on aggregators. Whilst some may "experiment" with quotes out of curiosity, aggregators are not intended as some sort of sandpit. When details are extensively changed, especially dates of birth, it is an obvious indicator of fraudulent activity so Admiral seem to have put in place sensible counter-fraud measures to prevent this - this is one of the many reasons why they continue to offer keen rates for a lot of customers and (seemingly) still do so at a profit.

I appreciate how much it goes on, but there's a very simple way to stop it from going on, or at least reduce it, and that's to require applicants to provide evidence of the claims they make on their application form. Not that much evidence is needed.

My licence will prove my name, address, d.o.b, number of years driving, number of points and my entitlement to drive. I can prove my no-claims bonus entitlement with documents from my previous policy... how easy is that? They probably don't even need to physically check a copy of my licence, they probably already have access to DVLA records, so I posit that it would cost them almost nothing to check these details, and would save them from millions of pounds worth of fraud, as well as save them from discouraging genuine customers (like myself).

I can see it is being nothing but in their best interests to operate in this manner.

raskazz

GSMAnon wrote: »

Absolutely. And so it should be... because changing the details on quotes is not at all fraudulent behaviour or even indicative of fraudulent behaviour.

We'll have to disagree there. Depending on the fields changed and the number of changes it can be highly indicative of fraudulent behaviour. That's why many insurers/aggregators now employ keylogging technology and take pro-active steps to prevent "quote massaging".

GSMAnon wrote: »

Insurers should be asking for proof of details when a customer attempts to buy a policy. If the proof is there (and for me, it is), then give them the price they deserve. If the proof is not there, then refuse their custom. If the proof contradicts the application, then pass it on to the police (attempting to buy a policy with false details IS something the police would interest themselves with).

This is simplistic and ignores several problems. Firstly that requesting, chasing and validating supporting information takes time and money. If you were running an insurer, to sink money into validating the dregs of the market (and trust me, individuals who change lots of information on aggregators are the dregs of the market) is not necessarily an efficient solution. Secondly, relying on post-inception validation is often taking action after the horse has bolted - the covernote/certificate is already out there and RTA liability held, regardless of what happens after that. Prevention is far better then cure, and if the reasons for your experience are counter-fraud related, I applud Admiral for putting these measures in place.

Again, I'm not sure how much experience you have of insurance fraud but I have never ever seen a case where the police have taken any interest whatsoever in a simple application fraud. They tend to only bother with the organised crime "crash for cash" operations.

GSMAnon wrote: »

I've contacted Admiral and set up a complaint, and I've explained to them that IF the issue is about concern over fraudulent activity, then I'm more than happy to send them all the proof in the world of my true details so that they can be completely satisfied that I am of no risk to them whatsoever where fraudulence is concerned.

And they're not really pricing me out, they're adding £100 to my quote and even at that they're still amongst the cheapest to insure with. You might then say "what are you moaning about then?", but I do resent paying an extra £100 because the company have decided I'm high risk of fraudulence (which I don't even know is the case, that's just what everyone here seems to think) when I'm more than happy to provide as much evidence as they need to back up all the details on my application.

Well that is quite sensible but, as above, if you were running an insurance company, would you want the hassle and expense of dealing with customers like this? I wouldn't!

mikey72

raskazz wrote: »

Well that is quite sensible but, as above, if you were running an insurance company, would you want the hassle and expense of dealing with customers like this? I wouldn't!

Well, it's either price everyone out, including anyone that makes a mistake, and accept that uninsured drivers will increase, and have to be paid for by anyone that gets it right first time, or offer insurance based on the information that's given, and give a repeatable price for the same information.
My example shouldn't have priced me out, but a simple re-quote did.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3729085=