Car Insurance Article Discussion

lynnpin

Blimey lisyloo! That's us told! Are you sure you aren't an insurance broker!:D

lisyloo

Are you sure you aren't an insurance broker!

Ah, here we go.
Because I don't agree with you I simply MUST be biased.

1) I don't work in insurance and never have done.
2) I would prefer not to have automatic renewal, however I am capable of managing it by sticking a date in my diary.
3) Despite my personal preferences I am able to look at things objectively and realise that I can't tell the industry how to run it's business.
4) I aslo recongnise in a objective way that the features are useful for other people.
5) Thirdly when people don't agree with me I don't accuse them of a vested interest or bias.
6) I don't ask for everything that doesn't suit me personally to be banned from existence.

There, that's you told
:rotfl:

Steve_xx

lisyloo wrote: »

Continuous authority is very common.
For example magazine subscriptions, RAC/AA cover.
For many people it's a useful feature.
Some people like to stay with the same insurer and need do very little.
Some people would actually find themselves uninsured.
It has some positive features that some people like.
You have the right to disagree, but it's not going to be banned just because you don't like it.
You're going to ahve to manage it for the time being.
It's not that difficult to stick a date in your diary and read your post.

On the whole it certinaly is not.
You get a renewal notice before your renewal.
It's generally one side of A4 with "what to do next" written in bold fron (hardly small print).
So not only do you agree to it up front, you also get a reminder at the time as well.
You can in addition keep your own records (which I do) rather than rely on the post (which I prefer not to).
If the companies do it according to the law, then it's not sharp practice and it's useful to some people.

Where companies have borken laws or guidelines then you should make complaints to the relevant authoritiy to clamp down on the rogues, but that isn't the majority of companies that operate it legally and offer a useful service to loyal customers.

It may well be a useful feature as you rightly say. For my part I'd like to have the option at the outset as to whether I wish to take advantage of the "useful feature". I prefer not to have a company decide what useful features I want to have imposed on me.

I didn't say it was difficult me to to "stick a date" in my diary in order to remind me. What I implied was that I don't want somebody else assuming a right to access my bank account because it may have slipped my mind to stop them from doing so.

It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that at the time of an automatic renewal that I could become diverted by some tradgedy or other and that I may be unable, for some reason, to be as astute as you are. I could, for example be laid up in a hospital, unconscious, after having been mowed down by a bus and therefore I may not be in a position to stop a rolling mandate even if I wanted to.

My point being that there is no "one size fits all" here and I reiterate that I do not want to have an insurance company to have the right to take monies from my account before I've made the decision to allow it.

benjaminM

Many of our customers are on direct debit with any number of different insurers. When they are due for renewal we send them their letter 21 days in advance as we do with all our customers. Our letter states that if you are happy with your existing insurers renewal terms you do not have to do anything as it will automatically continue. The letter goes on to say that should you be unhappy with the new renewal terms simply cancel your mandate and inform us. I think this way work fine for most people. Many of our customers would find it inconvenient if their insurance did not carry on. If the customer is happy with the renewal it is easier to let it carry on then set up a new policy with a new direct debit mandate. If the customer does not want to renew then cancel the mandate and let us know, no problem.

What I dont like is where some companies actually collect the first direct debit payment in advance before the renewal date! Provident used to do this and would catch many people out. It is another tactic just to make it difficult to switch insurers.

lisyloo

I prefer not to have a company decide what useful features I want to have imposed on me.

You are perfectly entitled to have a preference.
But you can't dictate to individual businesses their terms and conditions are if they are legal.
You can of course do business with other companies that suit you better.

In practice companies of all kinds do impose terms and conditions on you. This happens all the time.

What I implied was that I don't want somebody else assuming a right to access my bank account because it may have slipped my mind to stop them from doing so.

It's not an assumption.
You have agreed to a renewing contract and you've given approval for them to continously take money from your card.

I could, for example be laid up in a hospital, unconscious, after having been mowed down by a bus and therefore I may not be in a position to stop a rolling mandate even if I wanted to.

That is a possibility.
This is actually a reason why rolling contracts are good.
In your example you wouldn't be driving, but if your tragedy did not incapcitate you them it would be an advantage to be able to carry on driving legally rather than for example letting your insurance run out because you are grieving over a death.
Whilst I would prefer not to have it I can also see that driving illegaly without insurance is MUCH WORSE than you missing the chance to shop around.
I agree that choice is good but there is the lesser of two evils here.

My point being that there is no "one size fits all" here and I reiterate that I do not want to have an insurance company to have the right to take monies from my account before I've made the decision to allow it.

There is choice in the market place.
I would suggest you don't get a rolling contract and don't use a continous payment authority.
Do you have a local broker you could visit with a chequebook?

No-one is forcing you to sign a continous contract here, you have chosen to.
I've already mentioned 3 companies to you and there are certain payment methods (cheque/cash) that cannot be taken automatically.

My point being that there is no "one size fits all" here

I agree with you.
But I think that local customers with repeat business should be rewarded.
It shoudl eb the less loyal "tarts" who should be inconvenienced in favour of loyal customers.

The bottom line is that if you don't want a rolling contract then don't buy one.
Also if you don't want a continuous card authority then find another way to pay or another comapny to deal with.
I have never been forced into a continuous authority against my wishes.

mikey72

You certainly get a bee in your bonnet about it.
Still doesn't mean the rest of have to like it though.

lisyloo

I don't have a bee in my bonnet at all
I'm quite a happy bunny and having a polite discussion (without making bias accusations against anyone with opposing views).

Still doesn't mean the rest of have to like it though.

Some of you are perfectly entitled to dislike it as much as you like
However when you say "the rest of us" then I'm afraid not everyone agrees with you.
I think it's dunstonh for example who is very happy taking his insurance with the same company each year. I might have got the name wrong but the point is you don't speak for the rest of the world - some people like it.
Whatever individuals like, it's companies that decide their terms and conditions, that's a fact.
As I've said - personally I don't like it, but I accept it and manage it.
Generally I pick insurance policies that don't auto-renew.

I intensly dislike CCA (continuous card authority) and NEVER take them. If that's the only way to pay with a particular company I do business elsewhere, but that's not particular to insurance.
If I can't (for example) pay for a magazine subscription as a one-off payment then I will look elsewhere or go without.
We all have choices.

and YES I do ahve a bit of a bee in my bonnet about people making personal accusations of bias simply because I have different (but very valid) views.
That's really p**ses me off - but I'll get over it :-)

Steve_xx

lisyloo wrote: »

You are perfectly entitled to have a preference.
But you can't dictate to individual businesses their terms and conditions are if they are legal.
You can of course do business with other companies that suit you better.

Sometimes you do have to accept terms and conditions that are onerous. This called 'duress', ie do it my way or no way.

In practice companies of all kinds do impose terms and conditions on you. This happens all the time.

Having terms imposed with regards to a current contract may be acceptable. A company who wishes to enjoy the monies from a new contract without first having to negotiate it is not acceptable.

I may do an online shop at Tesco but I really don't want them to believe that they can deliver repeat orders without me having to authorise it. Do you?

It's not an assumption.
You have agreed to a renewing contract and you've given approval for them to continously take money from your card.

No, I have agreed a current contract, usually for a 12 month period. Agreeing for them to take monies continually is almost like saying I agree to any future contract detail that you care to set.

It is simply not good sense to agree to renew a vehicle insurance contract on a rolling basis and without having the chance to restate that the statements first offered are still applicable.

That is a possibility.
This is actually a reason why rolling contracts are good.
In your example you wouldn't be driving, but if your tragedy did not incapcitate you them it would be an advantage to be able to carry on driving legally rather than for example letting your insurance run out because you are grieving over a death.
Whilst I would prefer not to have it I can also see that driving illegaly without insurance is MUCH WORSE than you missing the chance to shop around.
I agree that choice is good but there is the lesser of two evils here.

After the bus debacle I may never be able to drive again, and therefore that is another example of why the onus to renew should be left with me if I want it to be.

There is choice in the market place.

That's a rather well-worn cliche.

I would suggest you don't get a rolling contract and don't use a continous payment authority.
Do you have a local broker you could visit with a chequebook?

Thank you for your suggestion.

No-one is forcing you to sign a continous contract here, you have chosen to.
I've already mentioned 3 companies to you and there are certain payment methods (cheque/cash) that cannot be taken automatically.

I agree with you.
But I think that local customers with repeat business should be rewarded.
It shoudl eb the less loyal "tarts" who should be inconvenienced in favour of loyal customers.

Thats the irony of it really. Insurers, in my own experience, never reward loyalty. Instead they hike their prices year on year in the hope that one will not notice it.

The bottom line is that if you don't want a rolling contract then don't buy one.
Also if you don't want a continuous card authority then find another way to pay or another comapny to deal with.
I have never been forced into a continuous authority against my wishes.

Yes I know that and odd though it may seem to you, I had already realised it.

lisyloo

Sometimes you do have to accept terms and conditions that are onerous. This called 'duress', ie do it my way or no way.

Isn't that the same in any business though Steve?
If you went to buy a car and they insisted on seeing your insurance and insisted on a 2.5% fee for paying by a credit card then you'd have to accept wouldn't you?
If ASDA said you can't wear pyjamas or a hoodie then you'd have to accept.
If you went to open a bank account you'd have to jump through hoops with ID otherwise you couldn't have it.
I do kind of agree with what you saying but I can't see the difference between this and any other business on the planet and most people accept that these things are there for good reasons even if we all don't agree with every single one.
I don't personally like taking off my motorcycle helmet as I wear glasses and earplugs and it's a pain in the butt, but I recognise that I have to behave on other people's private premises.

I may do an online shop at Tesco but I really don't want them to believe that they can deliver repeat orders without me having to authorise it. Do you?

Well actually I would like my milk lady to delivery every Tuesday and every Friday and I don't expect to re-negotiate twice a week.
So you see it is sometimes appropriate.

If you don't want a rolling contract then when there is choice in the market why would you buy one?
For example if I buy a magazine subscription, I can choose annual one-off or rolling contract. If you wanted a one-off then why would you buy the other sort?
This is what confuses me. I have never had a rolling motor (car or bike) contract. I am confused why people buy it if they don't want it. If there was NO choice then I'd be a bit clearer about why people didn't like it.

Agreeing for them to take monies continually is almost like saying I agree to any future contract detail that you care to set.

It's not quite like that.
They send you the terms (offer) beforehand. It's usually a few pages so not timeconsuming or in small print.
You get the chance to accept or reject.
If you reject you can send a letter (which is hardly bamboo splinters under the fingernails is it).
If you accept you need do nothing.
As I said before I think it makes sense for companies to offer the easier route to loyal customers rather than the opportunistic tarts (and I don't mena that in a bad way as I'm a tart).

It is simply not good sense to agree to renew a vehicle insurance contract on a rolling basis and without having the chance to restate that the statements first offered are still applicable.

Absoltuely.
People should defintely check it's still applicable.
That is really important.
They are jsut making as easy as possible where nothing has chanced (same car, same, job, same address). This reduces work and admin and hence costs for everyone.

After the bus debacle I may never be able to drive again, and therefore that is another example of why the onus to renew should be left with me if I want it to be.

Sorry I haven't followed the bus debacle.
The latter bit is a matter of contract. If you want the onus to be with you and that's important then put the right policy and payment method in place.
Otherwise if you want unrestricted choice in the market place and don't want to be restricted by being too picky about Ts & Cs, then diarise the date and write a simple letter and send it recorded delivery. For the sake of a small effort you then have unrestricted choice of the entire market place, but of course you can restrict yourself if you want. You just might not find the best comapnies or most competitive premiums if you can't face writing that letter.

Thats the irony of it really. Insurers, in my own experience, never reward loyalty. Instead they hike their prices year on year in the hope that one will not notice it.

My comapny (ebike insurance) give me a dicount on renewal.
They put my premiums down not up.
They don't auto renew.
Sorry, but not everyone's experience is the same.
But then I don't pick the companies I deal with from a comparison site and I don't pick them on the grounds of one Term & condition either. I look for a whole range of factors because its' generally a trade-off at some level. Restricting your choice is not that helpful, but you can if you feel really strongly.

EDIT - some companies (esure springs to mind) do give additional discounts (from 70% to 75% NCD in years 5-10) to loyal ccustomers, and also reduce cancellation charges in subsequent terms (i.e. after year 1), so some insurers do treat loyal customers better. But of course you'd have to read a contract to find that out.

Steve_xx

lisyloo wrote: »

Isn't that the same in any business though Steve?
If you went to buy a car and they insisted on seeing your insurance and insisted on a 2.5% fee for paying by a credit card then you'd have to accept wouldn't you?

Yes but you have the choice there and then, not in 12 months time when you've forgotten what you talked about in the first place.

If ASDA said you can't wear pyjamas or a hoodie then you'd have to accept.

This is a condition of entering their store, presumably because they think you might want to hide your identity for some obscure reason.
They don't at Asda insist that you pay for next years shopping a year earlier.

If you went to open a bank account you'd have to jump through hoops with ID otherwise you couldn't have it.

The reason for this is to prevent money laundering and this is not relevant to the point of the discussion about companies helping themselves to your cash.

I do kind of agree with what you saying but I can't see the difference between this and any other business on the planet and most people accept that these things are there for good reasons even if we all don't agree with every single one.

Yes this is the thing, "most people accept these things". But is it really acceptable to be forced into giving an authority to a company to dip your bank account at the end of a negotiated contract? I personally believe it to be sharp practise, though I understand that others may not necessarily agree.


I don't personally like taking off my motorcycle helmet as I wear glasses and earplugs and it's a pain in the butt, but I recognise that I have to behave on other people's private premises.

Yes quite.



Well actually I would like my milk lady to delivery every Tuesday and every Friday and I don't expect to re-negotiate twice a week.
So you see it is sometimes appropriate.

Yes but I presume that you pay for the milk after you've had it delivered, and not before?

If you don't want a rolling contract then when there is choice in the market why would you buy one?
For example if I buy a magazine subscription, I can choose annual one-off or rolling contract. If you wanted a one-off then why would you buy the other sort?
This is what confuses me. I have never had a rolling motor (car or bike) contract. I am confused why people buy it if they don't want it. If there was NO choice then I'd be a bit clearer about why people didn't like it.

You might buy it because it's the cheapest. But you don't necessarily want the strings that come attached to it, ie the assurance that the next contract will be with the same provider because they've effectively decided upfront that's how it will be

It's not quite like that.
They send you the terms (offer) beforehand. It's usually a few pages so not timeconsuming or in small print.
You get the chance to accept or reject.
If you reject you can send a letter (which is hardly bamboo splinters under the fingernails is it).
If you accept you need do nothing.
As I said before I think it makes sense for companies to offer the easier route to loyal customers rather than the opportunistic tarts (and I don't mena that in a bad way as I'm a tart).

The problem is that it happens 12 months before the due date.

Insurers exploit loyal customers - they do not reward them. If an insurer thinks that you are loyal to it, not on the ball, or unlikely to challenge it, then it will proceed to rip you off as fast as it possibly can.

Absoltuely.
People should defintely check it's still applicable.
That is really important.
They are jsut making as easy as possible where nothing has chanced (same car, same, job, same address). This reduces work and admin and hence costs for everyone.

.....and it ensures that they retain the business

Sorry I haven't followed the bus debacle.
The latter bit is a matter of contract. If you want the onus to be with you and that's important then put the right policy and payment method in place.
Otherwise if you want unrestricted choice in the market place and don't want to be restricted by being too picky about Ts & Cs, then diarise the date and write a simple letter and send it recorded delivery. For the sake of a small effort you then have unrestricted choice of the entire market place, but of course you can restrict yourself if you want. You just might not find the best comapnies or most competitive premiums youn can't face writing that letter.

Yes

My comapny (ebike insurance) give me a dicount on renewal.
They put my premiums down not up.

Then they are exceptional.

They don't auto renew.
Sorry, but not everyone's experience is the same.
But then I don't pick the companies I deal with from a comparison site and I don't pick them on the grounds of one Term & condition either. I look for a whole range of factors because its' generally a trade-off at some level. Restricting your choice is not that helpful, but you can if you feel really strongly.

Yes I agree that one has to examine the whole of the detail and then one can make an informed choice. However, I want to make the informed choice about month 12 to 24 when I get to month 12, and I want that choice to be based on conditions that exist at month 12, not necessarily those that existed at day one