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

Quentin

olly300 wrote: »

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

They believe "may" equals "might" ......

Where did you get this from?

principlecounts

dunstonh wrote: »

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.

That maybe true if Swinton are playing the strategy, where if only a few complain, they give the customer a refund. I've seen a few cases now where those who have rightfully challenged Swinton have done so successfully. Sadly the majority get too scared and then give into the hands of their legal threats, therefore it pays for Swinton to act as they are doing currently. For example, their first response to my cancellation letter, was just to issue a £50 charge, that is just incorrect according to their own terms and something they seem to be doing as standard when customers want to cancel. Therefore, when I said I would go to the FOBs about this, I doubt they just backed down not only because it wasn't worth them fighting. They know they would lose the case also and perhaps prevent them from their status quo as they currently do. Robbers!

The issue about whether Swinton's insurance renews of not (when paying direct debit) I'll leave this to the legal experts, but I think Swinton have left it too wish-washy, and I think a few others agree. When I said I would go to the FOBs about this, I get the impression, they were unsure themselves. You only have to compare and contrast the clarity of Swinton's own terms against a competitors, the AA.

Swinton:
"Also, if you are paying by direct debit, Swinton may (but accepts no responsibility to) arrange to renew your policy automatically if, prior to your renewal date, contact between us has not been successful or you have failed to confirm whether or not you wish to proceed. We would do this for your protection. If you do not wish us to take this action, please tell us at any time up to 7 days before your renewal date. If we do not hear from you to the contrary, we will treat it that you agree to this."

Comment: To the customer, there is no definite they will actually renew the the policy. Swinton can equally say they haven't done it, which I am guessing they using it to cover their backs in other situations.

AA:
If you’re paying through our instalment account over 12 months, at the end of each 12-month period we will write to confirm if we can automatically renew your cover. If we are able to do this, unless we hear from you, your cover will automatically be renewed to the authorised insurer as specified in our letter. We will send you an important notice of any changes that apply to your policy booklet.

Comment: Very clear what the intentions are here. Enough said.

dunstonh wrote: »

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

Sure, but I'm not debating that here. I'm debating the principles of Swinton, and the result of my complaint suggests Swinton's principles are elsewhere.

Faith177

No they probably figured it's easier to give you a refund than pay the FOS fee (about £500 i think now) if you put the complaint to them.

The company get charged that even if the FOS rule in their favour.

olly300

Quentin wrote: »

Where did you get this from?

I can't be bothered to dig into my old letters but I have correspondence between myself and an FSA lawyer about an Admiral Group policy I took out. The FSA got them to agree to change their policy wording due to my complaint.

Auto-renew issues were also on the FSA website at the time which is why I contacted them after complaining to Admiral Group who ignored my complaint.

principlecounts

Faith177 wrote: »

No they probably figured it's easier to give you a refund than pay the FOS fee (about £500 i think now) if you put the complaint to them.

The company get charged that even if the FOS rule in their favour.

Sounds like a flawed system.

magpiecottage

principlecounts wrote: »

Sounds like a flawed system.

I think every independent financial, mortgage or insurance adviser in the country would agree with you on that.

The problem is that FOS pays its adjudicators a kickback from the fee just for picking the case up and looking at it - even if they conclude that FOS is not allowed to consider the complaint.

Once upon a time people used to be able to put a clamp on your car and hold you to ransom just for parking on their land.

FOS charges £500 not only if the business has done nothing wrong but even to tell it that it has no case to answer.

So guess what - all businesses have to factor that cost into what they charge everybody.

So we all have to pay for this.