Admiral took money from my account

InsideInsurance

Quentin wrote: »

The op joined mse for advice, gave full chapter and verse of the issue yet the insurance establishment want to use words like " unlawful" and "fraud"

Where do you get that leap from?

I made no accusation to the OP, nobbysn*ts is just being their usual constructive self and question in what way it is "unlawful" to try and get out of contractual fees by lying. I was simply trying to help educate them

Even dunstonh didnt accuse the OP of lying about having bought insurance else were but was simply explaining that some members of society dont tell the truth and due to them insurers want validation that the statement that other insurance had been bought is true.

dunstonh

Having worked with the old FSA on TCF in the past I am pretty sure they (or rather the FCA now) would not view such tactics as treating customers fairly.

They and the FOS have no issues with auto-renewal as long as it is documented in the renewal letter clearly. Whilst I am not a fan of auto renewal personally, more people renew their policies than cancel. So, the volume suits auto-renewal. Plus, it reduces costs and there are plenty of people who have posted on here how auto renewal has helped them or how they didnt renew and got in trouble when they found out later that they were not insured.

The op joined mse for advice, gave full chapter and verse of the issue yet the insurance establishment want to use words like " unlawful" and "fraud"

Where do you get that leap from?

Only you and nobby have made that leap. Giving the reasons why they ask these things is not the same as as accusing someone.

When did it become 'unlawful' to let your home contents policy lapse?
What law has the op broken?

Exactly highlighting how nobby has turned a response into something that was not said.

if the insurer did not ask for proof of dual insurance, then anyone could ask for their money back by saying they were dual insured for x number of years and get it back whether they were dual insured or not. Trying to obtain funds by deception is fraud.

Tulkinghorn

The FCA is undertaking/ has undertaken a thematic review into auto renewal in the insurance industry so is clearly already concerned. I can't post the link but the thematic review is mentioned on the UKGI compliance website.

dunstonh

The FCA is undertaking/ has undertaken a thematic review into auto renewal in the insurance industry so is clearly already concerned.

There are lots of thematic reviews in place. Some result in changes. Some result in action taken. Some result in a tweak in wordings and some result in no change. What may or may not happen in the future does not change the position now.

As it currently stands, the key party is the FOS. The FOS publications show its position which is that it needs to be documented in the renewal letter clearly (i.e. not hidden away).

nobbysn*ts

dunstonh wrote: »

They and the FOS have no issues with auto-renewal as long as it is documented in the renewal letter clearly. Whilst I am not a fan of auto renewal personally, more people renew their policies than cancel. So, the volume suits auto-renewal. Plus, it reduces costs and there are plenty of people who have posted on here how auto renewal has helped them or how they didnt renew and got in trouble when they found out later that they were not insured.



Only you and nobby have made that leap. Giving the reasons why they ask these things is not the same as as accusing someone.



Exactly highlighting how nobby has turned a response into something that was not said.

if the insurer did not ask for proof of dual insurance, then anyone could ask for their money back by saying they were dual insured for x number of years and get it back whether they were dual insured or not. Trying to obtain funds by deception is fraud.

It's exactly what you said.
The op started a thread about money being taken from an account, despite the insurer previously stating the policy would lapse.
You claimed asking for it back was unlawful, and tried to shift the focus of the thread onto dual insurance.
Maybe you shouldn't answer a question that wasn't asked, with a response that wasn't justified.

For this thread, it is completely immaterial as to whether or not dual insurance exists or not. Admiral changed the t&c's mid term, it wasn't an agreed change, But now Insideinsurance claims it is contractual, and you are claiming it's ok so long as it's tagged on it the renewal notice, regardless of what was actually signed at the start?
Thankfully, this very attitude from insurance employees will always justify the need for the FOS, and the £500 fee to you.

dunstonh

You claimed asking for it back was unlawful

Stop making things up. That was not said.

and tried to shift the focus of the thread onto dual insurance.

The request by the insurer is normal for dual insurance and this is exactly the position the OP is in.

Maybe you shouldn't answer a question that wasn't asked, with a response that wasn't justified.

Maybe you should learn to read.

For this thread, it is completely immaterial as to whether or not dual insurance exists or not.

Its not immaterial. It is the very thing the OP finds themselves in.

Admiral changed the t&c's mid term, it wasn't an agreed change

The OP hasnt mentioned a think about changing t&c mid term. Where have you got that from?

But now Insideinsurance claims it is contractual, and you are claiming it's ok so long as it's tagged on it the renewal notice, regardless of what was actually signed at the start?

Being part of the renewal is not mid term if that is what you are referring to.

Thankfully, this very attitude from insurance employees will always justify the need for the FOS, and the £500 fee to you.

I am not an insurance employee and I havent ever had to pay a £500 fee. It does seem strange that you say we have a need for the FOS yet criticise the posts that mirror what the FOS would expect a fair outcome to be and has been industry standard for decades when people find themselves dual insured.

nobbysn*ts

I guess you need to re-read what has actually been said by the op, not what you have chosen to read here.
The op can decide whether you have his best interests at heart, or maybe the insurers.

dunstonh

I guess you need to re-read what has actually been said by the op, not what you have chosen to read here.

Lets see shall we? The OP didnt cancel the insurance renewal due to misreading the renewal notice. So, they auto-renewed and the OP ended up with two insurance policies. Hence dual insured.

Insurer wants proof of alternative insurance before refunding (as is normal in cases of dual insurance). OP thinks that is unfair but it is the normal position in cases like this.

The op can decide whether you have his best interests at heart, or maybe the insurers.

Seeing as you have made things up on this thread and not made a single helpful post on this thread, its pretty clear to see you dont have the ops interests at heart.

Bantex_2

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

It's exactly what you said.
The op started a thread about money being taken from an account, despite the insurer previously stating the policy would lapse.
You claimed asking for it back was unlawful, and tried to shift the focus of the thread onto dual insurance.
Maybe you shouldn't answer a question that wasn't asked, with a response that wasn't justified.

For this thread, it is completely immaterial as to whether or not dual insurance exists or not. Admiral changed the t&c's mid term, it wasn't an agreed change, But now Insideinsurance claims it is contractual, and you are claiming it's ok so long as it's tagged on it the renewal notice, regardless of what was actually signed at the start?
Thankfully, this very attitude from insurance employees will always justify the need for the FOS, and the £500 fee to you.

Have you missed the bit where OP reread the letter and it did say the policy would auto renew unless cancelled?

nobbysn*ts

Bantex wrote: »

Have you missed the bit where OP reread the letter and it did say the policy would auto renew unless cancelled?

No.
I read what the op actually said.

'I have now found an e-mail from Admiral saying: "To make renewing your policy as easy as possible, we will automatically renew your policy based on the information you have supplied.'


It would appear you haven't read what was posted, as it's not the policy details supplied when the policy was taken out. It's an email, after the event, changing the t&c's, without the op's agreement, so it's invalid. Like dunstonh, you have read what you have chosen to read, and are trying to justify the insurers incorrect stance.