Insurance Cancellation Costs

Quentin

dunstonh wrote: »

The OP is within their right to take it further but what was the point?

I can see a point.

Bearing in mind this forum is for moneysavers and dedicated to consumer revenge.

Budget clearly had to spend far in excess of the fee you quoted - they had to devote time to preparing for and dealing with the case.

There was a chance that they decided to take a commercial decision and drop their demands on the MSE member - which would have been cheaper for them.

Worth a punt, especially from someone dedicated to saving money!

C_Ronaldo

Surely its in the t&c's, its common practice to be charged

djohn2002uk

raskazz wrote: »

May I ask what, specifically, is 'unethical' about Budget's operations?

I hesitated as to whether I should bother answering anyone who uses " Whatever the call centre monkey's opinion is, in my opinion the terms are not misleading." Not clever, just plain ignorant and sounds like you think you are superior to someone working in a call centre. Well I can tell you that from that post of yours you certainly don't sound superior to anyone I know.
But now I'm here I'll tell you what is unethical. Using low prices to woo customers when they know full well that a good percentage of people will not read or maybe understand all the small print and knowing that a good percentage will either change their car or move home which will rake a substantial portion of the discount back in is in my mind unethical. They are not upfront about it, in fact as posted above, they use the term "may be charged" when the intention is to charge everyone. Again unethical.
And as for calling 5months short term cover is beyond me. Short term cover always used to refer to a few weeks.
As I said earlier, my insurance company make no charges for simple changes and when I changed my car last April they even insured both vehicles for 14 days with no charge. That's what I call an ethical company.

Steve1981

djohn2002uk wrote: »

I hesitated as to whether I should bother answering anyone who uses " Whatever the call centre monkey's opinion is, in my opinion the terms are not misleading." Not clever, just plain ignorant and sounds like you think you are superior to someone working in a call centre. Well I can tell you that from that post of yours you certainly don't sound superior to anyone I know.
But now I'm here I'll tell you what is unethical. Using low prices to woo customers when they know full well that a good percentage of people will not read or maybe understand all the small print and knowing that a good percentage will either change their car or move home which will rake a substantial portion of the discount back in is in my mind unethical. They are not upfront about it, in fact as posted above, they use the term "may be charged" when the intention is to charge everyone. Again unethical.
And as for calling 5months short term cover is beyond me. Short term cover always used to refer to a few weeks.
As I said earlier, my insurance company make no charges for simple changes and when I changed my car last April they even insured both vehicles for 14 days with no charge. That's what I call an ethical company.

your admin fee would have ben covered in the price you pay, so basically you pay for it even if you dont use it - good 'business' ethics.

if you read the T&C and saw it in there and did cancel the policy within the first 14 days I really cannot see how you are able to complain about this one Im sorry

mackem1

if in fact as posted above, they use the term "may be charged" when the intention is to charge everyone. Again unethical.

The reason this is stated is because budget wouldn't charge fee's in certain situations i.e if the customer was deceased or the policy was voided. I work for Budget and quite frankly am sick of people ringing up to cancel then complaining about the fee's because they havent read their documents which states very clearly what will be charged when cancelling early

lisyloo

Well said mackem1.
I'm sick of being expected (as another policy holder) to subsidise people who need to make changes. Ocassionally this is through no fault of their own but often because they have voluntarily decided to change their car, house, partner etc.

I very rarely change house, partner, car or have accidents and don't understand why people would expect me to subsidise them.

If you want to (or have to) make changes then don't expect people to work for nothing and RTFM.
Even if it's through absolutely no fault of your own then people will not work for free (If you died you would not expect the undertakers to provide their time free of charge).
The paperwork is there for everyone to read up front.
If you can't be bothered to read it then don't whinge.

Obviously if people have genuine complaints then I support them totally and there are proceesses in place (complaint procedures, FSA etc.) for them to pursue genuine complaints, but on the whole it's a case of RTFM.

BTW - I'm not getting at anyone in particular. I'ts a general rant.

dunstonh

I work for Budget and quite frankly am sick of people ringing up to cancel then complaining about the fee's

A good number of whom are in occupations where they charge fees or have costs for doing jobs too. When they charge them its fine. When they get charged them, its not.

j4mieuk

Okay

This thread is getting way off topic, I feel I need to clarify some of my points and again ask if anyone else has had similar experiences.

1. I contacted the FOS as I was unsure of where to go after speaking to the customer service agent. I was not abusing the FOS or its services. I called and explained my situation to FOS and they agreed I should take it further.

2. My main gripe with the whole saga is that the agent confirmed to me that the terms and conditions on my policy are incorrect. I dont blame or question the call centre agent, his education or his salary. I do however think that all companies who employ call centre staff have a responsibility to train them to a level where they have sufficient knowledge on the product or service they are selling/advising on.

Again I ask if anyone has had similar experiences and can advise on the next steps for me to take.

My options are call budget again to see if there is any way we can come to an agreement on an acceptable charge or complete the form given to me by the FOS to tell them I am not happy with the final decision from budget and would like to take matters further by asking them to make a decision on this case.

thank you

lisyloo

Hi jamie,

Do budget have a formal complaints procedure (they should).
Have you exhausted that procedure?

I don't mean speaking to call center agents on the phone because normally following the correct procedure gets "customer relations" people involved.
You can't take an issue to the FOS before you have exhausted the formal complaints procedure, so whilst they have agreed you should pursue it you need to do it following the proper procedures otherwise the FOS will simply reject your form.

My experience is that sometimes when the customer relations debt get involved then you can get a swift resolution because they have entirely different aims to the call center people you are speaking to.

I don't have experience of your exact situation but I have been down the complaints/FOS route and won every time.

dunstonh

I called and explained my situation to FOS and they agreed I should take it further.

They rarely say anything different.

Again I ask if anyone has had similar experiences and can advise on the next steps for me to take.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/54/insurance.htm

Get it straight from the horses mouth.

One upheld, one not. It is worth noting the upheld case:
So we told the firm it should make a pro rata refund, after deducting a reasonable administration fee.

The FOS do generally allow the refund to not be exactly pro rata. A couple of months difference is allowed. Yours does seem to be outside of a reasonable amount.

You cannot circumvent the complaints process by going straight to the FOS. All they will do is post your complaint back to the insurer. I suggest you go back to the insurer noting the FOS publication findings. The insurer may come back and say that you should have been on a short term policy and not an annual policy and they are pricing you as such.