Confused.com - quote increased becasue NCB higher??

fatbadger2

paddyandstumpy wrote: »

Nope, but I work in the industry, and know of the systems which track multiple quotes with different infomation.

I was referencing your admission in the original post to have manipulated various "minor things" to get the price as low as possible and taken it out on that basis.

As all the questions asked are black and white, to have provided different answers to manipulate the price down is application fraud.

Ergo I stand by my initial comment.

Rubbish. It's manipulation alright but that is not fraud. Martin Lewis advises trying out different job titles until you find one that is cheaper, so for example, 'nurse' may be cheaper than 'carer' - you wouldn't know unless you keyed it into the online quote engine and 'manipulated' the results... so where's your logic on that?

paddyandstumpy

Just because Martin Lewis says it doesn't mean it's right!

The company I work for has actually approached Martin Lewis regarding his "tips" as he is advocating application fraud. But he refused to meet.

If you say what you are doing isn't incorrect, where do you draw the line? If you think I t's ok to falsify your true mileage, is it ok to falsify the address where the car is kept, or whether it's garaged or kept on the road?

You have intentionally changed the information to manipulate the rating in your favour. You many not consider it wrong, the insurer may.

Forewarned.

Quentin

paddyandstumpy wrote: »

Just because Martin Lewis says it doesn't mean it's right!......
.

Bit rich coming from you!


Here you admitted you were out of your depth discussing motor insurance matters after being corrected:

paddyandstumpy wrote: »

You're right Quentin, that was poor advice. Apologies to the OP here. I don't work in Motor insurance so have no ideas of the RTA laws, perhaps I should have kept my mouth shut! .............

I'll stick to commenting on what I know - and I've deleted my poor post!

JimmyTheWig

Surely it only becomes a problem if the final application is inaccurate.

Quote with keeping car on drive vs keeping car in garage. Find garage is cheaper so go with that and clear it out to make room for car / find drive is cheaper (for some reason) so go with that and keep on drive. No problem.

Quote with mileage if you drive to work vs quote with mileage if you take the train. Decide on work on that basis and get insurance based on what you've decided. No problem.

Quote with an accident to see how much it would set you back. But you didn't have an accident, so remove it and proceed with quote. No problem.

Quote for 12,000 miles as that is what you do then find quote for 8,000 is cheaper. Go with the 8,000 mile policy and hope they don't notice. Now you've got a problem!

paddyandstumpy

Ah Quentin I was waiting for you to pipe up. I'm disappointed you didn't revert to your usual "pulpit thumper" comment.
You've let me down!

Whilst I don't know the ins and outs of motor insurance, the underwriting principles are the same.

And this thread is discussing where is the line drawn between what is acceptable quote manipulation and what isn't?

fatbadger2

paddyandstumpy wrote: »

If you say what you are doing isn't incorrect, where do you draw the line? If you think I t's ok to falsify your true mileage, is it ok to falsify the address where the car is kept, or whether it's garaged or kept on the road?

You have intentionally changed the information to manipulate the rating in your favour. You many not consider it wrong, the insurer may.

Forewarned.

What's more misleading? An insurance company that uses an algorithm with a glitch that results in a 12 yrs NCB being 50% more expensive than 10 yrs NCB, or me stating that I have 10+ yrs NCB? A lot of people are paying £100s too much becasue they are not, as you put it, "manipulating" the quote. If you think that then you're a gullible customer and getting robbed by the automated insurer's computer. I did want honest advice on whether I was in the wrong, but you're logic is so daft I can't believe you work in the insurance ind at a level that gives you sensible insight.

Quentin

When you want to play around with quotes online do it anonymously!

fatbadger2

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

Surely it only becomes a problem if the final application is inaccurate.

Quote with keeping car on drive vs keeping car in garage. Find garage is cheaper so go with that and clear it out to make room for car / find drive is cheaper (for some reason) so go with that and keep on drive. No problem.

Quote with mileage if you drive to work vs quote with mileage if you take the train. Decide on work on that basis and get insurance based on what you've decided. No problem.

Quote with an accident to see how much it would set you back. But you didn't have an accident, so remove it and proceed with quote. No problem.

Quote for 12,000 miles as that is what you do then find quote for 8,000 is cheaper. Go with the 8,000 mile policy and hope they don't notice. Now you've got a problem!

Yes, that sounds sensible, but that is lying and is fraud. If I do ~5000 mile a year and put down 7000 a year as inexplicably that is cheaper then is that really fraud??????????
The actual wording is "estimated annual mileage"...

fatbadger2

Quentin wrote: »

When you want to play around with quotes online do it anonymously!

Haha, yes, I certainly will.
Today I ran the IDENTICAL quote machine from yesterday and got a quote way higher than yesterday... so I have I now got a big black smudge next to my ethereal insurance 'credit rating'.

Quentin

paddyandstumpy wrote: »

Ah Quentin I was waiting for you to pipe up. I'm disappointed you didn't revert to your usual "pulpit thumper" comment.
You've let me down!

Whilst I don't know the ins and outs of motor insurance, the underwriting principles are the same.

And this thread is discussing where is the line drawn between what is acceptable quote manipulation and what isn't?

Your post (that I replied to) was suggesting that Martin's job picker tool has something not "right" about it. Didn't realise you were in the pulpit.


You have missed where he says that you should use it to make legitimate tweaks!


But its irrelevant - it's you that has to be repeatedly corrected on your incorrect "advice" on insurance matters, and you revealing that Mr Lewis chose to not meet your employer looks a breach of confidentiality!


(In another example of your incorrect "advice" is that not all questions asked in quotes are "black and white" as you have already been told)