Motorcycle Insurance cancelation charge

vax2002

You can not insure a vehicle, only on a trade policy, you insure the driver !

lisyloo

So maybe you "should" advise what people "shouldn't" do

In the normal course of the use of normal language I would say it's legitimate to say that it cannot be done in so much as it cannot legally be done without making a fradulent application/declaration. I think that's what most people (who are not trying to pick a fight) would understand by use of the words.
I think it's fair to assume that fraud is not on the agenda.

if you are in schoolmarm mode

I can't see anything to complain about in the original post/tone but if being a shoolmarm means educating and inspiring others then thank you for that :-) xx

weejonnie

This comes down to 'insurable interest' - normally only the person who stands to make a financial loss should the vehicle be damaged or stolen can insure it. The learner driver is insuring their liability.

With regards to the cnacellation fee - well motorcycle policies have very high short-term cancellation costs - a 25% refund after three months is not unusual - as insurers feel that motorcyclists will only want to ride the bike in the summer. The cancellation fee will have been declared in the terms of business issued by the broker which I assume you read before you took out the policy so you accepted that they would make the cancellation charge and thus should pay it.

vaio

weejonnie wrote: »

This comes down to 'insurable interest' - normally only the person who stands to make a financial loss should the vehicle be damaged or stolen can insure it. The learner driver is insuring their liability........

yep, but isn't it the case that insurable interest doesn't only include "pure" ££ financial losses, it also covers "benefits" so if someone loans me a car then that's a benefit I can insure. If it gets vandalised then I can claim or the owner can claim or we can both claim with the costs being split between the two insurers.

weejonnie wrote: »

......With regards to the cnacellation fee - well motorcycle policies have very high short-term cancellation costs - a 25% refund after three months is not unusual - as insurers feel that motorcyclists will only want to ride the bike in the summer. The cancellation fee will have been declared in the terms of business issued by the broker which I assume you read before you took out the policy so you accepted that they would make the cancellation charge and thus should pay it.

Yep again but obviously subject to "treat the punter fairly" regulation by the FOS whose general view is that refunds should be broadly pro rata plus an admin fee of up to £50

Quentin

vaio wrote: »

...Yep again but obviously subject to "treat the punter fairly" regulation by the FOS whose general view is that refunds should be broadly pro rata plus an admin fee of up to £50

£50 is virtually the minimum now.

£75 seems to be the current latest "norm".

vaio

I think £50 was the figure ruled "fair" by the FOS (back in 2006?) so maybe it's time for another ruling.

Give the decreasing level of service/increasing level of complaints plus increased automation/on-line management of policies by customers there is maybe a case for reducing it to say £30?

Not holding my breath though

weejonnie

There is no set figure - As I posted on a previous blog, the sole reason there is a cancellation fee is to grab as much money from the client as possible before the broker/ insurer loses them.

And I say that as an insurance broker.

dunstonh

There is no set figure but most appear to have taken the FOS publication that they felt £50 was justifiable as gospel that they can also charge £50. Seeing as that publication was over 5 years ago, it is no surprise to see some inflation movement.

I also disagree that the reason is to grab as much money as they can. The increase in explicit charging is largely to try and make up for lower premiums caused by quote comparison sites solely focused on cheapest price (and not quality). The more they can strip out the premium and charge elsewhere the higher up the quote comparison site they can be.

vax2002

They are a court case for a unfair penalty away from a spanking !

weejonnie

dunstonh wrote: »

There is no set figure but most appear to have taken the FOS publication that they felt £50 was justifiable as gospel that they can also charge £50. Seeing as that publication was over 5 years ago, it is no surprise to see some inflation movement.

I also disagree that the reason is to grab as much money as they can. The increase in explicit charging is largely to try and make up for lower premiums caused by quote comparison sites solely focused on cheapest price (and not quality). The more they can strip out the premium and charge elsewhere the higher up the quote comparison site they can be.

An interesting way to disagree with me - you say that they overcharge which surely is just to get as much out of the punter as they can. I agree that this is a result of them cutting prices and cover to the bone and I assume you have as jaundiced a few as I have about the 'race to the bottom' on comparative websites, but in any case it is hardly TCF as they would have great difficulty justifying said expenses.