Excessive insurance cancellation fee

eskbanker

dumpster_fire2025 said:

eskbanker said:

dumpster_fire2025 said:

eskbanker said:

dumpster_fire2025 said:

born_again said:

dumpster_fire2025 said:

I don't think that will be an issue, but as almost all car insurance is annual cover (except for explicitly temporary cover) then the monthly payments will be to pay for a finance agreement which covers the annual premium. There's a good chance if this has gone to a DCA that that agreement will have been defaulted which will make it difficult to take out insurance on a "pay monthly" basis for some time and also affect taking out other credit agreements.

They might find it very difficult indeed to get any bad markers removed from their credit file if they willfully withheld payment.

Credit file/history is a matter of fact. You would have to be very lucky to get anything removed where a DD was cancelled.
Only real way is if the marker is added in error by company. Which if the DD was stopped would not be the case.

They are but the FOS can be a law unto themselves sometimes.

Deliberately so, to a certain extent, in that their decisions aren't exclusively based on what the letter of the law states but entail woollier concepts of fairness, etc.

Which is a problem when they make things up as they go along. Is there are particularly good reason why the FOS cannot adhere to the law?

It's another Blairite quango as far as I can see, hamstringing the country by non-accountable goons.

I'm clarifying rather than justifying, but, as well as the law (which can always be enforced via the courts if necessary), they can take other matters into consideration under the terms of section 228(2) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000:

A complaint is to be determined by reference to what is, in the opinion of the ombudsman, fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case

Not sure how that constitutes 'hamstringing the country' though?

You've only compounded what I've said, not argued against it.

I am fully aware that the FOS can legally "play jazz" when it comes to their decisions. That doesn't make it right.

Hence saying that I was clarifying not justifying - I'm just pointing out that their stance is defined in law, and that they do adhere to the law but don't only do that, and anyone wishing a complaint to be determined by the law and nothing else can do so via the courts.  Is your argument that the relevant section of FSMA should be repealed?

What did you mean by them "hamstringing the country"?

ThumbRemote

dumpster_fire2025 said:

eskbanker said:

dumpster_fire2025 said:

born_again said:

dumpster_fire2025 said:

I don't think that will be an issue, but as almost all car insurance is annual cover (except for explicitly temporary cover) then the monthly payments will be to pay for a finance agreement which covers the annual premium. There's a good chance if this has gone to a DCA that that agreement will have been defaulted which will make it difficult to take out insurance on a "pay monthly" basis for some time and also affect taking out other credit agreements.

They might find it very difficult indeed to get any bad markers removed from their credit file if they willfully withheld payment.

Credit file/history is a matter of fact. You would have to be very lucky to get anything removed where a DD was cancelled.
Only real way is if the marker is added in error by company. Which if the DD was stopped would not be the case.

They are but the FOS can be a law unto themselves sometimes.

Deliberately so, to a certain extent, in that their decisions aren't exclusively based on what the letter of the law states but entail woollier concepts of fairness, etc.

It's another Blairite quango as far as I can see, hamstringing the country by non-accountable goons.

dumpster_fire2025 said:

Ectophile said:

dumpster_fire2025 said:

eskbanker said:

dumpster_fire2025 said:

born_again said:

dumpster_fire2025 said:

I don't think that will be an issue, but as almost all car insurance is annual cover (except for explicitly temporary cover) then the monthly payments will be to pay for a finance agreement which covers the annual premium. There's a good chance if this has gone to a DCA that that agreement will have been defaulted which will make it difficult to take out insurance on a "pay monthly" basis for some time and also affect taking out other credit agreements.

They might find it very difficult indeed to get any bad markers removed from their credit file if they willfully withheld payment.

Credit file/history is a matter of fact. You would have to be very lucky to get anything removed where a DD was cancelled.
Only real way is if the marker is added in error by company. Which if the DD was stopped would not be the case.

They are but the FOS can be a law unto themselves sometimes.

Deliberately so, to a certain extent, in that their decisions aren't exclusively based on what the letter of the law states but entail woollier concepts of fairness, etc.

Which is a problem when they make things up as they go along. Is there are particularly good reason why the FOS cannot adhere to the law?

It's another Blairite quango as far as I can see, hamstringing the country by non-accountable goons.

The FOS has been allowed to continue through successive Conservative and Labour governments.  Who could have changed things if they had wanted to.

The FOS is not a court of law.  It is not their duty to rule on the law.  If you want to sue somebody in an actual court, that option is open to you.

This is a LONG argument to have and we are not supposed to have "political" discussion on here (yes, mein fuhrer) so I will leave it at that, but please don't try to urinate on me and tell me it's raining. I don't take challenges to my intelligence lightly.

And yet many people will judge your intelligence because of your bizarre choice of phrasing.