Insurance cancelled, they now want large payment.

dacouch

vaio wrote: »

Yep, that's certainly the received wisdom but from a fairness pov I can certainly see an argument that "no refunds after a claim" is unfair.

Provision of cover has a "cost" to my insurer and if I decide to relieve them of that "cost" by cancelling then I struggle to see how it can be fair that whether a get a share of their savings depends on whether or not I've made a claim. It should be an equitable sharing of the saving (avoided "cost" to insurer)

If I was ever in that position it's certainly an argument I'd be thinking about running past the FOS

"17. outstanding premium instalments or premium refunds

Usually the policy is a yearly contract and the full premium is payable even if the vehicle is written-off during the year. If the policyholder paid the yearly premium up-front, no refund is due. If the policyholder was paying the yearly premium by monthly instalments, the outstanding instalments are still payable."

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/motor-valuation.html

I can't see the Ombudsman going against their publish guidance

Quentin

vaio wrote: »

Yep, that's certainly the received wisdom but from a fairness pov I can certainly see an argument that "no refunds after a claim" is unfair.

Provision of cover has a "cost" to my insurer and if I decide to relieve them of that "cost" by cancelling then I struggle to see how it can be fair that whether a get a share of their savings depends on whether or not I've made a claim. It should be an equitable sharing of the saving (avoided "cost" to insurer)

If I was ever in that position it's certainly an argument I'd be thinking about running past the FOS

i

Are you arguing this "unfairness" for real or just to justify your earlier ambiguous post regarding the fos ruling on refunds which confused colino?

If you are for real then be prepared for an immediate knock back from the fos if you ever make your pov on "fairness" complaint as the ombudsman's stated view on this is on record.

Your argument would seem to work the other way too- you think it unfair for insurers to be allowed to keep the full year's premium following a claim, you can also complain it's ridiculous of them to keep the full year's premium if you don't claim either!

vaio

Quentin wrote: »

.......Your argument would seem to work the other way too- you think it unfair for insurers to be allowed to keep the full year's premium following a claim, you can also complain it's ridiculous of them to keep the full year's premium if you don't claim either!

No, if they provide cover for the full year then they have earned the full premium. If they don't provide cover for the full year then they haven't earned the full premium and should refund the unearned portion

Quentin

vaio wrote: »

No, if they provide cover for the full year then they have earned the full premium. If they don't provide cover for the full year then they haven't earned the full premium and should refund the unearned portion

As I and others have tried to point out, you are fighting a losing battle by advising we should complain it is "unfair".

The FOS have already decreed they are happy that the full premium must be paid once a claim is made!

vaio

Yep, but FOS (and law generally) evolve over time and as new arguments & views are considered.

I personally can't see how, logically, allowing an insurer to keep premiums for periods when they aren't providing cover can be anything other than unfair

dacouch

vaio wrote: »

Yep, but FOS (and law generally) evolve over time and as new arguments & views are considered.

I personally can't see how, logically, allowing an insurer to keep premiums for periods when they aren't providing cover can be anything other than unfair

Maybe we need a Financial Services Ombudsman Ombudsman