Being charged £37.10 admin fee to cancel my home insurance policy. Is this common?

InsideInsurance

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

And you wonder why customers have little respect for insurers, if that's an example of their business decisions.

I disagreed and the MD of the business disagreed and internal audit ultimately reversed their decision but it does illustrate the point that what is advice is not clear cut

nobbysn*ts

InsideInsurance wrote: »

I disagreed and the MD of the business disagreed and internal audit ultimately reversed their decision but it does illustrate the point that what is advice is not clear cut

No, it's clear cut. It indicates the insurance business needs to be viewed as having totally idiotic rules, that change to suit circumstance, but still, that's why the FOS exist.

dunstonh

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

No, it's clear cut. It indicates the insurance business needs to be viewed as having totally idiotic rules, that change to suit circumstance, but still, that's why the FOS exist.

The FOS is one of the problems behind the creation of silly internal rules like this. The FCA sets the guidelines. The FOS is meant to follow those guidelines but it will often have a different view and you end up in a situation where the regulator and the ombudsman are singing from different hymn sheets.

Companies frequently review their processes based on complaint outcomes. The FOS turn non-advised into advised if there is a whiff of advice given or the customer is given the impression that advice is being given.

Insurance company call centre staff in general tend to be mostly made up of short term contract workers who are low knowledge and low skilled and have little buy in to the job they are doing. Sure there will be expcetions to that and some higher skilled individuals thrown into the mix but if you let loose low skilled people disinterested in their job who are told what not to say then you will end up with some very silly outcomes at times.

nobbysn*ts

Again, we'll have to agree to differ. You work in insurance, to you, the FOS is a problem. We don't work in insurance, to us the FOS is a much needed solution.

dunstonh

Again, we'll have to agree to differ.

So, what is your reason why you believe we get these quirks and strange issues when dealing with call centres?

You work in insurance, to you, the FOS is a problem.

I dont work in insurance. The FOS is not a problem to me. However, I do adapt my advice which results in me giving different advice to some people or treating them differently to others because of the FOS. So, it does impact on my business decisions.

to us the FOS is a much needed solution.

The FOS is not a solution for most people as most dont use it. However, all are paying for it. The funding of the FOS needs reform. Some consideration to its decision making needs changing as well. A read of FOS outcomes on complaints can sometimes leave you bewildered. The FOS is an important body that exists for a reason but it is not without flaws and consequences.

roonaldo

Not renewing policy = no fee
Cancelling policy = fee

The OP has misunderstood.

If the policy expires and not renewed it has expired!

trukdiver

roonaldo wrote: »

Not renewing policy = no fee
Cancelling policy = fee

The OP has misunderstood.

If the policy expires and not renewed it has expired!

If it's on auto renewal, you have to ring up to tell them not to renew. This could be interpreted by some people as "cancelling".

InsideInsurance

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

Again, we'll have to agree to differ. You work in insurance, to you, the FOS is a problem. We don't work in insurance, to us the FOS is a much needed solution.

The FOS is not a problem at all, and I do work in insurance, and you will find that for most large providers the majority of complaints that go to the FOS go in the favour of the insurer/bank etc

The issue is that you dont understand that it is legislation that divides businesses activity into advised and unadvised. You are licensed for one or the other and the rules of what level of training is required, what documentation is required etc is different depending on which of the two it is.

Needless to say if you are giving professional advice to people you need higher skilled people, you need to capture what information you got and a rational as to the advice you gave. This means more staff, higher paid staff and changes to IT systems. Obviously this ends up being higher premiums.

Reality is that most people think they are able to buy personal lines insurance without advice and simply want it as cheap as possible

roonaldo

trukdiver wrote: »

If it's on auto renewal, you have to ring up to tell them not to renew. This could be interpreted by some people as "cancelling".

Yes very true and there is no charge for not renewing a policy.

nobbysn*ts

InsideInsurance wrote: »

The FOS is not a problem at all, and I do work in insurance, and you will find that for most large providers the majority of complaints that go to the FOS go in the favour of the insurer/bank etc

The issue is that you dont understand that it is legislation that divides businesses activity into advised and unadvised. You are licensed for one or the other and the rules of what level of training is required, what documentation is required etc is different depending on which of the two it is.

Needless to say if you are giving professional advice to people you need higher skilled people, you need to capture what information you got and a rational as to the advice you gave. This means more staff, higher paid staff and changes to IT systems. Obviously this ends up being higher premiums.

Reality is that most people think they are able to buy personal lines insurance without advice and simply want it as cheap as possible

"for most large providers the majority of complaints that go to the FOS go in the favour of the insurer/bank etc " an easy statement to make, similarly, I think you'll find the majority actually go in favour of the customer, so as it's free to the customer, it's always worth complaining. "The issue is that you dont understand that it is legislation that divides businesses activity into advised and unadvised" Another sweeping statement, you appear to making a lot of assumptions in the thread, hopefully you aren't representative of the other insurance advocates who post defending the companies regardless?