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

AlfieWilko1950

It isn't up to them to contact you to check information .
When you buy insurance online you are accepting the terms and conditions which state that the information you have entered is correct and truthful.
How can that be more clear .
You entered incorrect information.
If you don't have all the correct information to hand you get it first.
It brings to mind the old saying 
 " act in haste repent at leisure " .
You talk about making a complaint as if they have done something wrong.

VXman

AlfieWilko1950 said:

It isn't up to them to contact you to check information .
When you buy insurance online you are accepting the terms and conditions which state that the information you have entered is correct and truthful.
How can that be more clear .
You entered incorrect information.
If you don't have all the correct information to hand you get it first.
It brings to mind the old saying 
 " act in haste repent at leisure " .
You talk about making a complaint as if they have done something wrong.

It's a long first post so I may have read it wrong - but I am wondering if you have. 

What the OP did was put in different info for quotes to get an idea of what possibilities there were. It wasn't lying. Hastings eventually offered him a policy - and then changed their mind! Not his fault again.

I have done similar with mileage and adding different family members. I have a 2nd car so I can CHOOSE what mileage I want to do on it. 5000, 3000 ??? up to me. I just regulate my use of that car to suit  So I will try out different combinations to see how it affects the price. I might also add my wife - she can drive it but doesn't have too.

As far as I can see this is not lying - until you submit and pay for the insurance.

naedanger

Dosty said:

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? 

In my view you should not say you made a mistake. (I don't see what mistake you made, other than underestimating their ability to jump to the wrong conclusion based on an inadequate investigations.) And you shouldn't ask, you should insist they reinstate the policy and clean your record.

Do say what actually happened - i.e. you did obtain a number of quotes for the reasons you have given but there is nothing wrong with doing so. If they thought it suspicious fair enough but they needed to confirm you did in fact fail to disclose something (which you didn't). By failing to get your side they failed to undertake even the most basic investigation before reaching the wrong conclusion.

When you sign an insurance document you will be given all the details you supplied and asked to check they are correct. If they were then you have done all that was required. (You are not asked to confirm you never got any other quotes based on any other details. Indeed it would be nonsense to ask.)

Demand they tell you what incorrect information you have signed-off on. If they cannot provide an  answer tell them you believe they have unfairly cancelled your policy and need their final response so you can escalate the matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

Dosty

AlfieWilko1950 said:

It isn't up to them to contact you to check information .
When you buy insurance online you are accepting the terms and conditions which state that the information you have entered is correct and truthful.
How can that be more clear .
You entered incorrect information.
If you don't have all the correct information to hand you get it first.
It brings to mind the old saying 
 " act in haste repent at leisure " .
You talk about making a complaint as if they have done something wrong.

VXman said:

AlfieWilko1950 said:

It isn't up to them to contact you to check information .
When you buy insurance online you are accepting the terms and conditions which state that the information you have entered is correct and truthful.
How can that be more clear .
You entered incorrect information.
If you don't have all the correct information to hand you get it first.
It brings to mind the old saying 
 " act in haste repent at leisure " .
You talk about making a complaint as if they have done something wrong.

It's a long first post so I may have read it wrong - but I am wondering if you have. 

What the OP did was put in different info for quotes to get an idea of what possibilities there were. It wasn't lying. Hastings eventually offered him a policy - and then changed their mind! Not his fault again.

I have done similar with mileage and adding different family members. I have a 2nd car so I can CHOOSE what mileage I want to do on it. 5000, 3000 ??? up to me. I just regulate my use of that car to suit  So I will try out different combinations to see how it affects the price. I might also add my wife - she can drive it but doesn't have too.

As far as I can see this is not lying - until you submit and pay for the insurance.

As VXman said, I think you may have misunderstood my post. When I BOUGHT it, all of the information was CORRECT and truthful, I only gave false information, albeit with no malicious intent, while still on GoCompare when taking out the different quotes. As dunstonh pointed out, that was indeed my mistake which would raise suspicion, but I disclosed all the correct information before proceeding to the insurer's website and making the payment. 

Dosty

naedanger said:

In my view you should not say you made a mistake. (I don't see what mistake you made, other than underestimating their ability to jump to the wrong conclusion based on an inadequate investigations.) And you shouldn't ask, you should insist they reinstate the policy and clean your record.

Do say what actually happened - i.e. you did obtain a number of quotes for the reasons you have given but there is nothing wrong with doing so. If they thought it suspicious fair enough but they needed to confirm you did in fact fail to disclose something (which you didn't). By failing to get your side they failed to undertake even the most basic investigation before reaching the wrong conclusion.

When you sign an insurance document you will be given all the details you supplied and asked to check they are correct. If they were then you have done all that was required. (You are not asked to confirm you never got any other quotes based on any other details. Indeed it would be nonsense to ask.)

Demand they tell you what incorrect information you have signed-off on. If they cannot provide an  answer tell them you believe they have unfairly cancelled your policy and need their final response so you can escalate the matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

Okay that is very useful, thank you so much! When you put it like that, it does make a solid basis for an argument, especially the last paragraph, and I will try to do that on Monday when their customer relations lines are open. Again, thank you for the tip! 

AlfieWilko1950

VXman :- I totally understood the original post.
The OP played around with the quote and the fraud detection software picked up on that.
Have you never played around with a quote and noticed the price start to go up even when you revert to the original details?
I did say I thought it was unfortunate that he had picked Hastings and that some other insurers would have just increased the price until it was out of his comfort zone instead of cancelling.
Yes , you can alter some details but if it is excessive you will be caught out.
If the software thinks you are deliberately  manipulating your details you are in trouble.
He probably should have tried a broker or even a telephone quote but even on calls they employ detection software to pick out fraudulent customers.

dunstonh

In my view you should not say you made a mistake. (I don't see what mistake you made, other than underestimating their ability to jump to the wrong conclusion based on an inadequate investigations.) And you shouldn't ask, you should insist they reinstate the policy and clean your record.

The mistake the OP made if very clear.  They lied (inadvertently) on the comparison site.
The OP cannot insist on reinstatement.    That is the up to the provider.

Do say what actually happened - i.e. you did obtain a number of quotes for the reasons you have given but there is nothing wrong with doing so. If they thought it suspicious fair enough but they needed to confirm you did in fact fail to disclose something (which you didn't). By failing to get your side they failed to undertake even the most basic investigation before reaching the wrong conclusion.

They did think it was suspicious which is why the withdrew.  They do not need to confirm that the disclosure is accidental.   Sufficient doubt is enough for them to either alter their price or not offer cover.

There is the argument that if they didn't want to offer terms then they should have declined at the point of application and not after the event.  

naedanger

There has been no non-disclosure. The details the op would have confirmed were accurate were accurate. I am sure the op would not have been asked to confirm all the details supplied on the quotes they did not proceed with were accurate.

It is not entirely clear to me whether the insurer actually accepted the proposal. If they did I would be interested seeing the policy term that gives them the right to cancel in the circumstances given. Even if such terms exist (which I doubt) or the policy was not actually confirmed by the insurer then I would be strongly arguing to FOS that the insurer has treated the op unfairly. What the op did was perfectly reasonable and the consequences of the insurer's unfair actions are extreme.

There is also no such thing as an unintentional lie, since a lie is by definition giving an intentional untruth. In any event getting quotes for various scenarios is not even necassarily giving an untruth e.g. I might get a quote with or without a named driver because whether I will permit that driver to use my car will depend on how much it will cost me to insure. If it is too expensive and I decide not to add the named driver then I have done nothing wrong provided I don't actually let him drive my car. I haven't given any false information far less told lies or unintentional "lies".

consequences

dunstonh said:

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.

I expect insurance companies to investigate fraud but I dont expect them to be complicit in creating fraud in the first place. If you've had enough experience in making claims you'll see how many will skirt on the edge to inflate claims, falsify information and push people into making deals. Much like the USA justice system.

Here we believe in reasonable doubt, but when it comes to car insurance everything is your fault even if you're not an expert in car or insurance. One modification you might not be aware of and with the wrong luck it could be the reason for invalidating the claim. Who is really taking liberties??

AlfieWilko1950 said:

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

High risk area is taking the first two letters of my postcode and because its close (30miles away) to a city they claim it is high riisk as I might go to that city. I never do as it happens but they make assumptions. The risk is for crash for cash, but I'm quite aware of people around me and what they are up to. But it's easier, no its' more profitable to act as a cartel with the other most of market companies and screw everyone with those two letters in their address because of a few statistics and how exactly you choose apply them - most profitable manner.

But a smaller company sees nothing wrong with my postcode. You might call that assessing risk. I call it the very definition of fraud. "wrongful deception intended to result in financial gain"

We have one of the worst systems for car insurance in the UK. We insure both the car AND the person.
I can only drive one of my cars at one time but without having to resort to a trader policy I cannot get true multicar cover and I have multiple double digits worth of NCB to use against them all.

Frankly I'd prefer it if insurance was optional and we were able to take public liability out against ourselves again optional to cover the bare essentials of the road traffic act vs what insurance actually covers. The entire insurance industry is gamed to maximize not minimize the value of a claim which ever increases prices for all.

Dosty

dunstonh said:

There is the argument that if they didn't want to offer terms then they should have declined at the point of application and not after the event.  

That is my argument though, that they didn't carry out any sort of check up before I obtained the policy. Fair enough I got a number of quotes using different details which would've seemed suspicious, but at the point of ordering the policy all the information was correct, and they could've check that with me before cancelling my policy. As naedanger said, I did not sign off any false information so there was no fraud.