Have you haggled your way out of insurance admin fees?

InsideInsurance

sparkyrob wrote: »

The point is that I wasn't aware that it was recorded as a claim, and the insurer was unwilling - at least for the first 15 minutes of discussion - to understand this.

So you thought insures pay out money as a guesture of goodwill for windscreens rather than it being you claiming from your policy?

Ultimately however they have accepted that it was unintentional as they have allowed you to retain the policy. If they believed you had intentionally lied on the application form to try and defraud them they would have voided the policy instead

sparkyrob

I had no idea how the windscreen/insurance chip repair process worked behind the scenes. I thought I'd established that. I'd have been happy for them to void the policy if it meant I didn't have to deal with them again, tbh.

Quentin

sparkyrob wrote: »

..... I'd have been happy for them to void the policy if it meant I didn't have to deal with them again, tbh.

Always do all you can to avoid getting a void policy on your record.


It lasts there for ever, and most mainstream insurers ask if you "ever" had a policy voided.


Then refuse to quote you.

InsideInsurance

Quentin wrote: »

Always do all you can to avoid getting a void policy on your record.


It lasts there for ever, and most mainstream insurers ask if you "ever" had a policy voided.


Then refuse to quote you.

Plus if it is voided for fraud then it may result with a First Party Fraud indicator being loaded to CIFAS which would then be passed to all your bank accounts/ mortgage provider etc and whilst insurance is the poor cousin of the banking world no one is too happy to hear that their customers have a history of defrauding financial institutes

sparkyrob

If Admiral had wanted to void my insurance, they'd not have had a case and I'd have been able to have it struck off. The Association of British Insurers (ABI) advises customers are required to answer questions only "to the best of their knowledge and belief"; the fact that I called them to update them as soon as I received the new information (and before the insurance even started) would have been more than sufficient evidence for the FOS to remove any void record.

Anyway, the above is moot; the admin fee was cancelled. All they've achieved with this debacle is the loss of a future customer.

rudekid48

sparkyrob wrote: »

If Admiral had wanted to void my insurance, they'd not have had a case and I'd have been able to have it struck off. The Association of British Insurers (ABI) advises customers are required to answer questions only "to the best of their knowledge and belief"; the fact that I called them to update them as soon as I received the new information (and before the insurance even started) would have been more than sufficient evidence for the FOS to remove any void record.

Anyway, the above is moot; the admin fee was cancelled. All they've achieved with this debacle is the loss of a future customer.

Correct. Admiral do not explicitly ask about glass or windscreen claims so would not be able to legitimately void your policy. Their exact wording is;






Claims


Please complete this section with details of all accidents, losses , thefts, incidents or claims in the last 3 years (regardless of fault). This includes incidents that have occurred while you were driving a different vehicle or while a driver was insured under your or any other policy


All the talk about voiding your policy is just scaremongering.


They can though re-rate your policy once declared and are entitled to charge an admin fee. You were lucky that they waived it but they did nothing wrong applying it in the first place...

InsideInsurance

rudekid48 wrote: »

Correct. Admiral do not explicitly ask about glass or windscreen claims so would not be able to legitimately void your policy. Their exact wording is;

Claims


Please complete this section with details of all accidents, losses , thefts, incidents or claims in the last 3 years (regardless of fault). This includes incidents that have occurred while you were driving a different vehicle or while a driver was insured under your or any other policy


All the talk about voiding your policy is just scaremongering.

Hu???

I've helped you by higlighting a few words. Please clarify why you think an incident, that is probably an accident, that causes damage to your windscreen (or any other glass) that you then make a claim for under the glass section of your policy for your losses doesnt in any way get covered by the copy you've taken from the insurers site?

Presumably you also dont think you need to declare fire, attempted thefts, vandalism, earthquake, flood, hit and run, keying, someone intentionally driving into the car etc?

rudekid48

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Hu???

I've helped you by higlighting a few words. Please clarify why you think an incident, that is probably an accident, that causes damage to your windscreen (or any other glass) that you then make a claim for under the glass section of your policy for your losses doesnt in any way get covered by the copy you've taken from the insurers site?

Presumably you also dont think you need to declare fire, attempted thefts, vandalism, earthquake, flood, hit and run, keying, someone intentionally driving into the car etc?

Show me where I said you don't HAVE to declare anything??

I said that there were no grounds to void the policy due to not explicitly stating that glass claims should be declared. Are you forgetting the changes that came in to protect consumers against ambiguous wording? Remember that the onus is now on the insurer to explicitly request all required information. Some insurers still disregard glass claims but as Admiral do not then their wording is poor.

Please read posts clearly before getting on your high horse

InsideInsurance

rudekid48 wrote: »

Show me where I said you don't HAVE to declare anything??

Here:

Please complete this section with details of all....


The "please" doesnt actually make it an optional question, it doesnt mean "if you fancy it let us know but if you dont want to its all ok"

I do not see any ambiguity in the question, it clearly states that all claims should be entered and the other poster said they made a claim against the glass section of their policy and thus should have been declared, its not optional

rudekid48

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Here:

Please complete this section with details of all....


The "please" doesnt actually make it an optional question, it doesnt mean "if you fancy it let us know but if you dont want to its all ok"

I do not see any ambiguity in the question, it clearly states that all claims should be entered and the other poster said they made a claim against the glass section of their policy and thus should have been declared, its not optional

You dodged my question but then "of cause" I knew you would