MSE News: Compare The Market reviews security following passwords probe

24567

Comments

  • FlameCloud wrote: »
    Have you started on the eggnog early in your household?
    Snowballs you mean? :snow_grin ... if you like, but actually no - I don't like the taste. Give me the cherry on top every time though :xmassign:
  • You know about insurance InsideInsurance. So do an awful number of people with nothing better to do in this sorry land where nothing useful is manufactured anymore except printed money for those that monopolise it.

    But do you know anything about relational databases and did you understand my suggestion of automated database queries as viruses?

    I think you are rather naive to believe your data is not sold without your permission.

    I know as almost as much about IT as I do insurance as leveraging the value in the hoards of data an insurer has is key to a profitable business in the mass market consumer lines products. Ok, I am not an ETL Developer or DBA but then I am not a Motor Underwriter either.

    I agree T&Cs can be moderately complex, but insurance etc is a moderately complex product but I disagree that if you do not agree to sell your details on that the large players are wholesale doing so. I've worked with many of them over the years and whilst most try and stretch what they can do none have simply broken what they are allowed to do.

    You clearly do not know about insurance, almost all policies are annual, the earning pattern for the premium is not linear for many products and therefore you cannot just consider it a monthly product. In many cases with smaller brokers its even a third party company providing the finance for it.

    Ok yes, before the days of cancellation fees then of cause insurers would tempt people away from their competitors with such statements but how is that relevant? I've seen gyms offering to waive their membership fees for the same length that your notice period is with your current gym, does that mean all of a sudden gyms dont have a notice period? Welcome to the world of a competitive market where companies will incentivise people to switch.

    Are you however really attacking insurance companies or aggregators? Aggregators are an interesting situation and its the one thing I am disappointed in losing contact with over the last couple of years whilst I've been working on things other than personal lines sales but they are a fairly inevitable development. Insurance in the eyes of the consumer is a distress purchase of a highly commoditised goods. People will switch insurers for less than £1 in premium difference and as illustrated by the Post Office and other "ethical" brands, there is little weight placed in anything but premium.

    It was fairly inevitable that as technology progressed the answer was to go beyond the broker model of a company testing multiple insurers and then selling the cheapest to the client to one where an intermediary simply shows all the available prices and allows the insurers/brokers to actually conduct the sale. An ultra light touch.

    Of cause in the early days of aggregators it was amusing talking to them where they wanted to create massive promiscuity between the client and their insurer/ broker but thought that they'd be a loyal customer to their aggregator and so the pennies margin made on a sale in year one would become a steady cashflow over the years as they keep coming back to recheck each year.

    Reality has been that once you open the tap and make people realise that shopping around is better they not only shop around insurers/ brokers but also aggregators and so aggregators started talking about life time value and other grown up ideas and looking at other ways of monetising their business. Needless to say they are sitting on a very valuable database of fairly indepth and current data. So yes they do make money out of it, just as dating sites do, forums and everyone else but again to those who've given permission. Granted that is normally lazy permission of people who dont read terms but most dont bother reading even simple terms.

    A former client's website have 1.5 pages of a moderate sized font key points - about 20 in all. As you are so up on IT I will go into a bit more detail for everyone else, if you looked at the average time from the server sending that page to receiving the "I Agree" button click back was under 3 seconds and that included the time for the page to load/ render, the person to scroll down, find and click the button. This was before the days of fibre or ADSL being common.

    Should a company make it conditional on doing business with you that they can share your details with whoever they please? Thats their choice, just as its your choice if you want to give them those details in the first place. You'll often find they are at the cheaper end of the market because your price is being subsidised by the resell value of what you are giving them.
  • VictimOfImpersonation
    VictimOfImpersonation Posts: 334 Forumite
    edited 24 December 2013 at 6:17PM
    A former client's website have 1.5 pages of a moderate sized font key points - about 20 in all. As you are so up on IT I will go into a bit more detail for everyone else, if you looked at the average time from the server sending that page to receiving the "I Agree" button click back was under 3 seconds and that included the time for the page to load/ render, the person to scroll down, find and click the button. This was before the days of fibre or ADSL being common.
    Best example of have seen that T&Cs on websites are not valid because the internet is an impossible medium over which to transact offer and acceptance of complex terms unless you are forced to go through them one by one like some CBT multiple choice compliance test. Seriously InsideInsurance, just because all internet businesses claim they get acceptance and do it via devices like the one you describe, you surely realise that is no contract? You just provided the evidence to show that it cannot be. The provider knows they have failed to communicate the T&Cs. It is impossible in 3 seconds. QED they do not form part of any contract. There is no contract that says "I am an aggregator. I will offer you an easy look at a list of top 20 motor insurance quotes if you let me use your personal data in ways you do not expect". I have used aggregator sites (thanks for reminding me what the industry calls them!), on and off but I have never purchased through them. They punted as middlemen for my business and they lost - it is unlawful for them to then take my personal data and exploit it for any further purpose.
    Should a company make it conditional on doing business with you that they can share your details with whoever they please? Thats their choice, just as its your choice if you want to give them those details in the first place. You'll often find they are at the cheaper end of the market because your price is being subsidised by the resell value of what you are giving them.
    If that is what they think they have contracted with their inadequate presentation and offer and acceptance of terms of a contract unrelated to the title of the system being accessed then they are mistaken. To deliberately rely on the assumption of such a flawed and missold side-contract and to especially go ahead and store irrelevant personal data on non-customers beyond the online insurance quotation comparison list transaction, and to manipulate it and sell it is unlawful.
  • Best example of have seen that T&Cs on websites are not valid because the internet is an impossible medium over which to transact offer and acceptance of complex terms unless you are forced to go through them one by one like some CBT multiple choice compliance test. Seriously InsideInsurance, just because all internet businesses claim they get acceptance and do it via devices like the one you describe, you surely realise that is no contract? You just provided the evidence to show that it cannot be. The provider knows they have failed to communicate the T&Cs. It is impossible in 3 seconds. QED they do not form part of any contract. There is no contract that says "I am an aggregator. I will offer you an easy look at a list of top 20 motor insurance quotes if you let me use your personal data in ways you do not expect". I have used aggregator sites (thanks for reminding me what the industry calls them!), on and off but I have never purchased through them. They punted as middlemen for my business and they lost - it is unlawful for them to then take my personal data and exploit it for any further purpose.If that is what they think they have contracted with their inadequate presentation and offer and acceptance of terms of a contract unrelated to the title of the system being accessed then they are mistaken. To deliberately rely on the assumption of such a flawed and missold side-contract and to especially go ahead and store irrelevant personal data on non-customers beyond the online insurance quotation comparison list transaction, and to manipulate it and sell it is unlawful.


    What is the relevance of the time spent on signing/ agreeing to a contract to if it is valid or not? Last time I was given a paper contract to sign there was no one there with a stopwatch to time me or even check if I've read it or not. The record of the fact that I put my name at the end is the relevant part and if I chose to do that without reading it is my own risk.

    I ordered a new bed recently from a store and they gave me the contract to sign and I actually read it. The salesman reckoned that I was the first person to actually read it in months before signing.

    Insurance online is just the same, its a button click rather than a wet signature these days but this has already been tested in law as acceptable and legislation that requires a wet signature is increasingly being changed to allow online signing (eg credit agreements)

    If people read them before agreeing or not is their own choice and they have to accept the risks if they dont. Of cause with financial services there is at least some additional Big Brother protection in the form of compulsory cooling off periods

    But you have "bought", in the loosest term rather than a strict legal definition, from an aggregator. An aggregator doesnt sell insurance, its service is to provide you a list of quotes. Its the exact same as this site, ironically also now owned by an aggregator, they simply provide you links through to other companies for you to buy products from.
  • VictimOfImpersonation
    VictimOfImpersonation Posts: 334 Forumite
    edited 24 December 2013 at 7:32PM
    What is the relevance of the time spent on signing/ agreeing to a contract to if it is valid or not?
    I sense that you and I, InsideInsurance, are not so far apart in what we know and what we have seen and endured, and that for example you lived through the double-glazing salesman era, and probably plenty of high pressure sales scandals since. What is "high pressure" sales if it is not denying the customer enough time to properly consider the contract by applying some "pressure" to move on? An clear example of exploiting pressure to move on is slipping a bunch of irrelevant terms in front of the customer before the customer can progress to the main thing that they came to look at and maybe buy.

    The highly questionable practice you highlighted is a bit like a doorman who when you arrive at the head of the queue after waiting diligently then lands on you "Actually you only come in to this nightclub if you sign in. Just sign here." And then you find at the end of the night that you signed a piece of paper that was thrust under your nose as you were mid-stride into the nightclub that entitled the nightclub to publish photographs of you in the nightclub in less than sober condition under the headline "Our customers have a smashing time, or get smashed, we don't care"
    But you have "bought", in the loosest term rather than a strict legal definition, from an aggregator. An aggregator doesnt sell insurance, its service is to provide you a list of quotes. Its the exact same as this site, ironically also now owned by an aggregator, they simply provide you links through to other companies for you to buy products from.
    Yes and again you have provided the evidence that the intention of the ONLY contract between customer and aggregator is that they provide a list of insurance quotes to the customer and if their links are used to buy actual insurance then it is expected the aggregator will earn an introductory commission. There is NO contract for "selling" your own personal data as the price for offering them the chance to earn introductory commission. It is a trick and that is not a contract, it is an unlawful deception.
  • I sense that you and I, InsideInsurance, are not so far apart in what we know and what we have seen and endured, and that for example you lived through the double-glazing salesman era, and probably plenty of high pressure sales scandals since. What is "high pressure" sales if it is not denying the customer enough time to properly consider the contract by applying some "pressure" to move on? An clear example of exploiting pressure to move on is slipping a bunch of irrelevant terms in front of the customer before the customer can progress to the main thing that they came to look at and maybe buy.

    The insurer in question had their T&Cs between the Price screen and Payment, not sure what high pressure you think there is there? What are they so desperate to see that stops them reading 20 bullet points?

    I am sorry, I dont agree with a nanny state, and the majority of people who are competent enough to use the internet to get a quote are also competent enough to choose if to read the key points or not. Obviously if they choose not to then it really is a rod they've created for their own back. For those not mentally capable of understanding contracts there is already protection in law for them.
    Yes and again you have provided the evidence that the intention of the ONLY contract between customer and aggregator is that they provide a list of insurance quotes to the customer and if their links are used to buy actual insurance then it is expected the aggregator will earn an introductory commission. There is NO contract for "selling" your own personal data as the price for offering them the chance to earn introductory commission. It is a trick and that is not a contract, it is an unlawful deception.

    No, that is YOUR intention but a business typically will have a wide intention. You go with the intent to buy a new car and the salesman will try and sell you a service plan, GAP insurance, minor damage cover etc. Likewise you go to buy something from a website and they will try and get you signed up to their mailing list either with an opt in or opt out.

    Aggregators are no different, you buy their service and they try and get you to sign up to their & "carefully selected partners" mailing list either with an opt in or opt out. If you dont want this "service" and only want your quotes then you chose the option that excludes this or if it is conditional on the provision of the service then you chose if you want the service at all or not. Just as I cant go to John Lewis and buy a washing machine without a motor, its a package, you take it all or leave it all.
  • I think you miss the point InsideInsurance and are relying far too much on the suggestion that I actually did business with an aggregator. I have never paid money via an aggregator or caused them to receive introductory commission based on my purchase of anything they introduced.

    Nor have I ever even got close to buying via an aggregator (price comparison website) and pulled out at the payment stage which is what you are urging is the reasonable juncture at which your beloved T&Cs might get presented to me and satisfied with a reasonable time to consider reading them.

    What I have done in the last couple of years is use the aggregator site merely to indicate to me who might be the best. Then I have cleared cookies and researched the insurers own website, and finally cleared cookies again and used Quidco to get a discount when I made the buying decision with of course just one insurer. It turns out not to be any of the five who searched my CRA record.

    Can you explain what is possibly right about that?
  • Money is not the only method of payment in this world, a valid contract can still exist without money changing hands.

    All of those insurers and aggregators who search CRAs tell you before they do it. If you chose not to read the T&Cs and plough on regardless that is your own responsibility. Websites often have more than one set of terms and present the relevant ones at the relevant stage.

    Take Direct Line, on the very first page of their quote system before you have actually submitted any information it states, in bold:
    We will also obtain information about you from credit reference agencies to check your credit status and identity. The agencies record our enquiries but your credit standing will not be affected.

    How is it possibly right? Because they tell you before they do it and you get a choice of if you proceed or not. If you dont want them to know if you're a bad debtor or not you simply have to accept the fact you cannot obtain quotes/ use the services of those sites that tell you its a condition of their services.
  • chanz4
    chanz4 Posts: 10,867
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post Xmas Saver!
    Forumite
    I pay yearly, I dont give permission for the searches but the comparison sites dont give an opt out. Experian love it as it makes them money
    Don't put your trust into an Experian score - it is not a number any bank will ever use & it is generally a waste of money to purchase it. They are also selling you insurance you dont need.
  • chanz4 wrote: »
    I pay yearly, I dont give permission for the searches but the comparison sites dont give an opt out. Experian love it as it makes them money

    As stated, some insurers use it for pricing the policy itself not just about paying in installments.

    the opt out is to not use their services and only use insurers that dont do CRA searches if you dont want them to do one.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.5K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.8K Life & Family
  • 247.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards