'I put the wrong date when getting a comparison quote... and my EXISTING insurer hiked my premium'

peterbaker

Well put VT82.

I think there may yet still be an EXPLOSION when someone gets back from sabbatical.

VillageIdiot

I request multiple quotes for my car insurance each year. I want to know how much my insurance will/would cost if: -
I put my car in my garage, park it on my driveway, or park it on the road, when it is at home. I have the choice of any of these. (I want to balance cost and convenience.)
I leave my towing ball-hitch fitted, or remove it. (I probably won’t use it this year, but if it costs nothing, then I might as well leave it where it is.)
I put two or three other drivers on my policy. Last year no-one else drove my car, but For £20 I would put my girl-friends on the policy, “just in case”. Who knows; it may even reduce the premium – see moneysavingexpert advice.)
I claim on the policy to have a scratch, caused in a supermarket car park, repaired.
I have three points put on my licence for speeding. (Less than 35mph towing my horsebox uphill in a 30mph zone at 8:05am on a Sunday morning. First offence in 50 years), instead of attending the “Correction course”.
I did not have glaucoma. (To ensure they are not penalising me for that; I do pass the DVLA Glaucoma Test)
I do up to 4,000, up to 5,000 miles, or over 5,000 miles. (My driving is discretionary, I can do whatever miles I choose driving this car, because I have other modes of transport.)
I fit a dash-cam.


When I have got all the information I need, then I go back to my chosen comparison web-site and put in the correct details for the insurance I have decided on.


So I am “playing with fire” according to JuicyJesus. I think that language is rather emotive, and inaccurate. In practice this has never caused me any problems. I probably get about twenty to thirty emails from several comparison web-sites each year, plotting the results on a flowchart/spreadsheet. I have not had any changes made by insurance companies to existing policies. I doubt if my present insurer would send me twenty to thirty notifications of a changed premium for my present period of insurance, which expires in twenty days.


I have just checked confused.com’s website; I cannot find any mention of having to enter factually correct information, so JuicyJesus, I am NOT “warranting that those facts are correct”. This whole paragraph smacks of “insurance-speak” jargon and scaremongering. Any chance you could delete it? The confirmation that the information is correct comes later in the process, when we apply for the insurance.


JuicyJesus – In all seriousness - What would you suggest I do. Please don’t suggest phoning several insurers directly – I have tried that, and their call-centre operatives find it difficult coping with my low intelligence, indecisiveness and forgetfulness. (Note my age!!)


peterbaker – I doubt if insurance companies would let comparison website companies have their algorithms, because of the security and consistency implications if they let them onto other servers.


I see that Admiral did the text-book-correct thing. Antagonising customers and potential customers might satisfy your ego, but it is just pointless.

peterbaker

VillageIdiot wrote: »

peterbaker – I doubt if insurance companies would let comparison website companies have their algorithms, because of the security and consistency implications if they let them onto other servers.

You may be right, and comparison websites did not start in 2018, but they did start somewhere

When I began working for a major insurer four decades ago, we had just one computer for all intents and purposes - one big one at head office which we fed remotely via green screen terminal inputs and heaps of machine read paper forms sent by road overnight, but we did have motor insurance rating algorithms and we did have people outside the company providing quotes for new policies with us

Those agents (insurance mediators all of them - full insurance brokers some of them) had motor rating guides and for our best agents, we sometimes gave them a few extra rating tools of the type we used in the office which gave a close insight into the algorithms themselves. Not the entire company underwriting guide of course, but sufficient of the algorithm to be able to quote for perhaps 70% of normal risks. If someone was clever enough to collect a good number of competitor rating guides and to reverse engineer the algorithms, then one was well on the way to creating a comparison quote service

But rating guides were updated at irregular intervals, so a reliable system of updating would be needed. Better approach the insurers to guarantee that sort of comparison service else insurers may not accept the prices quoted on their behalf.

When comparison websites became established, and by that I mean they became a significant agency channel through which business was introduced, major insurers obviously had to decide whether they would go further. In what ways they went further, and whether they do do all quotes instantaneously by providing instantaneous comparison site access to their own servers thesedays, I have no idea, but we know that at least one major UK motor insurer chose not to deal with them at all, ever, and two others it seems bought significant interests in comparison sites and one of those seemingly does not trade through comparison sites (Aviva?)

Admiral was the other one ...

I see that Admiral did the text-book-correct thing.

Correcting their mistake in relying on unverified comparison site data on an individual case brought to their attention, you mean? Sure, if the 'right thing' is actually written down anywhere. But as a comparison website owner, have Admiral corrected the practice of antagonising their comparison site customers in the first place by permitting insurers to process and combine unverified data with live policy data? I don't think that is text book other than perhaps a text book breach of GDPR (in my version anyway!). I think ICO should take a good look at the practice.

thrifty_pete

I think consumers have a better deal that they did 40 years ago. I can compare many insurers, including ones I've never heard of. The name [money]supermarket is apt - I don't need to go to the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker indivudually, just one site to compare most of them. My experience of insurance brokers on the high street has been really bad. Not passing the correct information I gave to them to the underwriters especially. It is rather opaque for my liking. So I'm happy the comparison sites are there, but you do need to be careful if trying things out with different information. I do think that there needs to be improvements in comparing like for like. Questions about distance from water courses and trees seem to vary a lot between insurers for home insurance for example.