Price comparison website BEWARE!!!

takman

EdGasketTheSecond wrote: »

Well it clearly is unfair because any anonymous person could get quotes for someone else and cause them no end of bother by entering all sorts of invalid data.

Just because people can fraudulently enter invalid data to cause trouble doesn't mean it's unfair.

Would you also say that all online credit/bank applications are unfair and any time someone applies for them and doesn't take out the product no data should be recorded?.

Inter

Maybe I didn!!!8217;t explain myself clearly or maybe some of you are experts in Data Protection laws.
Never should anyone lie to get cheaper quotes.
It!!!8217;s just how the information is used and or shared that is worrying.
We didn!!!8217;t lie or make up facts. There was a mistake in selecting SP30 instead of SP50, that!!!8217;s all.
For info though I!!!8217;ve been in contact with Admiral and their response was clear, fair and informative.
They have admitted that the information used should be communicated better to their customers and awareness of the consequences of entering incorrect info in comparison sites is something that they want all customers to be aware of.
They have given me compensation for the way I was dealt with and the matter is now closed.
Well done Admiral for your excellent customer service recovery.

dunstonh

just how the information is used and or shared that is worrying.

No its not. How do the comparison sites give their price. They do so by supplying the data to the providers to allow them to price. If the data supplied shows inconsistencies with what a provider already knows about you then it is common sense to get clarification.

Indeed, the data protection act requires firms to act on inconsistencies where it is appropriate.

There was a mistake in selecting SP30 instead of SP50, that!!!8217;s all.

You call it a mistake. How does the provider know it is a mistake when they get plenty of people hiding these things on purpose. They find out by checking with you and asking for evidence. All common sense.

They have given me compensation for the way I was dealt with and the matter is now closed.

Its almost embarrassing the way it is so easy to get money out of providers who have done nothing wrong.

takman

Inter wrote: »

Maybe I didn!!!8217;t explain myself clearly or maybe some of you are experts in Data Protection laws.
Never should anyone lie to get cheaper quotes.
It!!!8217;s just how the information is used and or shared that is worrying.

You must know that when you enter information on a comparison site that it is sent to every insurer on their books. If they didn't do this then they wouldn't be able to give any quotes.

Inter wrote: »

We didn!!!8217;t lie or make up facts. There was a mistake in selecting SP30 instead of SP50, that!!!8217;s all.
For info though I!!!8217;ve been in contact with Admiral and their response was clear, fair and informative.
They have admitted that the information used should be communicated better to their customers and awareness of the consequences of entering incorrect info in comparison sites is something that they want all customers to be aware of.
They have given me compensation for the way I was dealt with and the matter is now closed.
Well done Admiral for your excellent customer service recovery.

I don't see why you deserved compensation for this as they have done nothing wrong.

Imagine a situation where a friend offered to sell you an item that you wanted. So you buy it then a year later they tell you it was stolen then they say they told you it was stolen accidentally and they actually purchased it.
A reasonable person would ask for proof they purchased it even if they said it was mistake.

This is basically what happened in your situation. In what way were you treated unreasonably?. No one is saying that you lied and i don't see it an issue with them checking to make sure you haven't made a mistake by requesting documents.

EdGasketTheSecond

takman wrote: »

Just because people can fraudulently enter invalid data to cause trouble doesn't mean it's unfair.

Would you also say that all online credit/bank applications are unfair and any time someone applies for them and doesn't take out the product no data should be recorded?.

Exactly no data should be recorded if there is no transaction. As there is no protection against someone fraudulently getting quotes in my name, why should I be penalised?

takman

EdGasketTheSecond wrote: »

Exactly no data should be recorded if there is no transaction. As there is no protection against someone fraudulently getting quotes in my name, why should I be penalised?

So you think you should be able to apply for financial products trying different variations of job title, income etc to see what factors allow you to be accepted and then have no record it because it might be someone else applying?

On comparison sites you should be able to go on comparison sites to get a quote declaring all your points on your licence and decide its too much so get a quote without them because you know nothing is recorded?

If that was the case fraud would dramatically increase which costs them money and that cost would be passed onto consumers.

The only way your penalised if someone enters false details on a comparison site is that you have to provide access to your licence details which takes only a few minutes.

If no data was allowed to be recorded then insurance companies would may no choice but to get proof of licenses, V5C documents and maybe even photos of vehicle to show no modification to help combat fraud. This would mean it causes alot more hassle and time for people taking out insurance and increased costs of admin to process them all.

I can't see how that would benefit anyone considering the risk of people entering false details and causing a premium to increase is basically zero; taking into account that they inform you and request information before any increase is implemented.

EdGasketTheSecond

Valid data should be recorded. Where someone puts their money up and states the data is true; NOT just anybody trying out a price comparison site where the data is unverified and it costs nothing to enter it.

What is wrong with trying different job titles to get the best quote so long as they are all valid e.g. office worker, accounts clerk, secretary? Its what this site recommends.

takman

EdGasketTheSecond wrote: »

Valid data should be recorded. Where someone puts their money up and states the data is true; NOT just anybody trying out a price comparison site where the data is unverified and it costs nothing to enter it.

I think you are making out this to be an issue when in reality I've never heard of this ever happening to anyone due to a third party entering incorrect information.

Would you honestly prefer for insurers to require access to your licence details any a copy of your logbook everytime you take out an insurance policy rather than them simply requesting it as and when they need clarification due to data they hold?.

I'm still struggling to see why you have an issue with an insurance company requesting documentation when they find a mismatch of information. Really they should be doing this for every policy anyway and the only reason they don't is because it costs too much to process and they have other ways to reduce fraud.

Imagine if this rule was rolled out to police investigations (where the consequences are far more serious) and they were not allowed to investigate based on anonymous or unverified information; there would be even more unsolved crimes than their are now.

EdGasketTheSecond wrote: »

What is wrong with trying different job titles to get the best quote so long as they are all valid e.g. office worker, accounts clerk, secretary? Its what this site recommends.

I'm pretty sure it doesn't recommend that. It's recommends you use the job title tool to find the relavent one most likely to give you the lowest price and use that. It doesn't say to try multiple job titles when getting quotes.

csgohan4

Op this is your wife and your mistake, you didn't cross check information was correct and looking for someone to blame?


You cannot blame the insurer for mitigating their risks but ensuring correct info is given can you??


Stop the blame someone else and take responsibility and move on, it's just a mistake on an insurance form. You got more than you deserve by getting a token amount from the insurer, what more do you want? Free insurance??

It would have been worse if you got the insurance and they later cancelled due to incorrect info, you would have had difficulty getting any kind of insurance then

worried_jim

lisyloo wrote: »

Request it in the name of Mr Mickey Mouse
mickey@aol.com

I always do my quotes for the house two doors away as jim smith keeping all the other details the same as I play with the variables. Once I’m happy I clear the cookies (actually these days I fire up the back up PC) and do the quote for real.