Insurance Companies taking money from elderly person - help!

JGB1955

It appears that these 'chancers' are abroad - judging by the foreign currency exchange fees she's been charged.....  Not sure how you deal with that.

sheramber

Report them to Tradiing Standard

https://www.which.co.uk/news/article/five-firms-selling-appliance-cover-fined-for-making-predatory-marketing-calls-a6NYF3f83zB0

born_again

flossymcfly said:

Is there something the bank can do whereby each debit card payment has to be confirmed in the app? I don't even know if this is possible, I'm just thinking of some online purchases which require confirmation through the app. That would at least alert you to the fact something was afoot

Sadly not as these will be continuous payment authority. As such do not require authorisation for renewal.

OP, Do not report as fraud, as these companies will just comeback with your grans details & it will end up being re-debited. If they are taken by card, then just ask bank to stop any further payments. (while this does not stop any contract, these companies tend not to take it any further) No way for bank to claim money back unless they have debited after funds taken.
It is then a case of trying to contact them & simply say cancel any agreement. Sadly odds of getting anything back very slim.

jfdi

Contact her bank, under the DD guarantee if relevant.
I’ve got at least4 scammy insurance amounts refunded to my mum in similar circumstances.
They prey on the confused elderly in particular. Grrrrrr.

DullGreyGuy

jfdi said:

Contact her bank, under the DD guarantee if relevant.

The OP already said it was debit card payments so DD guarantee isnt relevant

DullGreyGuy

Brie said:

So gran is competent in the medical sense but not competent financially.  That she's 97 and never dealt with finances makes her a vulnerable customer and the companies should be treating her as such.  

You are not allowed to assume someone is vulnerable simply because they are old, that's age discrimination. 

We had an executive complaint from a customer in their 100s, using very colourful language, because a call centre agent had questioned their competence "based purely on their age".

It's an exceptionally fine line to try and tread particularly if you are dealing with pensions or other products/services most commonly dealing with the elderly. Most people will be talking to the person for the first time in their life, for 5-10 minutes and many wont answer the phone saying "Granny Puddings here, I'm 97 and never dealt with my own finances before"to hint at the fact they are vulnerable.

Having done outbound telesales for a warranty company many moons ago, script was simple... are you enjoying your SkyTV? Would you miss it if it stopped working? Did you know if your dish got out of alignment then a call out is £80? Well we can cover your kit for 3 years for £100 inc unlimited call outs etc. On average, If they have said a dozen words (a 30 year old or 97 year old, we didn't know the age when we call) before you get to the end it's unusual. Most obv say no and you cannot assume they are vulnerable simply because they say yes.

tightauldgit

DullGreyGuy said:

Brie said:

So gran is competent in the medical sense but not competent financially.  That she's 97 and never dealt with finances makes her a vulnerable customer and the companies should be treating her as such.  

You are not allowed to assume someone is vulnerable simply because they are old, that's age discrimination. 

Although financial services are exempt from age discrimination laws I believe - what that specifically means in practice I have no real idea. 

DullGreyGuy

tightauldgit said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Brie said:

So gran is competent in the medical sense but not competent financially.  That she's 97 and never dealt with finances makes her a vulnerable customer and the companies should be treating her as such.  

You are not allowed to assume someone is vulnerable simply because they are old, that's age discrimination. 

Although financial services are exempt from age discrimination laws I believe - what that specifically means in practice I have no real idea. 

Why do you think that?

Discrimination is not the same as differentiation. We can charge a 95 year old driver more than a 60 year old driver as we can statistically prove they have more claims. Thats not discimination and so doesnt need an exemption. Likewise you can decline a 35 year mortgage to a 100 year old applicant because statistically there is 0% chance of them surviving the term. 


Secondly, these are service plans she has been buying which arent Financial Services products.

tightauldgit

DullGreyGuy said:

tightauldgit said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Brie said:

So gran is competent in the medical sense but not competent financially.  That she's 97 and never dealt with finances makes her a vulnerable customer and the companies should be treating her as such.  

You are not allowed to assume someone is vulnerable simply because they are old, that's age discrimination. 

Although financial services are exempt from age discrimination laws I believe - what that specifically means in practice I have no real idea. 

Why do you think that?

Discrimination is not the same as differentiation. We can charge a 95 year old driver more than a 60 year old driver as we can statistically prove they have more claims. Thats not discimination and so doesnt need an exemption. Likewise you can decline a 35 year mortgage to a 100 year old applicant because statistically there is 0% chance of them surviving the term. 


Secondly, these are service plans she has been buying which arent Financial Services products.

As far as I can see financial services have a blanket exemption from age discrimination legislation in the Equality Act but as I said I haven't actually looked into what that that means in practice. 

DullGreyGuy

tightauldgit said:

DullGreyGuy said:

tightauldgit said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Brie said:

So gran is competent in the medical sense but not competent financially.  That she's 97 and never dealt with finances makes her a vulnerable customer and the companies should be treating her as such.  

You are not allowed to assume someone is vulnerable simply because they are old, that's age discrimination. 

Although financial services are exempt from age discrimination laws I believe - what that specifically means in practice I have no real idea. 

Why do you think that?

Discrimination is not the same as differentiation. We can charge a 95 year old driver more than a 60 year old driver as we can statistically prove they have more claims. Thats not discimination and so doesnt need an exemption. Likewise you can decline a 35 year mortgage to a 100 year old applicant because statistically there is 0% chance of them surviving the term. 


Secondly, these are service plans she has been buying which arent Financial Services products.

As far as I can see financial services have a blanket exemption from age discrimination legislation in the Equality Act but as I said I haven't actually looked into what that that means in practice. 

Are you meaning Part 5 20(A)? Its not a blanket exemption, its simply says you can use age as part of risk assessment as long as you have data to back it up. That doesnt allow them to advertise jobs in their call centres for the over 45s only etc. 

It strictly shouldnt be necessary as a carveout as evidence backed differentiation isnt discrimination in most cases anyway.