We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
NAME Blacklisted for Car Insurance with Admiral Group?
Options
Comments
-
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.
Hardly an anti-fraud measure to applaud if they just charge the "suspect" another £100.Mr Straw described whiplash as "not so much an injury, more a profitable invention of the human imagination—undiagnosable except by third-rate doctors in the pay of the claims management companies or personal injury lawyers"0 -
Parking_Trouble wrote: »Hardly an anti-fraud measure to applaud if they just charge the "suspect" another £100.
If you increase your price then you will hopefully deter the person playing around with your system, whether fraudulently or otherwise, from buying their policy with you.I'm not cynical I'm realistic
(If a link I give opens pop ups I won't know I don't use windows)0 -
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=
They obviously have a simple anti-fraud measure when goes on the fact if you get your own details wrong then the person should be blocked.
I've got my car details wrong and the DOB of my named drivers wrong but haven't been blocked from any insurer/comparison site system when I've corrected that.
I have been blocked by an insurer for putting in multiple quotes with the same details. Unfortunately on this particular insurer's system all quotes where saved whether you wanted them to save them or not. However I was still able to buy the cheapest quote from them on the phone.I'm not cynical I'm realistic
(If a link I give opens pop ups I won't know I don't use windows)0 -
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".
Nonsense. EVERYBODY massages their quotes for a better price... you do it, I do it, fraudsters do it, EVERYBODY does it. The only mistake I made that perhaps everybody else does not is having used my real name whilst I was going through my process, instead of using false names until I actually wanted to buy.
It's not indicative of fraudulent behaviour, it's indicative of people trying to get the best price they can using a system which was designed for that very purpose, advertised as being for that very purpose, and never publicly accounced as NOT being for that purpose.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.
Seems to work for most other businesses. I'd find it very difficult to get a loan, car finance, or even get into a Casino or a club or open an online betting account without there being some sort of identity validation process. The FSA requires due diligence in this area for all financial companies, and companies are almost compelled to have these processes in place to avoid fraudulent behaviour.
As I said before, most of the relevant details of my application can be checked through my DVLA record, to which I'm sure most insurers already have access.
And as somebody has already said, they've put £100 on my premium, but its still a competitive price and the cheapest on the market. That's not an anti-fraud measure. I'm fairly sure if I was to make a fraudulent claim, then the risk involved to them would be far, far more than the £100 they've deemed it necessary to charge me. I'm not (completely) blocked from the system, I'm not getting quotes that are prohibitive to purchase, and nobody over the phone has actually turned around and said... yes, we suspect you are a fraudster, so that's why your premium is higher. They seem not to be able to understand it. This is not due diligence in the interests of anti-fraud measures, this is profiteering on the basis of trivialities.
Then do it pre-inception like almost all other financial service companies do. I couldn't even open a student current account without bringing two forms of photo ID and a utility bill, so why should I be able to take out an insurance policy? If fraudulent claims are such a big source of risk and loss to these companies, then a simple validation check, as is carried out in almost other field in the sector shouldn't be much inconvenience to them.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.
But the way I see it, insurance companies have far, far more to gain from charging suspected fraudsters a higher premium, and then doing the validation checks after a claim has been made and using it as grounds for not paying out. That way they get all of the premium and suffer none of the risk or losses.
I have no experience of fraud as I've never engaged with it. But I would assume that if I made a claim on an insurance policy for which the application detauls were fraudulent, then firstly I would be refused a payout, and following that I'm sure the police would take interest in my as an uninsured driver, if not as a fraudster.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.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!
No, probably not. But whether its hassle or expense is irrelevant because the FSA compel any financial service companies to employ a process of due diligence on their customers in the interests of reducing fraud.
On the other hand, if I personally was running an insurance company, I'd develop a much more intelligent quotation system which would transparently reveal what would and would not be classified as suspect behaviour.0 -
Nonsense. EVERYBODY massages their quotes for a better price... you do it, I do it, fraudsters do it, EVERYBODY does it. The only mistake I made that perhaps everybody else does not is having used my real name whilst I was going through my process, instead of using false names until I actually wanted to buy. It's not indicative of fraudulent behaviour, it's indicative of people trying to get the best price they can using a system which was designed for that very purpose, advertised as being for that very purpose, and never publicly accounced as NOT being for that purpose.
Well, it's not nonsense at all and you seem to be getting a bit hysterical about this. I repeat - 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". It is a matter of degree. Correcting a vehicle value by £1000 is unlikely to flag anything. Changing your date of birth, the overnight location of the vehicle, multiple changes of occupation, removal of claims/convictions is highly lilkely to be flagged as suspect. There are also many shades of grey in between.
As for "never publicly accounced as NOT being for that purpose", as an example read Confused.com's T&Cs:
"It is your responsibility to ensure that all information you enter onto Confused.com is true, accurate and complete and that you disclose all relevant and material facts. If you do not provide accurate information and disclose all material facts this could lead to your selected product being invalid and claims may not be paid."Seems to work for most other businesses. I'd find it very difficult to get a loan, car finance, or even get into a Casino or a club or open an online betting account without there being some sort of identity validation process. The FSA requires due diligence in this area for all financial companies, and companies are almost compelled to have these processes in place to avoid fraudulent behaviour.
Checks are done - e.g. CUE, Hunter, Experian. But these are all automated and so are less resource intensive. What they cannot check are things like use, occupation, mileage, overnight location, motoring convictions. Therefore if someone is massaging their details extensively it is prudent to assume that they are being equally deceptive with regards to those things, and it follows that to not quote or price out is an eminently effiecient way of dealing with this.As I said before, most of the relevant details of my application can be checked through my DVLA record, to which I'm sure most insurers already have access.
Nope - full licence and conviction electronic access has been mooted by the Government for a long time but has not yet been implemented.And as somebody has already said, they've put £100 on my premium, but its still a competitive price and the cheapest on the market. That's not an anti-fraud measure.
Well, it can be. If they look at their loss ratios and find that people who have made changes with a certain profile run at, say, a 10% greater loss ratio than the general market, then if they add a 15% load it actually makes a lot of underwriting sense.I'm fairly sure if I was to make a fraudulent claim, then the risk involved to them would be far, far more than the £100 they've deemed it necessary to charge me.
See above. If they can turn a profit from a certain pool of quote massagers than it makes underwriting sense.I'm not (completely) blocked from the system, I'm not getting quotes that are prohibitive to purchase, and nobody over the phone has actually turned around and said... yes, we suspect you are a fraudster, so that's why your premium is higher. They seem not to be able to understand it. This is not due diligence in the interests of anti-fraud measures, this is profiteering on the basis of trivialities.
In your opinion. Which is somewhat biased as you are the subject of their actions.Then do it pre-inception like almost all other financial service companies do. I couldn't even open a student current account without bringing two forms of photo ID and a utility bill, so why should I be able to take out an insurance policy? If fraudulent claims are such a big source of risk and loss to these companies, then a simple validation check, as is carried out in almost other field in the sector shouldn't be much inconvenience to them.
Again, see above.I have no experience of fraud as I've never engaged with it. But I would assume that if I made a claim on an insurance policy for which the application detauls were fraudulent, then firstly I would be refused a payout, and following that I'm sure the police would take interest in my as an uninsured driver, if not as a fraudster.
Again, you need to understand the nature of the compulsory element of motor insurance under the Road Traffic Act. If a fraudster incurs a third party liability then it is very difficult for the insurer to avoid it. And again, I assure you that the police are not interested in this stuff at all.On the other hand, if I personally was running an insurance company, I'd develop a much more intelligent quotation system which would transparently reveal what would and would not be classified as suspect behaviour.
Care to set out what specifically you would do?0 -
"It is your responsibility to ensure that all information you enter onto Confused.com is true, accurate and complete and that you disclose all relevant and material facts. If you do not provide accurate information and disclose all material facts this could lead to your selected product being invalid and claims may not be paid."
This is just a standard warning about making sure you correctly disclose all the right info or the policy might not pay out. There appears to be no contract or binding agreement here.
It has nothing to do with twiddling the dials and levers and getting quotes.
Surely it only matters when you accept a quote and take out a policy. At that point normal rules of engagement apply and the non-negotiated contract of "utmost good faith" kicks in.
Mr Straw described whiplash as "not so much an injury, more a profitable invention of the human imagination—undiagnosable except by third-rate doctors in the pay of the claims management companies or personal injury lawyers"0 -
That clause has been firmly put to bed.
Only it you don't respond truthfully to the questions do they have any comeback.
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/consumerinformation/product_news/insurance/price_comparison/index.shtml
The FSA are quite clear, it's the insurers responsibility to ask, not the customers to second guess, and if they don't ask, or if they ask the wrong question, the insurer has to bear the responsibility.
Even more so if they gain the business through a comparison site.0 -
Well, it's not nonsense at all and you seem to be getting a bit hysterical about this. I repeat - 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". It is a matter of degree. Correcting a vehicle value by £1000 is unlikely to flag anything. Changing your date of birth, the overnight location of the vehicle, multiple changes of occupation, removal of claims/convictions is highly lilkely to be flagged as suspect. There are also many shades of grey in between.
As for "never publicly accounced as NOT being for that purpose", as an example read Confused.com's T&Cs:
"It is your responsibility to ensure that all information you enter onto Confused.com is true, accurate and complete and that you disclose all relevant and material facts. If you do not provide accurate information and disclose all material facts this could lead to your selected product being invalid and claims may not be paid."
Those T&Cs say nothing about you being blocked from the system or labelled as fraudulent. It only says that your product is invalid and claims may not be paid if you purchase it under those pretenses.
Those T&Cs are not an issue for me because I never intended to purchase a product on the basis of incorrect details. I acquired the quote with the full intention that the product would be invalid, and that the quote would be of no use to me as a route of purchasing insurance, and only of use as a general price guide, and advice on whether or not to wait until after my birthday.
They are irrelevant to the process of obtaining quotations, they are only relevant to the process of purchasing quotes, and even then it is only a warning that the end product would be invalid, and not that you will suffer any marking or prejudicing in future on the basis of the quotes you get today.
I was only checked on Experian once I had made the apparently fraudulent quote. I've never been checked through a credit search for any insurance I've had after having made the request to buy it. Only on this occasion whilst I was getting quotes.Checks are done - e.g. CUE, Hunter, Experian. But these are all automated and so are less resource intensive. What they cannot check are things like use, occupation, mileage, overnight location, motoring convictions. Therefore if someone is massaging their details extensively it is prudent to assume that they are being equally deceptive with regards to those things, and it follows that to not quote or price out is an eminently effiecient way of dealing with this.
I've never massaged any of those apart from mileage and use, and that's because I would genuinely consider taking public transport instead of commuting by car if it was appropriately cheaper to do so. Apart from that, I've only ever changed the excess, the car, the policy term, the policy type, the policy start date, and who the named drivers are, and the d.o.b (only to check whether I'd be best waiting until after my birthday, which it turns out I would have been).
Oh well, physical check it will have to be. If every other financial service sector manages it, why not them?Nope - full licence and conviction electronic access has been mooted by the Government for a long time but has not yet been implemented.
It makes sense financially, as far as profiteerin goes, but it doesn't make sense in terms of reducing fraudulent claims and increasing the due diligence processes.Well, it can be. If they look at their loss ratios and find that people who have made changes with a certain profile run at, say, a 10% greater loss ratio than the general market, then if they add a 15% load it actually makes a lot of underwriting sense.
See above. If they can turn a profit from a certain pool of quote massagers than it makes underwriting sense.
If that's their idea of pricing me out of the market to prevent me from taking the policy fraudulently, then it's failed. If that's their idea of using my supposed likelihood of fraudulent claims to turn a profit, then it has succeeded.
What's it go to do with opinion. The facts are that they've increased my premium by £100 and not blocked me from the system, refused me a quote, or made the premium prohibitively high. I.e. because I am not completely and utterly deterred or refused an insurance policy, fraudulence has not been prevented, only used as an excuse to turn a higher profit.In your opinion. Which is somewhat biased as you are the subject of their actions.
No, it's not. An insurer agrees to insure a person based on the information they've provided. If they make a claim and the information they've provided subsequently turns out to be false, then that person is a good as an uninsured driver and the third party would have to be compensated by the Motor Insurer's Bureau...Again, you need to understand the nature of the compulsory element of motor insurance under the Road Traffic Act. If a fraudster incurs a third party liability then it is very difficult for the insurer to avoid it. And again, I assure you that the police are not interested in this stuff at all.
1) Make it clear on the website and in the T&Cs that x behaviours will incur higher premiums under the assumption that the person exhibiting this behaviour is being fraudulentCare to set out what specifically you would do?
2) Alert anybody when they have conducted those x behaviours and that this is the reason for subsequent premium increases
3) Setup a process by which individuals who do conduct those behaviours can reassure my company by providing proof of the details given where appropriate and possible.
4) Recognise that all in all, it doesn't make much difference anyway, because there are as many fraudsters capable of using false details to get prices before giving their real details when intending to purchase, and you're probably only stopping a small percentage of "fraudsters" and snaring a small percentage of genuine potential customers by blocking/increasing the premiums of people who massage their details under their real name.0 -
No, it's not. An insurer agrees to insure a person based on the information they've provided. If they make a claim and the information they've provided subsequently turns out to be false, then that person is a good as an uninsured driver and the third party would have to be compensated by the Motor Insurer's Bureau...
I don't have to time to respond to your whole post now but this bit shows that you don't know what you are talking about. Look up the Road Traffic Act 1988, particularly sections 148. 151 and 152. Also look up what an "Article 75" status of an insurer is.0 -
Hi GSMAnon
I'm not involved in the insurance industry, so my suggestions may be way off, but...
Are you insured with Admiral group now (or have you been in the past)? Many insurers offer a 'new customer discount'. Could it be that when you enter your correct name it recognises that you as a current/previous customer and removes the discount?
(Some time back, I suspected that my own insurer was declining to quote me online because it was recognising me as an existing customer and they didn't want to undercut their own renewal rate.)
As for locking people out who tweak ages, type of car, overnight parking etc.... based on my experience of ecommerce, this is the sort of thing a competitor might do in order to investigate Admiral's pricing policy. Perhaps because they want to undercut any quote Admiral gives by a few pounds.
For example, Amazon robots constantly gather prices from competitor websites, and then undercut them (allegedly!!!).
So perhaps the websites lock you out because they think you are a competitor's robot gathering data (or human spy from a competitor).0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 350.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.5K Spending & Discounts
- 243.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards