This will save you loads so read

easynotec3

ejones666 wrote: »

How can this be classed as fraud? A white lie, yes, but certainly not fraud.

Simple, the OP has deliberatley provided false information to benefit financially although fraud may be too strong a word - deception may fit better

FlameCloud

Fraud Act 2006-

In all three classes of fraud, it requires that for an offence to have occurred, the person must have acted dishonestly, and that they had to have acted with the intent of making a gain for themselves or anyone else, or inflicting a loss (or a risk of loss) on another.

So, the policy holder has acted dishonestly (in lieing about his quote)
They have the intention of making a gain for themselves (in saving money)
And have inflicted a loss on the insurance company (by denying them rightful premium)

Its rare to meet all three parts of the act!


One point to not though- you might get away with it at inception, but I can gaurentee you that if they ever need to get out of a claim, inception irregularites are usually a winner.

jonesMUFCforever

easynotec3 wrote: »

Simple, the OP has deliberatley provided false information to benefit financially although fraud may be too strong a word - deception may fit better

Don't make me smaller than I already am - I am 999 not 666:rotfl: :rotfl:

Woby_Tide

no_more_debt_2006 wrote: »

At the end of the day, Tesco are not going to go out of business (get real)

Churchill and Tesco are pretty much one and teh same hence teh similar websites functions, all just barnds of RBS insurance? either way if they are forced to scrutinise your policy for some reason and/or validate your eligibility then at least they have the details of your renewal quote to hand

easynotec3

ejones999 wrote: »

Don't make me smaller than I already am - I am 999 not 666:rotfl: :rotfl:

How am i making you feel smaller?? You asked how it was fraud - i provided an explanation

Apologies - the quote i replied to was by 666 which has since been deleted

hopon

FlameCloud wrote: »

Fraud Act 2006-

In all three classes of fraud, it requires that for an offence to have occurred, the person must have acted dishonestly, and that they had to have acted with the intent of making a gain for themselves or anyone else, or inflicting a loss (or a risk of loss) on another.

So, the policy holder has acted dishonestly (in lieing about his quote)
They have the intention of making a gain for themselves (in saving money)
And have inflicted a loss on the insurance company (by denying them rightful premium)

Its rare to meet all three parts of the act!


One point to not though- you might get away with it at inception, but I can gaurentee you that if they ever need to get out of a claim, inception irregularites are usually a winner.

I'd say thats a pretty hard interpretation. The OP hasn't made a gain or inflicted a loss on the insurance co. The OP has paid money out which they were under no obligation to do, and the insuarnce co had the opportunity to decline the renewal premium. The fact that they didn't implies that the new premium still comes with in an acceptable range for them.

My renewal came through from tesco at about 40% increase from the year before, when I phoned to query it and tell them I wouldn't be accepting the premium they amazingly found some discounts which bought it back to with £5 of the year before.

FlameCloud

Hard interpretation or not, that is what I think the case would be.

The ins has gained through lying to the insurer, so it really is very simple.

The updated Fraud act was written to make it far far easier to prosecute somebody- as the main differnce with the previous one is that you don't have to prove intent on it.

glastowinebar

I often wonder why people post this sort of info (by that I mean the exact numbers involved... in this case £1068.19 and £638) if any Tesco rep reads this board, then all they have to do is check those numbers and do something about it, cos I doubt if anyone else has said they had a quote for £638 after being quoted £1068.19 by Tesco


or doesn't it work like that

LemonTwist

no_more_debt_2006 wrote: »

a mixture of comments (those pretending to be legit, some people are so lardy dar.)

At the end of the day, Tesco are not going to go out of business (get real)

cover came through today, and no proof required.

:rotfl: :rotfl:

It doesn't matter that they are not going to go out of business; I think that any kind of deception or stealing is wrong, regardless of who the victim may be. It is the intention behind acts which makes them good or bad, rather than their particular consequences. If you want to argue that it is OK to deceive wealthy people, then where exactly do you draw the line?

However, in this case I think both parties were in the wrong (both the customer and the insurer). They really should have made more of an effort to check up on things.

Matt749

BEWARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They may check, just tried and they asked for all details and also whether I could send in. I said yes they then went through process and then said i had to send written quote in before they put my payment through.

I put phone down before as I lied!