Bennetts insurance charges

Lord_Baltimore

rs65 wrote: »

I am better informed.

You are indeed a very well informed doormat.

Aretnap wrote: »

Fair enough. If voting with your wallet doesn't work, I suggest posting some rants on Internet forums instead. That usually has insurers quaking in their boots.

I agree there is little that can be achieved with so much submissive opinion for insurers to exploit. But change won't happen unless there's a bigger rejection of the so-called admin fees; in your case though, please roll over and rejoin your place in the line below the parapet.

sithemadmonkey wrote: »

Lord Baltimore, this is the umpteenth post where you've been banging on about 'Market Forces', but ignore the fact every time that market forces are already at work - insurers who charge admin fees are doing perfectly well, which means the vast majority of their customers are perfectly happy (or at least complicit) with the admin fee-charging structure.

There are also other insurers who don't charge admin fees, so there is an alternative if you are unhappy with their practices, but please accept the fact that an awful lot of people really don't mind the principle, and are happy to have lower premiums as a result. Admin costs need to be met one way or another, and the only two choices are through premium or extra charges at the point of use. Both choices are currently available, and 'Market Forces' have determined that both are successful business models.

I'm glad to note that you're following my every word. I doubt however that your view represents the majority opinion. There are many contributors to this forum alone who aren't satisfied with being charged so-called admin fees so it's pretty obvious which is the preferred business model.

The times they are a-changin'; even for monkeys.

Lord_Baltimore

rudekid48 wrote: »

Well informed or not, a little more understanding of this individual case may help you to form a more balanced opinion. Bennets are not an Insurer, they are a Broker and from the original premium of £46 will have earned approx. £3.50 for writing the business. They can probably just about break even (if they're lucky) if they do not need to touch that policy again for the rest of the term. This is why - as others have said - the very cheap premiums will always have admin fees attached to them for any changes mid-term.

This is why you should always read the T's & C's before you buy to make sure that the product your are buying actually suits your needs.

I'm well aware that brokers and insurers would very much like to take their cut and have nothing else to do with the customer. They want to 'insure' you but they don't want you to claim or make adjustments. Well, when you run a business with massive profit potential, you have to ride with the risk that the ideal may not always be achievable.

This should not include hiding the real cost of the product you sell and bolstering it with supplementary fees when the going gets a little more resource hungry.

You sound like a banker. They also feel when they fail in business that someone else should bail them out.

vaio

rudekid48 wrote: »

Well informed or not, a little more understanding of this individual case may help you to form a more balanced opinion. Bennets are not an Insurer, they are a Broker and from the original premium of £46 will have earned approx. £3.50 for writing the business. They can probably just about break even (if they're lucky) if they do not need to touch that policy again for the rest of the term. This is why - as others have said - the very cheap premiums will always have admin fees attached to them for any changes mid-term.

This is why you should always read the T's & C's before you buy to make sure that the product your are buying actually suits your needs.

yep so if they make £3.50 for collecting & processing all the info required to set up the policy then £30 for an address change seems even less fair. Much less work but almost 10 times the income.

Agree that people should always read the T&C but remember that any terms that result in unfair treatment to the punter will likely be ruled out by the FOS

rudekid48

I hear what you're saying but to me it is just lazyness. Nothing is hidden, all of the potential charges are there to see at the point of purchase but people just get blinded by chasing the cheapest possible price and don't stop to think of the potential consequences.

Everyone cries foul, "rip-off", "scam" etc after the event but if they'd just taken 10 minutes to think it through at the point of purchase then there wouldn't be an issue.

But hey, it's always easier to blame everyone else for our own shortcomings isn't it....

vaio

Mid term changes are almost by definition unforeseen when taking out the policy so it seems reasonable to require insurers to only make a "fair" charge for the changes.

Given the insurance industry's track record for treating customers fairly is on a downward slope then what qualifies as "fair" will be assessed by the FOS almost irrespective of what the T&C say.

If the T&C say £100 (or £1000) admin fee how do I balance that against another policy where the premium is £50 higher but the admin fee is only £20?

It would need me to try and guess whether I'd be moving in the next year or whether my car would be written off and need to be replaced.

Surely it's easier and fairer all round to have the current system where insurers can make a fair charge for admin rather than expecting me to make guesses on what are essentially unknowable future events?

Lord_Baltimore

rudekid48 wrote: »

I hear what you're saying but to me it is just lazyness. Nothing is hidden, all of the potential charges are there to see at the point of purchase but people just get blinded by chasing the cheapest possible price and don't stop to think of the potential consequences.

Everyone cries foul, "rip-off", "scam" etc after the event but if they'd just taken 10 minutes to think it through at the point of purchase then there wouldn't be an issue.

But hey, it's always easier to blame everyone else for our own shortcomings isn't it....

You're not really suggesting that if you don't read all this at point of purchase, then you have "shortcomings"? And that assumes everyone has internet access...

If you take out a policy and then read the T&C's and find they are not acceptable, it will cost £30 to cancel the policy.

Foul, rip-off, scam.

rudekid48

Lord_Baltimore wrote: »

You're not really suggesting that if you don't read all this at point of purchase, then you have "shortcomings"? And that assumes everyone has internet access...

If you take out a policy and then read the T&C's and find they are not acceptable, it will cost £30 to cancel the policy.

Foul, rip-off, scam.

If you only read the terms of what you are buying AFTER you have paid for it then yes, you do have "shortcomings" and I have no sympathy for any whinging after the event :rotfl:

Internet access is irrelevant as it is not difficult to ask someone on the phone what their charges are BEFORE YOU PAY.

Anyway, like many people, the current system suits me as I get cheaper premiums due to the fact that I don't make any changes - why should I pay higher premiums just to fund those that do?

sithemadmonkey

Lord_Baltimore wrote: »

You're not really suggesting that if you don't read all this at point of purchase, then you have "shortcomings"? And that assumes everyone has internet access...

If you take out a policy and then read the T&C's and find they are not acceptable, it will cost £30 to cancel the policy.

Foul, rip-off, scam.

I hardly think twelve fairly short points (of which admin fees are #3 and #4) are too much to handle. The remainder of the page is completely unrelated to insurance.

If you don't have internet access (and so phone them up), then they will have to make you aware of the cancellation fee prior to taking out the policy. You are also told that the purchase is only based on limited disclosure of information, to which you must explicitly agree - if you are not happy with this, I don't think there's a broker on the planet that wouldn't agree to send out documentation for your perusal before concluding the sale.

Lord_Baltimore

rudekid48 wrote: »

Anyway, like many people, the current system suits me as I get cheaper premiums due to the fact that I don't make any changes - why should I pay higher premiums just to fund those that do?

Sigh, another doormat. The discussion is about the principle of supplementary charges not their submissive acceptance. You are happy with "the current system due to the fact that you don't make changes" and that must make for a delightful, if uneventful, life. But well done you.

However, the 'many people' you claim to represent are imo much less than those who will have to make changes at some time and who shouldn't have to pay insidious supplementary fees just to keep things cheap for you. It works both ways.

sithemadmonkey wrote: »

I hardly think twelve fairly short points (of which admin fees are #3 and #4) are too much to handle. The remainder of the page is completely unrelated to insurance..

There isn't a link to just the insurance T&C's.

sithemadmonkey wrote: »

I don't think there's a broker on the planet that wouldn't agree to send out documentation for your perusal before concluding the sale.

You don't think but you don't know. Besides who would want to be plagued forevermore with their follow up tele sales? And you're missing the point; there should be NO supplementary charges.

sithemadmonkey

Lord_Baltimore wrote: »

There isn't a link to just the insurance T&C's.

That's irrelevant. There are only 12 bullet points to the terms and conditions that you link to, yet somehow you think that this is too onerous to read before making a significant and important purchase.

Lord_Baltimore wrote: »

And you're missing the point; there should be NO supplementary charges.

In your eyes, perhaps. But not mine.