Car Insurance Cancellation Charges

mikey72

InsideInsurance wrote: »

It would, and I have to say if the insurer/ broker happens to buy it in, bundle different companies policies together etc really should be of little interest to the insured. Insurers buy in reinsurance too but that and its cancellation policy has nothing to do with the insured either.

I think this is one of the more ropey areas, I did have a quick look on the FOS site and couldnt see any published cases on the matter.

Presumably the result would be the introduction of cancellation fees which for the minor products like LE would almost certainly be equiv to the remaining premium but for Breakdown could represent a saving

Maybe, but I'd then be argueing if it was bought in one go, from one source, all the products where inter-dependent, and it's all been itemised on one policy, and one schedule, one fee should cover all the charges.

dunstonh

mikey72 wrote: »

Maybe, but I'd then be argueing if it was bought in one go, from one source, all the products where inter-dependent, and it's all been itemised on one policy, and one schedule, one fee should cover all the charges.

It all comes down to wording. If an additional product is clearly marked as non-refundable then complaining after the event that you are not getting a refund is asking a lot. Whereas if the documentation is weak and doesnt make it clear then the insured has a strong case.

mikey72

dunstonh wrote: »

It all comes down to wording. If an additional product is clearly marked as non-refundable then complaining after the event that you are not getting a refund is asking a lot. Whereas if the documentation is weak and doesnt make it clear then the insured has a strong case.

Wording doesn't really come into it. Treating the customer fairly overrides any one sided t&c's, and the FOS will decide on that.

dunstonh

mikey72 wrote: »

Wording doesn't really come into it. Treating the customer fairly overrides any one sided t&c's, and the FOS will decide on that.

Of course wording comes into it.

vaio

except where the wording conflicts with the "treat the punter fairly" ethos in which case the FOS will over turn it.

Noteworthy that the FOS are dealing with record numbers of cases and finding for the punter in >70% of cases.

mikey72

dunstonh wrote: »

Of course wording comes into it.

The insurer can write whatever they want to, but the only wording that comes into it will be the wording "your t&c's are unfair, change them, and recompense your customer" if the FOS decide to tell the insurer that.

dunstonh

except where the wording conflicts with the "treat the punter fairly" ethos in which case the FOS will over turn it.

Writing doesnt allow them to get away with unfair terms. However, that doesnt allow people to ignore written risk warnings or information on the expectation that wording doesnt matter.

Noteworthy that the FOS are dealing with record numbers of cases and finding for the punter in >70% of cases.

Strip PPI out and you find it is lower. Although PPI has now dropped to 68% from its 90% plus range.

mikey72

dunstonh wrote: »

Writing doesnt allow them to get away with unfair terms. However, that doesnt allow people to ignore written risk warnings or information on the expectation that wording doesnt matter...............

I think that's where I came in at post #4. If it's fair, the FOS will say that. If it's unfair, the insurer can write what they want, it won't be enforcable. I hope the op does take this one to the FOS. The question comes up reguarly, it would be good to know the answer one way or the other.

vaio

vaio wrote: »

.......Noteworthy that the FOS are dealing with record numbers of cases and finding for the punter in >70% of cases.

dunstonh wrote: »

........Strip PPI out and you find it is lower. Although PPI has now dropped to 68% from its 90% plus range.

Yep, and if you stripped out complaints about car & house insurance it would be lower still, I don't the the point you are making. The fact remains that even after a decade of the FOS & "treat the punter fairly" insurers are still getting it wrong in record numbers.

Maybe it's time for harsher penalties for transgressors?

west_one

Thanks for the interest in my post - I wanted to provide a final update in case it helps others in a similar situation. I wrote to the company a couple of times and finally proposed to them that I would accept the cancellation charge, but not the charges relating to supposedly additional components. I made the point that the policy was sold as a package, so I did not believe it was justified to then claim that some charges were not refundable (even though it does say that in the small print of the policy docs). Anyway, the company took about a month to respond to my last letter, and then they said "due to the delay in replying we have agreed to waive any outstanding charges". So a good result for me, but I do wonder if they were worried about the implications for other policy holders if I had taken the matter further.