Insurance Cancellation Costs

raskazz

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.

No, not at all, my first job was in a call centre actually. It is first hand experience of the call centre environment that I based my opinons upon.

djohn2002uk wrote: »

Well I can tell you that from that post of yours you certainly don't sound superior to anyone I know.

Why are you getting personal? I won't dignify this pathetic slight with any further response.

djohn2002uk wrote: »

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

Hang on - insurers INSTRUCT customers to read the full terms and conditions when a policy is incepted and also explain the 'cooling-off' cancellation rights to them.

Also - fees are not hidden in 'small print' at all - they are clearly stated, in plain and intelligible English, usually in a Terms of Business or KeyFacts sheet. If we refer back to Budget specifically they have a whole section on fees on their website, clearly linked from the first page you see when obtaining a quote. Cancellation rights are usually found in a specific section of the policy booklet headed - funnily enough - 'Cancellation', not concealed or shrouded in legalese at all.

djohn2002uk wrote: »

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.

You disagree with their business model (even though you have apparently not availed yourself of the knowledge of how sales are regulated by the FSA), this does not make it 'unethical'.

djohn2002uk wrote: »

They are not upfront about it

Yes they are - I refer to the above points.

djohn2002uk wrote: »

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

No, you are just plain wrong. The intention is not to charge everyone - it is actually quite the opposite - as there will be some circumstances where it would not be fair to charge the fee. Hence they use the term 'may'.

djohn2002uk wrote: »

And as for calling 5months short term cover is beyond me. Short term cover always used to refer to a few weeks.

We can nitpick on semantics till the cows come home, but this does not alter the fundamental position that the contract is an annual one, so if it does not run for a year it is a shorter term than originally agreed.

djohn2002uk wrote: »

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.

That's your choice isn't it. Doesn't mean that they are any more ethical or unethical than any other insurer.

boga

I had the same experience with Saga. I don't think the cancellation costs were at all clear. I went with them as I have retired early without any retirement pension. The monthly cost was about £18. The cancellation charges were over £34. I'll read the small print more cafefully next time!