Confused.com - quote increased becasue NCB higher??

paddyandstumpy

Quentin wrote: »

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!

Given this is an anonymous forum, I haven't disclosed my employer and I learnt about this at an industry seminar on fraud where one of our Fraud employees was speaking, not sure how I've solely breached any confidentiality...

Quentin

paddyandstumpy wrote: »

Given this is an anonymous forum, I haven't disclosed my employer and I learnt about this at an industry seminar on fraud where one of our Fraud employees was speaking, not sure how I've solely breached any confidentiality...

You've breached Mr Lewis' confidentiality!


And you diss the MSE advice to try different job titles via the job picker, yet this little item has saved £100s of pounds for users of it, and presumably your employer has suffered from it! (You boasted to us that you are employed by "one of the largest" motor insurers)


Tell us what is fraudulent about using it if you are so certain, rather than innuendo like this!

paddyandstumpy

Quentin wrote: »

You've breached Mr Lewis' confidentiality!


And you diss the MSE advice to try different job titles via the job picker, yet this little item has saved £100s of pounds for users of it, and presumably your employer has suffered from it! (You boasted to us that you are employed by "one of the largest" motor insurers)


Tell us what is fraudulent about using it if you are so certain, rather than innuendo like this!

I stated rather than boasted I work for one of the largest motor insurers. Not Admiral though, so this OP's actions haven't caused the company I work for to suffer. (I appreciate your concern though)

Regarding the "breach of confidentiality" as I've stated this was announced at an industry forum I recently attended, I've merely repeated what was said there. There were many people, from many companies, attending. However that's not a breach but me saying it is?

I refer you back to one of my previous comments/questions where I asked where the line is drawn on manipulation for the purpose of cheaper quotes.

The OP clearly stated he went for the cheapest combination, I commented that multiple applications with different information will be tracked, and he may expect a cancellation as this behaviour is given a very dim view by insurers.

Ironically (and as a total aside) the name of system used to track multiple quoters and the different info input cockney for "thief".

DCFC79

fatbadger2 wrote: »

Credit checks? There was no warning about credit checks?
I also do these quotes a lot as I'm always dreaming about what car to buy next... that;s a lot of checks, but my credit score is very high.

Despite your score being high no1 else but you can see it.

Quentin

paddyandstumpy wrote: »

I stated rather than boasted I work for one of the largest motor insurers. Not Admiral though, so this OP's actions haven't caused the company I work for to suffer. (I appreciate your concern though)

Regarding the "breach of confidentiality" as I've stated this was announced at an industry forum I recently attended, I've merely repeated what was said there. There were many people, from many companies, attending. However that's not a breach but me saying it is?

I refer you back to one of my previous comments/questions where I asked where the line is drawn on manipulation for the purpose of cheaper quotes......
.

And I refer you back to your comment regarding the MSE job picker made by the OP (You dissed MSE Martin, told us your employer wanted to discuss his "advocating application fraud" by way of the job picker but he refused to meet them. (Which is what this exchange has been about)


The job picker has saved users £100's (individual savings of £400 and £300 are documented), and one would expect your employer as one of the largest motor insurers has suffered more than most!


Your employer must have broken confidentiality by announcing it to this forum you attended, and you have broken it further by posting it here.


And if this was discussed at this forum where this was discussed, how come you ignore requests to tell us how it is fraudulent for us to make use of the job picker?

paddyandstumpy

I'm not specifically focusing on the job picker - I'm talking the wider picture about manipulation on info provided on quotes to find the cheapest price.

To reiterate, where do you draw the line on what info it's ok to manipulate?

Insurers have to ask clear and unambiguous questions for it to be fair to comsumers. Clients should answer truthfully and not changing things just to benefit from a cheaper rate.

The OP's initial comment stands - he chose the cheapest set of factors. What exactly was manipulated from his initial quote to have got the price to the final accepted one?

Quentin

You seem to be in denial.


This exchange is all about your dissing of the job picker/Martin Lewis in your post #13 (after the OP mentioned it in #12)


Are you going to tell us why your company say use of it is fraudulent?


Manipulating the options legitimately to your advantage is fine - the OP's mistake was not doing so anonymously!

JimmyTheWig

fatbadger2 wrote: »

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"...

Sounds like fraud to me, I'm afraid.
What do you honestly estimate your annual mileage to be? 5000. If the insurers decide that puts you in a higher risk bracket than someone who expects to do 7000 (e.g. because at 5000 miles a year you don't drive as much as many people) then why should you not pay a higher price?

If the answer is "Up to 7000" then that's fine as far as I am concerned. You've answered truthfully.

But be careful that the answer you give on the comparison site is the same as the answer that's taken as by the insurer.
A while ago I had an accident and didn't claim. On one comparison site it asked for any claims in the last 5 years. I said no. The insurer took that to mean no accidents in the last 5 years. They sent me the wording to this effect. I ignored it and assumed it would be as per the comparison site. I ended up forced into paying a significant premium for this mistake.

eddddy

fatbadger2 wrote: »

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?

Interestingly, HastingsDirect cancelled a friend's policy for doing something very similar.

He worked full time in a shop, so he got a quote on that basis.

But he was going to university in a few months time, so he wanted an idea of much his premium would be adjusted by in the future - so he changed the occupation to 'student' for another quote (and saw the premium rocket up).

He tried adding his Aunt as a named driver (i.e. an older experienced driver). He wasn't sure of her exact occupation, so guessed it, and got another quote.

He phoned her and asked her for her exact occupation, then corrected it, and got another quote.


Five days after taking out the policy, HastingsDirect cancelled it - because he had got a total of 5 quotes with different occupation combinations.

But after a couple of stressful days of phone calls, the policy was reinstated. (FWIW, his father was a barrister and he said he had to argue very forcefully to get the policy reinstated.)

mattk_180

To summarise an answer to the original post;


They may query your application, but if you have a good enough reason you should be able to argue against them cancelling the policy as per eddddy's examply.


You can change information but be careful of the wording as per Jimmy's post. Premiums might be higher for a particular reason and overestimating could therefore be as misleading as underestimating.


PS. If you do a quote in a fake name, do a "before and after" quote to get a difference rather than an estimate of how much you will be paying. Fake names won't pass certain checks against the address used and therefore premiums could be higher so don't take the annual quotes as fact.