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

dunstonh

similarly, I think you'll find the majority actually go in favour of the customer,

Depends on the class of business. For advice related the majority go with the firm. For some insurance related, the majority is significantly with the firm.

so as it's free to the customer, it's always worth complaining.

Its not free. It has no explicit charge but firms recover the cost of consumers using the FOS and the FOS levies by increasing their product charges. Any genuine complaint that does not get resolved correctly should be referred to the FOS. However, the FOS shouldnt be used as blackmail tool or a second bite of the cherry on complaints which have little basis for existing.

hopefully you aren't representative of the other insurance advocates who post defending the companies regardless?

Hopefully, you are not one of these people that fails to see balance and accuses anyone of trying to present balance as being biased.

InsideInsurance

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

"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?

Unfortunately for you I am not just making a statement but quoting facts. See http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/complaints-data.html and follow the links

To give some examples:

RBS - 67% of cases won by company
Admiral - 68% won by company
RSA - 68% won by company
Co-op - 77% won by company
Yorkshire building Society - 96% won by the company
Legal and General - 70% won by the company

Seem to support the argument that for big companies they win more cases than they lose at the ombudsman. Barclays is a notable exception with them only winning 23% and that aint surprising with their complaints handling abilities.

Just because most lose when going to the FOS doesnt mean its not worth doing, I never said or implied that. Neither does it mean the FOS is a bad thing or unnecessary. Of cause the FOS is funded by you and I so it is robbing peter to pay paul to advocate that people should take frivolous complaints to the ombudsman as ultimately its all of us that pick up that bill

Quentin

dunstonh wrote: »

However, the FOS shouldnt be used as blackmail tool or a second bite of the cherry on complaints which have little basis for existing

Why continually post this on a money saving website?


Funny, you don't find your "authoritative" warning in any of the FOS literature.


The FOS only take on genuine complaints anyway. Frivolous ones they won't pursue.


So how is the average punter to know if his complaint has "little basis" without putting it to the FOS?

nobbysn*ts

In the hope the serious ones will miss out. As you say, frivolous ones won't be pursued.

nobbysn*ts

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Unfortunately for you I am not just making a statement but quoting facts. See http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/complaints-data.html and follow the links

To give some examples:

RBS - 67% of cases won by company
Admiral - 68% won by company
RSA - 68% won by company
Co-op - 77% won by company
Yorkshire building Society - 96% won by the company
Legal and General - 70% won by the company

Seem to support the argument that for big companies they win more cases than they lose at the ombudsman. Barclays is a notable exception with them only winning 23% and that aint surprising with their complaints handling abilities.

Just because most lose when going to the FOS doesnt mean its not worth doing, I never said or implied that. Neither does it mean the FOS is a bad thing or unnecessary. Of cause the FOS is funded by you and I so it is robbing peter to pay paul to advocate that people should take frivolous complaints to the ombudsman as ultimately its all of us that pick up that bill

You're quite selective in your choice of companies. Take Yorkshire Building Society, and bearing in mind this forum is Insurance and Life Assurance, and this is clearly an insurance question, you chose a company that has had "no cases or there were fewer than 30 cases and the percentage would not be statistically meaningful." Swop it for Bewiser, and we'll quote their 76% loss, in insurance, or Domestic and General, 58%, Homecare, 58%, MBNA, 96% for insurance complaints.

dunstonh

Why continually post this on a money saving website?

Because it is a discussion board and you are not in a position to stop discussion.

The FOS only take on genuine complaints anyway. Frivolous ones they won't pursue.

The FOS is extremely liberal and rarely treats complaints as frivolous.

Quentin

dunstonh wrote: »

Because it is a discussion board and you are not in a position to stop discussion.



The FOS is extremely liberal and rarely treats complaints as frivolous.

Unlike you, I'm not trying to stop anything.

I asked why you keep posting that we should not use the fos for a "second bite at the cherry" etc on this moneysaving website. How is that "stopping discussion"?

There are numerous occasions when this has resulted in posters reporting success.

If the FOS rarely treats complaints as frivolous then what's your beef?

NWYWB!

dunstonh

If the FOS rarely treats complaints as frivolous then what's your beef?

Because it charges £550 to firms when complaints are not upheld. So, when you get complaints where there has been no wrongdoing, the firm has a choice to either pay money to the person despite doing no wrong or let it go to the FOS and suffer the FOS fee despite them finding nothing wrong.

The funding creates a situation similar to whiplash where people know insurers will pay out on small amounts as fighting it is more expensive.

So, when you tell someone to go to the FOS despite there being no wrongdoing, you are effectively telling that person to blackmail the firm. And I repeat, because you ignore any balance in conversations, that people with genuine complaints should complain and refer to the FOS if necessary.

Quentin

dunstonh wrote: »

So, when you tell someone to go to the FOS despite there being no wrongdoing, you are effectively telling that person to blackmail the firm. And I repeat, because you ignore any balance in conversations, that people with genuine complaints should complain and refer to the FOS if necessary.

You wrongly posted I was "stopping discussion" after I asked you a question.

Now you post lies about me.

I have never told anyone to try "blackmail". Nor "told someone to go to FOS despite no wrongdoing.

You should retract that.

You seem to have a beef with the FOS, and perhaps should direct your concerns to them rather than use the platform of this money saving website to try and dissuade complaints to the FOS.

NWYWB

rudekid48

What is NWYWB?