Sold Car Hire Excess which was not even relevant to my car hire.

Quentin

You seem to have agreed with Allianz that you had read them!

They wouldn't have sold you the policy until you read them (or lied about having read and understood them).

quichelorraine

Yes, thanks for your ever so helpful comments. There is always one isn't there.

Quentin

As long as you see your problem over this, I don't mind your sarcasm.

But try a complaint, you have nothing to lose. (The other route (court action) open to you will cost you, and realistically you shouldn't be throwing money at this!)

quichelorraine

I stated in my first post that I saw my problem over it and I asked nicely for people not to go that route because I was aware, and so there was no point doing so. I was asking for advice from my situation as it is now, not, 'well you should have done this', because as stated I am aware of what I should have done. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

And well yes I shall complain and see where it gets me.

Quentin

OK.

You didn't just not read them, (not going on about that).

What you did was to agree with them that you had read them (and understood them)!

That's what reduces your argument somewhat.

dacouch

FlameCloud wrote: »

It isn't misselling but the fos expects insurers to highlight key terms or exclusions. It's worth a complaint to the insurers and then a referral to the fos if they won't accept it.

If you purchased cover via their website which has the offer of reading T&Cs along with an acceptance button you've read the T&Cs you have more likely miss bought than miss sold as there's no real interaction for advice.

Flamecloud could be onto your possible chance of a result, it will need an "Official Complaint" and then likely onto the Ombudsman (They take a very long time) who might agree this clause should have been highlighted to you.

dunstonh

quichelorraine wrote: »

The money advice service says this about misselling:

The person who advises you to buy must recommend something suitable for your needs.

Which they clearly didn't do.

Which is the case on advised cases but not on non-advised cases.

There is still some requirements to be met but non-advised cases have a lower level than advised cases.

rs65

quichelorraine wrote: »

And well yes I shall complain and see where it gets me.

Is this for a refund of £9.98?

graymac

I recently hired a car with Euopcar and a pop up advert from Allianz appeared offering excess insurance. I had never used them before but since it was so convenient I bought insurance to cover one day car hire. I subsequently had to make a claim which has been refused because I did not prebook minimum 2 nights accommodation. Apparently this is stipulated in their terms and conditions which I did not read largely since I was booking via Europcar and I had booked excess insurance before with other companies and T &C,s are very similar and never have stipulated I have to have accommodation prebooked.
How can Allianz target UK residents via Europcar UK and offer a product that is totally unsuitable.Is it reasonable to expect that having rented a car for one day a customer will then prebook 2 nights accommodation and then purchase excess insurance covering the one day rental? Nobody would buy their insurance if they explained this requirement before purchase that's why it is hidden in T&C,s.