Rip off admin charges.........

plasmahal

My issue wasn't with the admin charge itself, it's the the cost of the charge, in this case £25.

You can't seriously say that that work to change the details on a database cost £25.

The phone call cost me not them.

The guy at the other end was in customer services and is paid to be there regardless of amendments new policies or enquries etc.

lisyloo

You can't seriously say that that work to change the details on a database cost £25.

I absolutely disagree.
As already stated it's not just the cost of the x minutes of the persons time.
It's the software and hardware required to be able to make these amendments, the phone system, the electricity etc. etc.
I think you got off very lightly with that charge.

But regardless of that why did you agree to it in the first place if you didn't agree?
As many people have stated you have a whole 14 days to puruse the material to make sure it is to your satisfaction.
If this £25 was such a big deal, why didn't you do something about it upfront i.e. find another policy with lower admin fees.

The guy at the other end was in customer services and is paid to be there regardless of amendments new policies or enquries etc.

I disagree and what you are saying is nonsense.
They pay the correct number of people for the volumne of queries.
If there were less queries then they would have less pople, less telephones, less offices and less hardware, all of which would save a significant amount of money.

Your change costs money - it's as simple as that.

If you weren't happy with their charges, why didn't you do something about it when you were able to?
14 days should be plenty of time for you to read the material (in many cases you can get it beforehand over the internet).

raskazz

plasmahal wrote: »

You can't seriously say that that work to change the details on a database cost £25.

Yes you can credibly say exactly that if you bother to consider the bigger picture. I think that the following formula will be pretty accurate description of the situation:

Cost to the insurer of providing all the above functions, divided by the number of chargeable amendments = £25.

What would you prefer - the people who actually place demand these functions to bear the costs of providing them; or the costs being lumped into everyone's premium, irrespective of who placed more demand on the firm's resources?

(Incidentally, even if you preferred the latter option, it is impossible in reality as consumers tend to mindlessly chase the lowest premiums - so any firm who simply bundled customer service costs into premiums wouldn't sell any policies).

lisyloo

What would you prefer

To be honest it doesn't really matter what the OP or any or us prefer.
If the companies that decide on their business model.

As someone who makes no amendements then I am happy with their model but regardless of whether I am or am not it's up to them because it's their business.

If you don't like it go elsewhere and as we have already said, the time to that is upfront.

These charges are entirely legal so whether people think they are fair or not they still have to pay them, so the best advice to everyone is to check upfront that you are happy with the contract.

derrick

lisyloo wrote: »

I dispute the fact that you have to forsee everything with precision to cater for i



I agree.
Why can't you check out the policy to see what happens IF you need to make an amendement.
I do, so it's perfectly possible.
If it's not acceptable to you don't take the policy, get one that is acceptable to you IF you need to make changes.

I did not say everything, read my post again, I said re the change of address, you need to have the correct address on the policy, so if you change address later,( i.e. you move!) then you need to change the address on the policy, no amount of reading the T&Cs will alter that, so stop enlarging on what I said.

lisyloo

no amount of reading the T&Cs will alter that

Sorry if I'm being thick.
But why can't you read the Ts&Cs to see what the charges WOULD be IF you decide to move (whether you are moving or not).
If they are objectionable and it's a big enough issue to you, then you go elsewhere.
I know people don't have a crystal ball but they can read the summary of charges regardless of what their plans are can't they?

Personally I think you should read with a view that ANYTHING could happen (and I know you didn't say that - I did).

derrick

lisyloo wrote: »

Sorry if I'm being thick.
But why can't you read the Ts&Cs to see what the charges WOULD be IF you decide to move (whether you are moving or not).
If they are objectionable and it's a big enough issue to you, then you go elsewhere.
I know people don't have a crystal ball but they can read the summary of charges regardless of what their plans are can't they?

Personally I think you should read with a view that ANYTHING could happen (and I know you didn't say that - I did).

What I said was in relation to the OPs point, they had moved, it doesn't matter that the charges are explicit, there is no way to foresee the move, unless you already had it planned and you need a current address on the policy, so there would be no way round the charge, which in their opinion ,and mine, is a rip off, but you will defend them as you work in the industry!

I can't see how going elsewhere would solve the problem as I am sure most if not all ins companies would make an excessive charge for what is a couple of minutes on a computer!

We won't see eye to eye on this, so I suggest we let it drop.

lisyloo

but you will defend them as you work in the industry!

I do not work in the industry and I'm not sure where you got that idea from.
I'm just someone that understands the legal posistion of accepting a contract. It's like a marriage - you have to take the good bits with the bad bits and find the best trade-off you can - there isn't usually anything on offer without any bad bits.

We won't see eye to eye on this, so I suggest we let it drop.

OK, no worries.
The legal posistion is clear.
These charges are legal and the companies are at liberty to set up their business models as they wish.

Whether you or I agree or like it, is pretty much irrelevant.

But yes, I agree let's let it drop as there is nothing to be gained and the (beneficial) advice given to check contracts up front has been stated enough times now, so I will let it drop unless I'm specifically asked to respond.

Cheers

C_Ronaldo

Just pay the money,

dunstonh

I'm afraid that it appears that the average member of the public isnt clever enough to understand that explict charges are better than implicit. Even though they are financially better off they criticise the charge when it's levied.