Swinton Home Insurance, £50 Cancellation - I owe you nothing!

principlecounts

dunstonh wrote: »

If you didnt want it then why did you let them renew it? Their letter clearly states what you need to do if you dont want to renew. So, why did you not follow those instructions?

To be frank, I'm doing this on behalf of someone else, so in the first place, a cancellation earlier should be ideal to avoid this farce. I don't dispute that.

But I am disputing two things here:

- cancellation charge is incorrect.

- their renewal is not stated as mandatory.

I'm drafting to Ombudsman now. :T

I'm surprised how many sympathisers there are with the insurance industry, what happened to the fighting spirit.

Quentin

principlecounts wrote: »

But I am disputing two things here:

- cancellation charge is incorrect.

- their renewal is not stated as mandatory.

I'm drafting to Ombudsman now......

You need to exhaust the swinton complaints procedure before escalating to the FOS.

The advice you see as coming from insurance industry sympathisers is sound.

If you wanted sympathy, or a rant, then try the rant forum.

The messengers are trying to help, don't simply shoot them!

principlecounts

Quentin wrote: »

You need to exhaust the swinton complaints procedure before escalating to the FOS.

The advice you see as coming from insurance industry sympathisers is sound.

If you wanted sympathy, or a rant, then try the rant forum.

That I will be doing, thanks.

principlecounts

Edit: Yes I do appreciate and everyone has been helpful.

Slowhand

principlecounts wrote: »

Edit: Yes I do appreciate and everyone has been helpful.

Can you see the 'Thanks' button after every post?

principlecounts

Well Well, to the majority of you out there who thought Swinton were acting within their "clearly" stipulated T&Cs, I am proud to say has proven to be utter !!!!!!!!.

I've now had a reply from Swinton and they have reduced an £82 cancellation charge (i.e. £50 cancellation charge + £19.34 discount charges + outstanding balance £12.66) down to £7, which is a nice single figure I expected for the cover that was briefly provided during the 'cooling off' period.

The moral of story is if you think your right and stand a chance, give it everything you got, get your argument written on paper and show them why you're right. Get opinions and thoughts, but as I've experienced in here, don't be put off by people who think you don't stand a chance, at the end of the day principle counts. Bit cheesy - but worked for me : - )

Keep on fighting. :money:

olly300

principlecounts wrote: »

Well Well, to the majority of you out there who thought Swinton were acting within their "clearly" stipulated T&Cs, I am proud to say has proven to be utter !!!!!!!!.

I actually was one who disagreed with the majority as I took another insurance group to task on a clause that included the word "may".

While others on here believe "may" means "will" the FSA doesn't agree.

They believe "may" equals "might" and so is an unfair contract term if used in auto-renewal clauses due to it's ambiguity.

This is more important for car insurance as people can find themselves pulled over by the police due to an insurance company not bothering to auto-renew their insurance.

principlecounts

@olly - yes you were one of the few, and it didn't go unnoticed. :beer:

Interesting point about the pulling over scenario.

dunstonh

While others on here believe "may" means "will" the FSA doesn't agree.

The FSA hasnt shown any signs of any concerns.

I suspect what has happened here is that Swinton have decided to back down as its cheaper than argue the case.

at the end of the day principle counts.

Absolutely. The principle was that you were at fault for not reading your paperwork.

magpiecottage

From experience with FOS, it normally interprets ambiguity in a contract against whoever drafted it - as to the courts. With an insurance contract will inevitably mean the insurer.

That said, I think that not cancelling until after the contract renews made the OP's position weak.

However, as DunstonH says, it was cheaper to give in than fight.