AA breakdown cover mis-sold / mis-selling

fredy5

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

Which page are you looking at?
You may not be able to post links to this forum,

From this EU breakdown page:
theaa dot com/breakdown-cover/european-breakdown-cover.jsp

I clicked on RHS where it says countries covered... all of the UK and EU are yellow.

With hind site and careful rereading, it is of course discernible that cover does not include the UK. But from reading the bullet pointed cover summary and FAQs and bearing in mind this was not cheap about 150 quid, it doesn;'t seem right not to include UK. After all, u can by 2 weeks cover for 20-30 quid and UK+EU cover from Quoteline direct for £59. I only chose AA as I thought i should 'play it safe'. Bad call.

JimmyTheWig

fredy5 wrote: »

Bought cover (online) as was going to EU on hols (didn't use it tho). I was on my way to work and ran out of fuel

Unfortunately for you the chances are that people will see this as you took out European breakdown cover because you were going away and then want to get your money back because you didn't need the cover while you were there.

fredy5

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

Unfortunately for you the chances are that people will see this as you took out European breakdown cover because you were going away and then want to get your money back because you didn't need the cover while you were there.

Maybe. But I'm not audacious enough to do that.

fredy5

InsideInsurance wrote: »

I do agree that I would "assume" that the UK is covered and I possibly wouldnt look at the map etc but that is very much user error!

OK, but I got the impression the AA know this is not perfectly clear, but that suits them well, as they get loads of people going on hols for 2 wks and paying a sky high price for cover that lasts just 2 weeks (as it doesn't apply in UK).

dunstonh

As you bought online then you were not mis-sold. No-one sold it to you. You bought it without being sold to. That reduces the level of consumer protection you get. However, AA still have a duty to make their documentation clear. So, if the documentation is not clear then you have a case. H

However, you have a responsibility to read the documentation they supply. It appears from your comments that you thought you didnt think it necessary to read the documentation.

From the links posted above which show the pages on the website and the policy document (which is also available online), it is clear that they do show the geographical areas.

Phoned AA and 2 people said this was a common mistake. If it is common, then that means I am not stupid. Hurray!!!!!

Failure to read documentation is a common error. It just means there are a lot of stupid people. It does not mean the AA are in the wrong.

Ultimately, if you have complained and they have rejected your complaint and you disagree then you can go to the FOS and ask them. However, the FOS are going to look at the documentation and see if they are agree with you or not. The fact you didnt read what was available will not be a valid reason for complaint. The fact that many people dont read what they should is not a valid reason for complaint.

JimmyTheWig

fredy5 wrote: »

Maybe. But I'm not audacious enough to do that.

I'm not saying that you are.
But many others are.

Look at all the people who are now reclaiming PPI. I appreciate that much of it was mis-sold, but the main reason many are now claiming it back is really that they didn't use it.
There was a thread from someone a few months back complaining that they weren't getting all their PPI premiums back because the policy had paid out!

Because people like this exist, I would think that the chances are you will be lumped in with them.
You could go down the Small Claims route and try to get your money back. But I personally wouldn't bank on the court believing you.

JimmyTheWig

fredy5 wrote: »

OK, but I got the impression the AA know this is not perfectly clear, but that suits them well, as they get loads of people going on hols for 2 wks and paying a sky high price for cover that lasts just 2 weeks (as it doesn't apply in UK).

As per dunstonh, you need to stop using the term "mis-sold" as that has quite a precise meaning and this doesn't fit that meaning.
You are claiming that it was wrongly described.
I would have thought that was a matter for Trading Standards.

JimmyTheWig

dunstonh wrote: »

The fact you didnt read what was available will not be a valid reason for complaint.

Would (and I'm not necessarily saying it was in this case) the fact that something relevant was tucked away in smallprint be a valid reason for complaint?

fatbadger2

dunstonh wrote: »

Failure to read documentation is a common error. It just means there are a lot of stupid people. It does not mean the AA are in the wrong.

Failure to read terms and condition... a fairly critical bit of information, along the lines of "you are not covered for trips within the UK" would both be clear and helpful in selecting the correct policy.

I would not have read the T+C booklet, like 95% of the population wouldn't have. If that was always required in these circumstances, then it would take several years to select the correct ins policy from the multitude on offer. The general public rely on honestly and clearly worded summaries.

dunstonh

Would (and I'm not necessarily saying it was in this case) the fact that something relevant was tucked away in smallprint be a valid reason for complaint?

A key fact would be expected to be more prominent than a minor fact.

In theory everything in the T&C is important as the T&Cs are largely built up from past complaints and legal action. The problem is that this makes the T&C longer and longer and less likely to be read. So, you then get shorter summary documentation or explanations covering key areas but then you will get people complaining about what is key and what isnt.

A guess if the FOS were to look at it would be that they wouldnt care about the T&C but would look at the webpages involved in detailing the product and the application pages going through the process of buying.