Cancel ANY insurance @ ANY time with ZERO fee's to pay

mickaveli2001

That's right. Using 'law' (contractual law) you can cancel your home insurance at any time you wish, without any admin fee's or penalty's whatsoever. Regardless of what 'they' say. Insurance companies like to use the Consumer credit Act, 1974 (or 2006 depending on the type of insurance and company) and try to bind you to contractual obligations. However, as I have unfolded, it is a misuse of legislation. Ask yourself - Has your insurance company supplied you with credit that has been obtainable to you at any given time? If the answer is no, then it's a misuse of legislation. Insurance companies are supplying you with a service, regardless of whether or not you pay it up front or in stages. If you no longer require their services, they cannot hold you to it - Though they will try.


As I chased this up with a couple of reputable insurance company's - as an example - Barclays shown below, I was actually given money from x3 insurance companies who had all handled my investigative query's as "complaints" to give themselves a category in which to place my query in and a backdoor escape route to avoid corresponding further. What I found was that I was being given 'shut-up' money to halt my discovery that all insurance companies right now are manipulating legislation that simply does not apply to any policy holder today. This is so that they can calculate their annual profits a bit better and to prevent those caught in the 'renewal' trap outwith THEIR time limits from escaping. This is obvious to most of us, however what they are doing is nothing short of misrepresentation. Not only is this a civil offense, it is also criminal in contract law. As I made these points, I was offered dirt cheap insurance almost to the point of 'free', and also given money. In addition to a £150 cheque, Zurich had also sent a very nice Viconti pen. These insurance companies (at upper management within the legal departments) know they are acting illegally.







If anyone is struggling with a heavy handed insurance company, please let me know

InsideInsurance

Brilliant, other than its nothing to do with the CCA.

Its basic contract law, there is a fee written into the contract you agree to. UK contract law doesnt allow punitive clauses hence they must be proportional to the AVERAGE cost incurred. The prior FSA/FOS investigation to see if the fees being charged were proportional to the costs deemed that they were.

That said, make enough a nuisance of yourself, with insurers or anyone else, and you may find they give you shut up money

Sorry to burst your bubble

dunstonh

Regardless of what 'they' say. Insurance companies like to use the Consumer credit Act, 1974 (or 2006 depending on the type of insurance and company) and try to bind you to contractual obligations.

The consumer credit act is different legislation to contract law. The consumer credit requirements are in force because if you pay for goods/services with more than 4 payments over a 12 month period, then the borrowing falls under the consumer credit act.

Ask yourself - Has your insurance company supplied you with credit that has been obtainable to you at any given time? If the answer is no, then it's a misuse of legislation.

You need to explain that one as there is no logic there.

Insurance companies are supplying you with a service, regardless of whether or not you pay it up front or in stages. If you no longer require their services, they cannot hold you to it - Though they will try.

again, mixing up contract law with the consumer credit act.

As I chased this up with a couple of reputable insurance company's - as an example - Barclays shown below, I was actually given money from x3 insurance companies who had all handled my investigative query's as "complaints" to give themselves a category in which to place my query in and a backdoor escape route to avoid corresponding further.

Complaining to the FOS involves a FOS fee to the firm. The FOS will waive this fee if the complaint is dealt with before it is allocated. So, it is cheaper to companies to settle with someone causing unnecessary trouble than it is to drag it on.

What I found was that I was being given 'shut-up' money to halt my discovery that all insurance companies right now are manipulating legislation that simply does not apply to any policy holder today. This is so that they can calculate their annual profits a bit better and to prevent those caught in the 'renewal' trap outwith THEIR time limits from escaping. This is obvious to most of us, however what they are doing is nothing short of misrepresentation. Not only is this a civil offense, it is also criminal in contract law. As I made these points, I was offered dirt cheap insurance almost to the point of 'free', and also given money. In addition to a £150 cheque, Zurich had also sent a very nice Viconti pen. These insurance companies (at upper management within the legal departments) know they are acting illegally.

one plus one equals 5 in your case.

Effectively what you are doing is blackmailing the companies into settling a bogus complaint because it is cheaper to do so. The minute you get a conspiracy theorist spouting all sorts of rubbish like that in the complaint, you know there is no point engaging with them and you look for the quickest and cheapest exit. Maybe even blacklist them to stop them buying a product from you again (do it once, and you get away with it. Do, it twice and then blacklisting you is a possibility)

mickaveli2001

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Brilliant, other than its nothing to do with the CCA.

Its basic contract law, there is a fee written into the contract you agree to. UK contract law doesnt allow punitive clauses hence they must be proportional to the AVERAGE cost incurred. The prior FSA/FOS investigation to see if the fees being charged were proportional to the costs deemed that they were.

That said, make enough a nuisance of yourself, with insurers or anyone else, and you may find they give you shut up money

Sorry to burst your bubble

& one I did not sign. I did not complain. I merely asked a bunch of legitimate questions in a clear concise manner that was neither threatening nor confrontational. They were under no obligation to pay me anything other than 'end' my policy with no further charges being applied. The very fact that they were sending cheques was both unnecessary and alarming

InsideInsurance

You dont need to sign a contract for it to be valid, if that is the case the police should be prosecuting you for driving without insurance as its the same document that has the cancellation fees as it is that makes you legal to drive.

Cant have it both ways.

mickaveli2001

dunstonh wrote: »

The consumer credit act is different legislation to contract law.

Contract law is not legislation. It's a law that supersedes any legislative measures applied to legal agreements

dunstonh wrote: »

You need to explain that one as there is no logic there.

Sure. When consumer credit is given, unless you have a service carried out, you should have access to credit to the amount stated.
What they are supplying customers is a 'service' of process, not to be confused with 'services'

dunstonh wrote: »

again, mixing up contract law with the consumer credit act.

Not on purpose. This is due to the 2 being imposed by the insurer.

dunstonh wrote: »

Complaining to the FOS involves a FOS fee to the firm. The FOS will waive this fee if the complaint is dealt with before it is allocated. So, it is cheaper to companies to settle with someone causing unnecessary trouble than it is to drag it on.

Fair point. Zurich and Nationwide did not have anything forwarded to the FOS. Barclays however did. This was because I got a cold call from Barclays who were adamant that I was required to remain with them for another 8 months.

dunstonh wrote: »

Effectively what you are doing is blackmailing the companies into settling a bogus complaint

No blackmail at all? I merely asked a series of questions. There was no hastiness. Barclays however did receive a forwarding of my initial letter to them with an additional statement enquiring whether they were valid in their points made. It was 'clarification' more than anything else.

mickaveli2001

InsideInsurance wrote: »

You dont need to sign a contract for it to be valid, if that is the case the police should be prosecuting you for driving without insurance as its the same document that has the cancellation fees as it is that makes you legal to drive.

Cant have it both ways.

I don't understand? Insurance is a part of the required contractual stipulations you'd have in place with the DVLA prior to gaining a license from them that would enable you to drive legally.

InsideInsurance

mickaveli2001 wrote: »

Contract law is not legislation. It's a law that supersedes any legislative measures applied to legal agreements

Contract law is enshrined in a series of legislation as well as being in common law.

Unfortunately its the other way round, statute supersedes contract law unless the statute explicitly says that it can be waived by mutual agreement

agrinnall

The OP seems to be having a blitz of pseudo-legal posts at the moment, I think we should all just ignore him and hope that he goes away.

mickaveli2001

I have seen this a few times. If you look at any Act of Parliament you will notice the absence of the word 'law' – that will give you the first clue that there is a difference. Parliament maintains the distinction between statutes and laws because those ‘in the know’ use this knowledge for their personal benefit. Senior barristers being 1 that comes to mind.




This is only based upon a belief however, as another thread of mine regarding my council tax accounts being dropped, were using legislation rather than contract for prior basis to collect payments

Quentin

agrinnall wrote: »

The OP seems to be having a blitz of pseudo-legal posts at the moment, I think we should all just ignore him and hope that he goes away.

Seems harsh.


He posts a moneysaving suggestion over a much discussed issue (cancellation charges from insurers) with proven results, yet gets accused of being a "blackmailer", (when it's actually the customer's right to go to the FOS), and now we are advised to "ignore" him.


In fact it is well documented that insurers will use the goodwill gesture route to kill a FOS complaint thereby saving the insurer not only the £550 fee to FOS but the management time dealing with the correspondence etc involved with the issue.