Should you be getting money back when downgrading a policy ?

Medic999

Took a policy out 2.5 months ago, which was for insurance fully comp and including commuting, and paid for it in 1 go for the whole year.

Due to a change of use of the car i won't need commuting any more and also want to change it from fully comp to just 3rd party, fire & theft.

Rang up elephant, spoke to someone (who struggled with the English language...) who said she processed my request, but the system shows up i won't get a refund for downgrading my policy.

When getting the policy i was given a set price, which then went up when i added commuting etc, so surely it should work the other way round as well shouldn't it ?

They're happy to keep my money, but now only give me a lesser product in return for it, so i tol them not to change anything.

Is this common practice for insurance companies or should i try and speak to a manager or something?

smashingyour...

Third party is often more expensive than comprehensive. Why did you switch?

OddballJamie

It's the same story when you change your car or move address, they know they can get away with removing the 'new customer discount' when they re-quote because you're past the cooling off period.

Medic999

smashingyour... wrote: »

Third party is often more expensive than comprehensive. Why did you switch?

Really ? I allways thought comprehensive was more expensive as they have to pay out for both you and the other party if you cause a crash.

Reason i want to downgrade policy is that it's a weekend/fun car only but it needs a full engine rebuild now which will take several months and it'll be off the road for the winter anyway so was seeing if i could downgrade it as i won't be commuting or using it for a long time.

Strider590

Medic999 wrote: »

Really ? I allways thought comprehensive was more expensive as they have to pay out for both you and the other party if you cause a crash.

Nope, usually it's more costly.... I'm not sure why.

BUT, it might be that statistics show TPF&F drivers as more likely to be involved in accidents OR it could be something to do with these crash for cash scammers.

vaio

as it sounds like it's going to be off the road until next summer maybe think about not insuring it at all?

Strider590

vaio wrote: »

as it sounds like it's going to be off the road until next summer maybe think about not insuring it at all?

But don't forget to declare SORN with the money grabbing DVLA.

Rolandtheroadie

TPFT always cheapest for me. And the OH. And other family members.

Going third party only is normally highest in my experience.

OP, the rise may have been part admin fee, any refund may also have been wiped out by an admin fee.

Aretnap

Medic999 wrote: »

Really ? I allways thought comprehensive was more expensive as they have to pay out for both you and the other party if you cause a crash.

If people who tick box (a) make more and bigger claims than people who tick box (b) the people who tick box (a) will be charged more. Why they make more claims than people who tick box (b) isn't actually all that important - nobody said it had to make sense.

But if I had to guess I'd say that people who take out third party only insurance tend to be people who aren't that bothered about their cars - and drive like they don't care too much if they have an accident. Hence they tend to account for more third party claims, which dwarfs the saving the insurers make from not having to pay out for their own (mostly cheap, knackered and easily replaced) cars.

FWIW last time I looked into it my quotes came out something in the region of: third party only £500, third party fire and theft £200, fully comp £400. Make of that what you will.

vaio

Aretnap wrote: »

..... nobody said it had to make sense........

Yep, old driver with pretty much scrap value old fiesta and the cheapest way was fully comp but with a £1000 excess

InsideInsurance

Mass market insurance works by statistics not logic

In theory you have a couple of million customers for a fair number of years which represent a wide spectrum of people, vehicles, geographies etc. You can then cut the data along each of the rating factors and see how moving just one element impacts the claims experience.

In a perfect world this would work perfectly and you could isolate each variable. Reality is that there isnt an even distribution so if you look at the claims experience of everyone that ownes a Saxo VTS because its so heavily skewed to young drivers the results are always worse.

TPFT has the same issue, its sub prime space and so poor claims experience and high premiums