warning - 1st Central hike price scam

WheresmeMoneygone

Just to clarify my previous thread …
The single page certificate in section five stated me as the only person insured on the policy to drive the vehicle.
It has no reference to driving other vehicles.
I think it should state a yes you are AND a no you are not statement.
If you watch any of the police programs, drivers are regularly caught out by assuming that they are covered 3rd party to drive other vehicles.
Again, my fault for not ascertaining my entitlement.
By the way .. their website has very little obvious contact detail. There is no “How to contact us” tab.

Such is life eh!

cw8825

WheresmeMoneygone said:

Just to clarify my previous thread …
The single page certificate in section five stated me as the only person insured on the policy to drive the vehicle.
It has no reference to driving other vehicles.
I think it should state a yes you are AND a no you are not statement.
If you watch any of the police programs, drivers are regularly caught out by assuming that they are covered 3rd party to drive other vehicles.
Again, my fault for not ascertaining my entitlement.
By the way .. their website has very little obvious contact detail. There is no “How to contact us” tab.

Such is life eh!

It need to state yes you or or no you are not.

if it states it then you are covered
With Driving other cars the general assumption it is always included but it’s down to the underwriter and is not guranteed on a normal everyday policy. 

If you wanted it Guranteed you would need to find a policy that is not aimed at the mass market

in terms of the cancellation fee - how often do you actually need to drive somebody else’s car?

stew22

I have just had a similar experience from 1st Central. I gave all correct information at time of quote, pointing out I was I employment, had 10yrs no claims discount and been involved in an accident that was not my fault. Having then being asked to provide the NCD from my previous insurer I did so. I then received a call saying that they had had to make changes to my policy as I had not disclosed things at the time. They were wanting a one off payment of over £500. I pointed out that, although on garden leave from work this still legally meant i was employed at the time of taking out the policy. I disputed their claim and told them I wanted to cancel my policy. They admitted during the call that I had not been at fault and acknowledged there was a delay in their part in processing my paperwork. They wavered the early cancellation fee of £50 and administration fee of £50 but calculated I still owed about £37 (minus the direct debit that had just come out) having added on an arrangement fee of £50 and giving me seven days to pay. I have emailed them pointing out that as there should not be an arrangement fee as no changes should have to be made to the policy that in actual fact they owe me around £25. I have requested they respond and find a way to pay me. Interestingly, after I had the telephone conversation earlier and a confirmation email stating I owed around £37 I received a further email a couple of hours later as though the telephone conversation had never taken place and asking for the £500 premium.

blueberrypie

Reporting another similiar experience with 1st Central. Policy taken out a few weeks ago, main driver + 2 named drivers. One of the named drivers (call him Fred) has his own vehicle and has insurance on that vehicle. A claim was made on Fred's insurance policy about three years ago, but Joe, not Fred, was driving. Joe was at fault but Fred's no-claims discount was unaffected.

1st Central emailed to say that the database showed an accident on xxx date involving Fred. Letters from Fred's insurer were provided, along with an explanation. One of the letters provided was addressed to Fred saying that he had no claims, another was addressed to Joe saying he had a claim on xxx date (1st Central didn't ask for this, but it seemed sensible to provided the evidence for the claim on that date).

1st Central then emailed again to say that as Fred was involved in an accident on xxx date, there would be an additional charge of £9.99 on the policy premium, + £50 admin fee for the change.

A phone-call to 1st Central sorted it out in our case - the very helpful person on the phone went and perused the documents we'd provided, then agreed that they'd made an error and that there would be no amendment, no extra premium and no admin fee. But it does sound like this is becoming a habit with them.

darrenfinlayson

It's clear from multiple sources including this site which rates 1st Central at 1.53 / 5.00m based on 926 customer reviews, that this company are doing something very different than other insurers, and from the forum responses on that site its simple to identify the patterns and techniques at play.

If you give them the benefit of the doubt you would say that they are exceptionally diligent in thoroughly auditing the details provided by each customer.  But with an understanding of an industry that yields low margins, the loss leader value focused policies includes a set of clauses that are clearly designed to extract further revenue to bridge the delta, post policy start date.

While it can't by definition be characterised as a scam, essentially because as a customer you agree to the terms up front, it appears to be flipping the concept of commission based product addons, by instead initiating a dialogue with the customer in the guise of requesting evidence for on the statement of fact.  The company then almost always finds an ambiguous nuance within the policy that triggers a change resulting in a requote plus change fee.

From a customer perspective it's difficult to challenge because when completing the quotation fields there isn't an explicit definition that outlines the succinct difference between each of the options and how that therefore helps to ensure the highest level of honesty and accuracy when entering into the contract.

Here is a specific example (car insurance), and the scenario that I was caught with:
- they contacted me to validate my profession which I selected 'retired' believing it was the correct match
- they then told me on the phone that because I wasn't state pension age that it wasn't technically correct, even though I explained that I retired early
- they then talked me into choosing 'Unemployed', I explained that by definition that typically means I am either on an unemployment benefit or I'm actively seeking a job, but they convinced me to agree that this was a more accurate option
- because I was on the phone I didn't get to know the other options, one of which was 'houseperson' which to me seems more on point in the spirit of accuracy
- As a result of the change they told me that in addition to the £247 original 12 month insurance premium that I would need to pay them an additional £299
- I have 7 days to either pay the £299 or pay £80 to cancel the policy
- They initialised the conversation a couple of days after the 14 day 'cooling off period' in which there is no cost to cancel

All things considered as a customer the clauses fully bind my options, and any way I turn I need to pay them more money for the same service.  A key frustration is, looking objectively, doesn't make sense and 1stCentral offer no satisfying explanation as to how someone who is 'unemployed' vs 'retired' could attract such a material premium change.  In addition when I ask for a new quote with the 'unemployed' status amended the quote is closer to the £247 cost.

chrisw

How is your 'retirement' funded? I am under state pension age but have no employment and take my company pension so it's quite clear I'm retired. However, it becomes a bit more blurred if you consider yourself retired but are claiming benefits or even if just living off savings.

Aretnap

darrenfinlayson said:

Here is a specific example (car insurance), and the scenario that I was caught with:
- they contacted me to validate my profession which I selected 'retired' believing it was the correct match
- they then told me on the phone that because I wasn't state pension age that it wasn't technically correct, even though I explained that I retired early
- they then talked me into choosing 'Unemployed', I explained that by definition that typically means I am either on an unemployment benefit or I'm actively seeking a job, but they convinced me to agree that this was a more accurate option
- because I was on the phone I didn't get to know the other options, one of which was 'houseperson' which to me seems more on point in the spirit of accuracy
- As a result of the change they told me that in addition to the £247 original 12 month insurance premium that I would need to pay them an additional £299
- I have 7 days to either pay the £299 or pay £80 to cancel the policy
- They initialised the conversation a couple of days after the 14 day 'cooling off period' in which there is no cost to cancel

Did their website provide a definition of "retired" when you filled in the questionaire?

If not, I would be making a complaint on the grounds that unless the insurer gives you a specific definition of a word, you are entitled to interpret it according to its ordinary meaning when answering the questions. And in ordinary parlance, someone who has stopped working, has no intention of working again, and is living on a pension/savings mainly acquired through work is retired.

"Independent means" might also be a possible descriptor, but to me that implies more someone living off an inheritance/trust fund/lottery win, rather than someone who has retired on savings acquired over a lifetime of work. "Unemployed" is clearly not correct in normal usage unless you are trying to find a job and/or claiming out of work benefits.

To that I would add that you presumably told them your age in answer to the questions and their system was happy to quote for you as a retired person. If they define "retired" in terms of age, their system should not let you select retired if you are not of state pension age, or should not give you a quote if you claim to be retired but are under 67.

The policy documents will have details of how to make a complaint. For the best chance of a successful complaint be concise, polite but firm, and say what outcome you would be happy with. If you are not happy with their response you can escalate your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service at no cost (to you)

Aretnap

darrenfinlayson said:

A key frustration is, looking objectively, doesn't make sense and 1stCentral offer no satisfying explanation as to how someone who is 'unemployed' vs 'retired' could attract such a material premium change. 

Don't get hung up on that point. Nearly all insurers will rate unemployed people as significantly higher risk than retired people. The two groups have very different demographics and overall risk profiles - it's not because driving to a job interview is inherently riskier than driving to a bowls club.

What do I mean by overall risk profile? Well, to give an extent example, consider why an insurer might rate vicars as lower risk than footballers. Clue: it's not because they're worried about cars being hit by stray footballs while parked at the training ground.

darrenfinlayson

Aretnap said:

darrenfinlayson said:

Here is a specific example (car insurance), and the scenario that I was caught with:
- they contacted me to validate my profession which I selected 'retired' believing it was the correct match
- they then told me on the phone that because I wasn't state pension age that it wasn't technically correct, even though I explained that I retired early
- they then talked me into choosing 'Unemployed', I explained that by definition that typically means I am either on an unemployment benefit or I'm actively seeking a job, but they convinced me to agree that this was a more accurate option
- because I was on the phone I didn't get to know the other options, one of which was 'houseperson' which to me seems more on point in the spirit of accuracy
- As a result of the change they told me that in addition to the £247 original 12 month insurance premium that I would need to pay them an additional £299
- I have 7 days to either pay the £299 or pay £80 to cancel the policy
- They initialised the conversation a couple of days after the 14 day 'cooling off period' in which there is no cost to cancel

Did their website provide a definition of "retired" when you filled in the questionaire?

If not, I would be making a complaint on the grounds that unless the insurer gives you a specific definition of a word, you are entitled to interpret it according to its ordinary meaning when answering the questions. And in ordinary parlance, someone who has stopped working, has no intention of working again, and is living on a pension/savings mainly acquired through work is retired.

"Independent means" might also be a possible descriptor, but to me that implies more someone living off an inheritance/trust fund/lottery win, rather than someone who has retired on savings acquired over a lifetime of work. "Unemployed" is clearly not correct in normal usage unless you are trying to find a job and/or claiming out of work benefits.

To that I would add that you presumably told them your age in answer to the questions and their system was happy to quote for you as a retired person. If they define "retired" in terms of age, their system should not let you select retired if you are not of state pension age, or should not give you a quote if you claim to be retired but are under 67.

The policy documents will have details of how to make a complaint. For the best chance of a successful complaint be concise, polite but firm, and say what outcome you would be happy with. If you are not happy with their response you can escalate your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service at no cost (to you)

You are spot on, to me not having a definition at the point of application is a key factor, I did answer as honestly as I could on the basis of the list of applications, but I'm savvy enough to know why there might be a difference in risk for someone seeking employment and eg travelling to interviews, vs someone retired.  Because my understanding of the definition of unemployment was all I could draw on and in my estimation is someone actively seeking work and / or on some form of benefit, it seemed clear that retired was more accurate, and accuracy is something insurers emphasise.  Not having a definition, in my view, 1st Central are not following the FCA's guidance by failing to treat customers fairly through transparency.  I actually spotted the occupation of 'houseperson' which again feels like a good fit but the lack of clarity on the difference means I can't explicitly provide an accurate answer.  On a side note, having completed more than a dozen car insurance quotation forms the list of occupations vary across each, failing to have a common standard is another layer of confusion / lack of transparency.

Yesterday I made the decision to cancel the policy because if 1st Central are this difficult to work with (based on having car insurance for 33 years with numerous companies) then I would be concerned about any success in actually making a claim however I might interpret my policy.

The result was I paid an annual payment of £247.72 and after a £100 cancelation fee and time insured for a period of 25 days, my refund is £134.17.

darrenfinlayson

chrisw said:

How is your 'retirement' funded? I am under state pension age but have no employment and take my company pension so it's quite clear I'm retired. However, it becomes a bit more blurred if you consider yourself retired but are claiming benefits or even if just living off savings.

Agree that claiming unemployment benefits is a clear indication of being unemployed, and / or actively seeking work.  Retirement is funded through savings.