Home insurance cancellation - is this a con?

kinger101

Ask to speak to someone in a higher position. If they still refuse, explain that you'll never do business with them again.

kinger101

timbo58 wrote: »

Always pays to check the T&Cs before you make a choice on insurers, £50 sounds a bit steep but I'm sure it was 'pre-advised'.

Why is everything nowadays a con/scam/ripoff simply because the 'victim' didn't bothering reading what was right in front of them?

Because if you work in a service industry, you should have the foresight to exercise some discretion in these situations. It's called good customer service, which is good for repeat business.

linc1464

timbo58 wrote: »

Always pays to check the T&Cs before you make a choice on insurers, £50 sounds a bit steep but I'm sure it was 'pre-advised'.

Why is everything nowadays a con/scam/ripoff simply because the 'victim' didn't bothering reading what was right in front of them?

I think we'll all agree that their actions are legitimate in that it probably is there somewhere in the 50-odd pages of small print. However, the fact that I would have to cancel due to not having an insurable interest with only days to run was not there anywhere. So, cancellation fee of £50 yes. But, as someone who is not legally qualified i'm not sure i should be expected to know the bit about the financial interest and that preventing me from letting it lapse. This is why i'm annoyed/asking questions. Please don't suggest that i did not bother reading what was in front of me.

Besides, we all know that these charges are motivated solely by greed and, whether pre-advised or not, are a scam.

dacouch

timbo58 wrote: »

I would have agreed davidmcn until a recent motor insurance case (which may or may not be relevant to be fair) where a motorcycle was sold to a banned rider who went and killed himself and seriously injured another road user, the previous owner had not cancelled the policy and therefore the policy underwriter paid out ( IRO of £100k) and then pursued the previous owner for it.
I kid you not.

I doubt that this would be the same in this instance since the likelihood of a 3rd party claim on house insurance has to be pretty low.

The case you refer to has no bearing on a home insurance policy, the motor bike case is only an issue because of the Roa Traffic Act making Insurers legally liable. There is no relevant legislation on home insurance

dacouch

Linc is the flat in Scotland?

Normally a flat would be covered under a block policy and the new owner's interest in the property would just replace yours with either no charge or a relatively small administration fee

davidmcn

dacouch wrote: »

Normally a flat would be covered under a block policy

It's commonplace, particularly for modern developments, but I wouldn't say "normally". Mine isn't, for example. If the OP was cancelling their policy then presumably theirs wasn't either.

timbo58

I appreciate that it's not great customer care to stick to the T&Cs however well or not they were represented.
£50 is still steep, but hardly something an insurance company is making any significant profit in so not merely there to make money IMHO.

The point was however it wasn't a scam, that was the point I was making, the over use by anyone who ever felt hard done by by shouting 'scam/con' etc etc is devaluing it's use when accurate IMHO.

Dacouch, I appreciate that the Rosa doesn't apply but did wonder (out loud) whether there was nay precedent in the house insurance market -i.e. house burns down whilst covered only by the ex policyholders insurance.......could a claim be made?

getmore4less

Nearly all the insurers have gone this route.

Low premiums covering the risks
admin charges to cover the admin costs.

People focus on the premiums.