Hastings Direct Insurance Cancelled because of a 'Number of Quotes Using Different Details'

jonesMUFCforever

Disclose first and second policy would be my opinion. Then nobody can accuse you of any wrongdoing.

Dosty

naedanger said:

I don't see how getting multiple quotes alone can lead an insurer to conclude the customer was dishonest. I can see why it might trigger an investigation, or why it might cause them to conclude non-disclosure was deliberate if they can show there was non disclosure.

I might well get a number of quotes based on different mileage. A first couple to see how sensitive the price is to mileage, so I might go +50% and -50% of my expected mileage. If the price wasn't sensitive I would pick a conservative mileage without much thought. On the other hand if the price varied significantly I might do a number of quotes for different scenarios e.g. I go some routes via other means, perhaps decide I will definitely only go one long trip during the year, then decide no I think I can afford two long trips what would that cost, might decide I need to take bus more etc. However once I had decided I would then be careful to operate within the mileage I had insured. My car MOT and service invoices record mileage, so if I was lying I could be found out and would then be in all sorts of difficulty should I have an accident (especially a serious one) so I would not risk insurance fraud.

As regards putting through claim vs no claim etc. The test is simply whether the information on the quote you accepted was accurate. If you said no claims and that was true then the fact you had previously asked for a quote assuming there was a claim does not matter. If it wasn't accurate and you did have a claim then I can understand why the insurer might conclude the non-disclosure was deliberate if they had evidence you first asked for a quote based on the true position before accepting a quote based on false information.

I would complain to the company then FOS. Unfortunately you just have to live with the timescales.

Well I first asked for a quote based on false information, my fault, and then I asked for a quote based on true information and accepted that quote with all the correct information. What should I aim to get out of the complaint? I feel like they won't reinstate my policy, but I at least want them to revoke the cancellation or something so I don't have anything to disclose. If I didn't have to disclose anything, I would just be able to look for a new insurer and make sure I got all the details right. However, it's the disclosure that is driving up my price by a lot. 

AlfieWilko1950

I apologise for saying that it is common knowledge that you should not play around with quote details but if you had carried out any research on this site about obtaining car insurance you would have very quickly found out .
I have always found that if I  put around 8,000-10,000  miles per  year I get the best premium .
The quote nearly always goes up with more mileage than  that or when it goes below that. It seems to be the 'sweet' spot .
Although I might not be an expert in insurance or insurance law , over many years I have done thousands  of quotes for not just myself but several relatives so I have a great deal of experience in how to get the best price.
May be you were unfortunate to  choose Hastings as someone else said , another insurer might have just increased the premium out of your price bracket rather than cancelling. Personally  I wouldn't touch Hastings with a bargepole.

naedanger

Dosty said:

naedanger said:

I don't see how getting multiple quotes alone can lead an insurer to conclude the customer was dishonest. I can see why it might trigger an investigation, or why it might cause them to conclude non-disclosure was deliberate if they can show there was non disclosure.

I might well get a number of quotes based on different mileage. A first couple to see how sensitive the price is to mileage, so I might go +50% and -50% of my expected mileage. If the price wasn't sensitive I would pick a conservative mileage without much thought. On the other hand if the price varied significantly I might do a number of quotes for different scenarios e.g. I go some routes via other means, perhaps decide I will definitely only go one long trip during the year, then decide no I think I can afford two long trips what would that cost, might decide I need to take bus more etc. However once I had decided I would then be careful to operate within the mileage I had insured. My car MOT and service invoices record mileage, so if I was lying I could be found out and would then be in all sorts of difficulty should I have an accident (especially a serious one) so I would not risk insurance fraud.

As regards putting through claim vs no claim etc. The test is simply whether the information on the quote you accepted was accurate. If you said no claims and that was true then the fact you had previously asked for a quote assuming there was a claim does not matter. If it wasn't accurate and you did have a claim then I can understand why the insurer might conclude the non-disclosure was deliberate if they had evidence you first asked for a quote based on the true position before accepting a quote based on false information.

I would complain to the company then FOS. Unfortunately you just have to live with the timescales.

Well I first asked for a quote based on false information, my fault, and then I asked for a quote based on true information and accepted that quote with all the correct information. What should I aim to get out of the complaint? I feel like they won't reinstate my policy, but I at least want them to revoke the cancellation or something so I don't have anything to disclose. If I didn't have to disclose anything, I would just be able to look for a new insurer and make sure I got all the details right. However, it's the disclosure that is driving up my price by a lot. 

You should ask for the solution you want. If it is not too late to ask (e.g. because you have obtained alternative insurance) them to honour the existing policy then that is the solution I would seek. If they refuse that, and you are obliged to obtain insurance elsewhere, then I would be seeking (1) removal of any references that might lead to adverse pricing from other insurers and (2) reimbursement of any extra you have had to pay to get the cover they provided. (3) If I thought they had been unreasonable in dealing with the matter I would claim an amount of inconvenience. In addition if (1) is not possible then compensation to cover the expected extra future costs their action has caused. [I am not saying you will necessarily get this, but it is what I would be seeking.]

At the moment you definitely have to disclose to other insurers you have this dispute. If they want details you should give both what the insurer is saying and your response.

Another example would be before I buy a new car I often run quotes for various models to get an idea of what the insurance will cost. If I then buy the model that had the cheapest insurance I would not expect the insurer to conclude I had lied. It might be cause for them to investigate but whether I lied or not would depend on whether the model of car I actually had matched that on the insurance document. (If it didn't, but did match one of the other quotes then I expect they would conclude I had deliberately failed to disclose something. So if I got a quote based on upgraded wheels, say, yet went ahead with a standard spec on the actual policy then I would be in significant bother if the car did have upgraded wheels.)

consequences

AlfieWilko1950 said:

It's common knowledge that if you change too many details the software will identify this and it will think you are  fraudulently  trying to manipulate your details to reduce the cost.
You have only yourself to blame , playing around with the mileage too much and adding other drivers with incorrect details and then  changing them is a no-no.
Learn from your mistakes and just go with Admiral .
You are wasting your time fighting this...it happened whatever spin you try and put on the reasons for doing it.

This is why I use fake details when playing with the numbers and saving hundreds manipulating the same choices they use to over charge us with.
When you insure 6 cars for your household, it's thousands.
Because of statistics...

Talk of fraud by the OP is rife, but lets talk about the rubbish insurance companies put us through. Grouping people together based on job title or postcode, assumptions and discrimination.

Insurance companies take liberties with us that we ask our MPs to resign for, and worse still, we defend those same insurance companies and associate fraud with the OP for changing a few details to get a better deal.

dunstonh

 If they refuse that, and you are obliged to obtain insurance elsewhere, then I would be seeking (1) removal of any references that might lead to adverse pricing from other insurers and (2) reimbursement of any extra you have had to pay to get the cover they provided. (3) If I thought they had been unreasonable in dealing with the matter I would claim an amount of inconvenience. In addition if (1) is not possible then compensation to cover the expected extra future costs their action has caused. [I am not saying you will necessarily get this, but it is what I would be seeking.]

There are some problems with some of that:
1 - that is within their ability and something to aim for
2 - a complete non runner.  Not going to happen.
3 - the second policy was a mistake on their part. The first policy was not.  Inconvenience is relatively minor on their part.
4 - Non runner - not going to happen.

If you look at cause and effect, they did not cause the problem.   You are asking them to be responsible and pay for it when they are not.

Talk of fraud by the OP is rife, but lets talk about the rubbish insurance companies put us through. Grouping people together based on job title or postcode, assumptions and discrimination.

And what would the alternative be?  Expand the data and increase premiums for everyone to cover that?

Insurance companies take liberties with us that we ask our MPs to resign for, and worse still, we defend those same insurance companies and associate fraud with the OP for changing a few details to get a better deal.

And consumers take liberties with insurance companies.  It is adversarial.  Not ideal but you cannot complain about insurers being concerned with fraud when the majority of consumers will happily attempt to defraud insurers.

naedanger

dunstonh said:

 If they refuse that, and you are obliged to obtain insurance elsewhere, then I would be seeking (1) removal of any references that might lead to adverse pricing from other insurers and (2) reimbursement of any extra you have had to pay to get the cover they provided. (3) If I thought they had been unreasonable in dealing with the matter I would claim an amount of inconvenience. In addition if (1) is not possible then compensation to cover the expected extra future costs their action has caused. [I am not saying you will necessarily get this, but it is what I would be seeking.]

There are some problems with some of that:
1 - that is within their ability and something to aim for
2 - a complete non runner.  Not going to happen.
3 - the second policy was a mistake on their part. The first policy was not.  Inconvenience is relatively minor on their part.
4 - Non runner - not going to happen.

If you look at cause and effect, they did not cause the problem.   You are asking them to be responsible and pay for it when they are not.

Talk of fraud by the OP is rife, but lets talk about the rubbish insurance companies put us through. Grouping people together based on job title or postcode, assumptions and discrimination.

And what would the alternative be?  Expand the data and increase premiums for everyone to cover that?

Insurance companies take liberties with us that we ask our MPs to resign for, and worse still, we defend those same insurance companies and associate fraud with the OP for changing a few details to get a better deal.

And consumers take liberties with insurance companies.  It is adversarial.  Not ideal but you cannot complain about insurers being concerned with fraud when the majority of consumers will happily attempt to defraud insurers.

If I have understood correctly the op only accepted one quote, and the details supplied for that quote were true. If that it is the case then in my view the firm did cause the whole problem and are responsible for it, and so I think the op should not be out of pocket. 

The firm were perfectly entitled to investigate if they suspected fraud. They were not entitled to assume it just because the op obtained some hypothetical quotes. 

What is more, the op's explanation sounds very plausible to me. 

Elmer_BeFuddled

Sometimes the old ways (via broker) are the best ways. Sadly you can do soft searches for a credit card/loan and be OK, but it just seems nowadays that all (on-line) car insurances quotes are treated as hard searches. I'm an old fart but if I was looking to start insuring a car again (not needing to drive in the UK for the last 20+ years due to overseas work commitments) I'd still go through a broker, either in their office or over the phone, for the 1st years cover and happily swallow any commission that I may pay.
As it is I now live a 12mins walk from where I work and have a wife for a chauffeur so I've no real need to drive here. Yet.
(Won't go into what I did whilst abroad in multi countries, but anybody want to buy a 15/20yr old Egyptian driving licence??) 

AlfieWilko1950

consequences:-
I did not say the OP was committing or trying to commit fraud.
I said the software used by the insurance companies would be alerted by their naive playing around with details.
As to your other point , how else could insurance companies be able to provide millions of quotes if not by using statistics?
If they had to provide individual  quotes based on each customers own details and assess them each seperately insurance prices would rocket.
If you choose to live in a high risk area you should pay more , if you have had accidents or convictions you should pay more etc. etc.
It works reasonably well. The OP was trying to get the cheapest price as most of us do but didn't realise the implications of their actions. They caused the situation.

Dosty

dunstonh said:

 If they refuse that, and you are obliged to obtain insurance elsewhere, then I would be seeking (1) removal of any references that might lead to adverse pricing from other insurers and (2) reimbursement of any extra you have had to pay to get the cover they provided. (3) If I thought they had been unreasonable in dealing with the matter I would claim an amount of inconvenience. In addition if (1) is not possible then compensation to cover the expected extra future costs their action has caused. [I am not saying you will necessarily get this, but it is what I would be seeking.]

There are some problems with some of that:
1 - that is within their ability and something to aim for
2 - a complete non runner.  Not going to happen.
3 - the second policy was a mistake on their part. The first policy was not.  Inconvenience is relatively minor on their part.
4 - Non runner - not going to happen.

If you look at cause and effect, they did not cause the problem.   You are asking them to be responsible and pay for it when they are not.

Talk of fraud by the OP is rife, but lets talk about the rubbish insurance companies put us through. Grouping people together based on job title or postcode, assumptions and discrimination.

And what would the alternative be?  Expand the data and increase premiums for everyone to cover that?

Insurance companies take liberties with us that we ask our MPs to resign for, and worse still, we defend those same insurance companies and associate fraud with the OP for changing a few details to get a better deal.

And consumers take liberties with insurance companies.  It is adversarial.  Not ideal but you cannot complain about insurers being concerned with fraud when the majority of consumers will happily attempt to defraud insurers.

naedanger said:

If I have understood correctly the op only accepted one quote, and the details supplied for that quote were true. If that it is the case then in my view the firm did cause the whole problem and are responsible for it, and so I think the op should not be out of pocket. 

The firm were perfectly entitled to investigate if they suspected fraud. They were not entitled to assume it just because the op obtained some hypothetical quotes. 

What is more, the op's explanation sounds very plausible to me. 

Yes so I accepted one quote and that quote had all the correct details. I agree that changing the details around would have seemed suspicious, which is why I think they should've called me before accepting my quote, or increased the premiums in response to my quote queries. For example, I called Admiral on Thursday and they offered me a multi-car policy. I didn't have all the information regarding my parents' details, and so we just filled out as much as we could to get rough estimates. I collected all the information from my parents yesterday and tried to complete the quote with the information online this morning. Before getting any price estimates, I got a message saying I changed some quote details from last time, call us to sort this out. I think that should've been the appropriate response from Hastings Direct. 

The multi-car policy with Admiral would cost me £2,324, so £550 more than the first policy, and I would have £250 higher excess. Now that is still not ideal, but it is more reasonable than the original £3,168.

I will try to call Hastings Direct again next week, point out that I made a mistake but they should've checked with me before I paid for the quote, or before they cancelled. Furthermore, they made a mistake by giving me a second policy, so clearly everyone can make mistakes, what's important is that these mistakes are amended. I amended my mistakes before paying for the quote, and they amended their mistakes. I will ask if they can revoke the cancellation, and if they can't do that, I would want them to at least remove any references within the shared database in regards to the cancellation. If they can't do that over the phone next week, I will file a formal complaint asking for the removal of any references, accept the multi-car policy from Admiral and lose out on £550, and hope that the formal complaint will be successful so that my future policies (after the Admiral policy) are not priced higher as a result. 

Does that sound like a reasonable course of action?