Mis-sold contents cover

[Deleted User]

OP might have some chance of a refund if this happened recently. However, two years down the line, I'd say the chances of any refund are nil.

Paulaviki

pyuicd wrote: »

Thanks for the reply. I appreciate I haven't helped myself here by taking my eye off the ball. I will have to dig through all the paperwork. If i did receive a letter regarding home insurance from the insurer, I would have scanned it and assumed it was for my buildings cover i had purchased.

I would look at the paperwork. If you took the insurance out over the phone you could always find out if the calls were recorded. The only way you'd have any come back is if you can listen to the calls or get a transcript which confirms what you asked for. But if it was done via the EA this seems unlikely.

roonaldo

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

OP might have some chance of a refund if this happened recently. However, two years down the line, I'd say the chances of any refund are nil.

Yes I agree, I suspect the OP has looked at the cost of it and as because they havent made a claim it must surely be mis-sold because all insurance is bad (according to CMC's and some elements of this website)

pyuicd

roonaldo wrote: »

Lets be honest you weren't mis-sold this, everyone has a need for some contents cover even if its just to replace carpets, kitchen and curtains or even windows?? If there was a fire, how are you going to replace everything? Contents cover is more than just insuring a TV or jewellery.

You did agree to it if there is a direct debit going from your account as you authorised this! You would also have been given a Key Facts Illustration and policy insurance relating to each policy you took out.

No one needs contents insurance, the expected return on insurance is negative, otherwise insurance companies would not make a profit. If you are a risk taker, it is rational NOT to purchase it. That is simple economics (textbook, not opinion). If you are risk averse it is rational to purchase it. I am a risk taker, ergo I would not want contents insurance. There are plenty of people who chose not to purchase it. I live above ground floor so no chance of flooding, i have no ground floor windows and a strong upvc front door so slim chance of burglary, and I have working smoke detectors. When i moved in the property was a shell in need of complete renovation with nothing inside for months. Furthermore i was conscious that while i urgently needed buildings cover to get approved for a mortgage (which I was in the process of applying for) there was no such compulsion to get further cover until i needed it.

Just because you would have purchased contents cover doesn't mean everyone else would. I do not appreciate you calling me a liar, i most certainly am not.

roonaldo

I don't think you understand, insurance is to cover unforeseen events.

You have an insurable risk so there is a need there for insurance. But you keep saying you dont need it but you took it, you did authorise it and paid it for 2 years. From a neutral point of view it doesn't stack up.

[Deleted User]

roonaldo wrote: »

You have an insurable risk so there is a need there for insurance. But you keep saying you dont need it but you took it, you did authorise it and paid it for 2 years. From a neutral point of view it doesn't stack up.

OP needs to realise that this is how the Bank will view any complaint. It is not forum users he has to convince..

pyuicd

roonaldo wrote: »

I don't think you understand, insurance is to cover unforeseen events.

No, that is pretty simple. You don't seem to understand that some people are willing to take the unforeseen risk. Many companies are self insured, many people drive their cars third party only. Life is full of unforeseen risks, you can't insure them all. Here is a little background reading for you.

Risk Aversion

roonaldo wrote: »

You have an insurable risk so there is a need there for insurance. But you keep saying you dont need it but you took it, you did authorise it and paid it for 2 years. From a neutral point of view it doesn't stack up.

Look guys, I don't want to go in circles here. I have been daft by not noticing this a LONG time ago, but i'm being a little defensive here because you have accused me of dishonesty. Its easy to be cynical from a distance but I am telling you the genuine truth.

I believe the estate agent had me sign all the forms at once so that if i wanted the contents cover she could just send it off. She probably did have my signature on the insurance form, but i did tell her i was only going to go for the buildings insurance. Its as simple as that. By all means tell me I have no chance of claiming, that's fair enough, that response is helpful as i need to be realistic.

[Deleted User]

pyuicd wrote: »

I have been daft by not noticing this a LONG time ago, but i'm being a little defensive here because you have accused me of dishonesty. Its easy to be cynical from a distance but I am telling you the genuine truth.

As I said earlier, it's not forum users you need to convince. From a neutral perspective, it looks like you have no chance of any refund because you have no evidence to back up any of your accusations of wrong-doing.

In future, I suggest you immediately and carefully read the policy terms of any insurance you purchase. Realising two years on that you have been paying "extra" for insurance you apparently didn't know you had is not a legitimate complaint.

pyuicd

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

As I said earlier, it's not forum users you need to convince.

Posters shouldn't make accusations of lying and expect someone not to defend themselves.

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

In future, I suggest you immediately and carefully read the policy terms of any insurance you purchase. Realising two years on that you have been paying "extra" for insurance you apparently didn't know you had is not a legitimate complaint.

There are two separate policies here, it has nothing to do with terms and conditions. I haven't paid 'extra' I have actually paid for two policies. Surely them starting over two weeks apart is an absurdity that implies that I did not agree to this insurance at the same time i took out the buildings insurance, otherwise they would have started at the same time and been a single payment. And it makes no logical sense for me to ask for insurance on buildings and contents to start on different dates. Does that not seem very odd to you?

[Deleted User]

pyuicd wrote: »

' I have actually paid for two policies.

That makes the fact that you continued to pay for the extra policy for two years even more suspect. Don't you ever check your statements?

Have you attempted to complain to the Bank yet? I'm sure they'll find your link to "Risk Aversion" as fascinating as I did.;)

In the absence of any evidence to support your complaint, the Bank will look at suitability-unless your house was empty all this time I think you'll find that they will reject your complaint.