Car Insurance - No Claims Certificate Rejected - Industry Change Needed?

curiousitycurve

I've just cancelled an upcoming car insurance policy because my no claims certificate was rejected.

The insurer states that the information they request (such as a certificate issue date) is industry standard. But I was supplied with a certificate by my former insurer, and the information deemed insufficient by this alternative insurer, which to me means this information is not standard, because if it was we'd all be getting compliant certificates issued to us.

What frustrates me about this is that I will now have to pay more elsewhere because I have decided not to use their service. Even if I did decide to go with them, if I was unable to secure a suitable certificate from my current insurer, my no claims discount would be rated as 0, also costing me more money. I feel that these practices will really negatively impact anyone less able to undertake this process of self referral (they provided no information on how to rectify the situation - placing the situation solely on the consumer, while also reinforcing how "standard" this process was), this is already in a context where people pay more if they buy later on.

I feel an industry wide, regulated practice of issuing standardised certificates is needed, because this just feels like another cynical way to generate money from people. I am supportive that they can and do ask for the information, I just disagree with the fact I have been told by a very large insurer that this is standard practice, because there is no "standard" being adhered to.

Am I missing something? Is it just that my current insurer is particularly bad with their paperwork? Perhaps so, but I can't be the only person this issue will affect.

I'd like to write somewhere to do something about this, would anyone have any suggestions? My local MP perhaps?

cw8825

what are they actually asking for? they do need to see a date it was issued, you cant provide one from years ago
There is no 'industry standard' NCB certificate. NCB is entirely made up, a gimmick from insurers
Most just provide a copy of the renewal doc from the current insurer which is usually accepted

born_again

curiousitycurve said:

I've just cancelled an upcoming car insurance policy because my no claims certificate was rejected.

The insurer states that the information they request (such as a certificate issue date) is industry standard. But I was supplied with a certificate by my former insurer, and the information deemed insufficient by this alternative insurer, which to me means this information is not standard, because if it was we'd all be getting compliant certificates issued to us.

What frustrates me about this is that I will now have to pay more elsewhere because I have decided not to use their service. Even if I did decide to go with them, if I was unable to secure a suitable certificate from my current insurer, my no claims discount would be rated as 0, also costing me more money. I feel that these practices will really negatively impact anyone less able to undertake this process of self referral (they provided no information on how to rectify the situation - placing the situation solely on the consumer, while also reinforcing how "standard" this process was), this is already in a context where people pay more if they buy later on.

I feel an industry wide, regulated practice of issuing standardised certificates is needed, because this just feels like another cynical way to generate money from people. I am supportive that they can and do ask for the information, I just disagree with the fact I have been told by a very large insurer that this is standard practice, because there is no "standard" being adhered to.

Am I missing something? Is it just that my current insurer is particularly bad with their paperwork? Perhaps so, but I can't be the only person this issue will affect.

I'd like to write somewhere to do something about this, would anyone have any suggestions? My local MP perhaps?

Which company is this?

XRS200

Did it not have any date on it?

It's fairly standard for a date to be shown - proves it's recent.

curiousitycurve

cw8825 said:

what are they actually asking for? they do need to see a date it was issued, you cant provide one from years ago
There is no 'industry standard' NCB certificate. NCB is entirely made up, a gimmick from insurers
Most just provide a copy of the renewal doc from the current insurer which is usually accepted

From their website:

"Your proof of No Claim Discount (NCD) is provided on the renewal invitation from your previous insurer, or by a proof of NCD letter. Your previous insurer may have posted or emailed this to you. If you can't find this, please ask your previous insurer to resend it to you. We cannot do this for you.

We can only accept a renewal invitation or proof of NCD letter as evidence, clearly displaying your No Claim Discount (NCD) years on a headed letter sent to you by post or email. Your No Claim Discount (NCD) proof must:

• only be used on one vehicle at a time, so it must not be in use on any other car insurance policy
• be from a policy that expired within the last 24 months, 12 months if it's from a company vehicle policy
• have been earned on a Van or Private car policy in your own name or from sole use of a company owned vehicle. We not accept proof of NCD from a Classic Car or Motorcycle policy. Any proof of a claim free driving of a company owned car must confirm you had sole use of the Company Car, including for Social, Domestic and Pleasure purposes and that use has now ceased
• show your full name and postcode
• show your previous insurer's name
• be in English
• be issued by a UK or EU insurer, or an insurer from a country the DVLA includes in their license exchange scheme.
• must be in the name of the policyholder"

I'm totally not against that a certification process exists, but the onus being placed onto the consumer feels wrong, particularly given there are financial implications.

You were also asked to fill in a checklist, after paying a deposit and setting up a direct debit. In fairness to them, they do provide a brief outline of this (after you've spent time putting all your info in) just before you pay, but after payment, when filling out the checklist and being confronted by the option: "be issued by a UK or EU insurer, or an insurer from a country the DVLA includes in their license exchange scheme." you do feel a little like paying money to then be asked to supply information you've never once seen before, is a bit cart before horse.

I provided them with what I was provided with, a renewal from my current insurer. Looking at their checklist there were other areas it would likely have failed but they weren't mentioned. It doesn't seem reasonable that insurers ask for more and more informaiton, and then potentailly can benefit from / exploit these inconsistencies to profit.

Yes you're absolutely right, there isn't an industry standard one. If we are held to account to their assertion that there is a standard process, then I feel there should be one.

curiousitycurve

born_again said:

curiousitycurve said:

I've just cancelled an upcoming car insurance policy because my no claims certificate was rejected.

The insurer states that the information they request (such as a certificate issue date) is industry standard. But I was supplied with a certificate by my former insurer, and the information deemed insufficient by this alternative insurer, which to me means this information is not standard, because if it was we'd all be getting compliant certificates issued to us.

What frustrates me about this is that I will now have to pay more elsewhere because I have decided not to use their service. Even if I did decide to go with them, if I was unable to secure a suitable certificate from my current insurer, my no claims discount would be rated as 0, also costing me more money. I feel that these practices will really negatively impact anyone less able to undertake this process of self referral (they provided no information on how to rectify the situation - placing the situation solely on the consumer, while also reinforcing how "standard" this process was), this is already in a context where people pay more if they buy later on.

I feel an industry wide, regulated practice of issuing standardised certificates is needed, because this just feels like another cynical way to generate money from people. I am supportive that they can and do ask for the information, I just disagree with the fact I have been told by a very large insurer that this is standard practice, because there is no "standard" being adhered to.

Am I missing something? Is it just that my current insurer is particularly bad with their paperwork? Perhaps so, but I can't be the only person this issue will affect.

I'd like to write somewhere to do something about this, would anyone have any suggestions? My local MP perhaps?

Which company is this?

Aviva Zero.

curiousitycurve

XRS200 said:

Did it not have any date on it?

It's fairly standard for a date to be shown - proves it's recent.

Yes the irony being it did have a date on it, although that date stated "printed on".

DullGreyGuy

curiousitycurve said:

I've just cancelled an upcoming car insurance policy because my no claims certificate was rejected.

The insurer states that the information they request (such as a certificate issue date) is industry standard. But I was supplied with a certificate by my former insurer, and the information deemed insufficient by this alternative insurer, which to me means this information is not standard, because if it was we'd all be getting compliant certificates issued to us.

What frustrates me about this is that I will now have to pay more elsewhere because I have decided not to use their service. Even if I did decide to go with them, if I was unable to secure a suitable certificate from my current insurer, my no claims discount would be rated as 0, also costing me more money. I feel that these practices will really negatively impact anyone less able to undertake this process of self referral (they provided no information on how to rectify the situation - placing the situation solely on the consumer, while also reinforcing how "standard" this process was), this is already in a context where people pay more if they buy later on.

I feel an industry wide, regulated practice of issuing standardised certificates is needed, because this just feels like another cynical way to generate money from people. I am supportive that they can and do ask for the information, I just disagree with the fact I have been told by a very large insurer that this is standard practice, because there is no "standard" being adhered to.

Am I missing something? Is it just that my current insurer is particularly bad with their paperwork? Perhaps so, but I can't be the only person this issue will affect.

I'd like to write somewhere to do something about this, would anyone have any suggestions? My local MP perhaps?

Regulators like innovation, to a degree, prescription blocks that. An insurer wants to create a new concept like ND NCD as DLG did several years ago they can't because the specification of how NCD is to be done would need to be changed, every insurer would need to change their systems etc.

Who's going to fund it? Our letters used to say 5 years +, the actual PAS database held the number of years into Single digit database field. You dictate that we have to put the actual number of years if its over 9 then thats a multi million pound project to find every place where number of years NCD exists is and ensure it is changed to a double. 

The market has run for 40 years without regulation on how proof of NCD is produced, not convinced customers want to pay an extra £10 a year premium to deal with a couple of outliers. In almost all cases it's just people being pragmatic and in particular if they are the ones deviating from the norm.