Car insurance cancellation

lisyloo

Then should you find they have still been black marked you can sort it out

Some people have not been able to do this.
The company insists that the late payment record stands.
Why should they change it if it's true?

But to pay up when you feel a mistake has been made just allows them to be "relaxed" about sorting out the matter

Why?
If you write them a letter saying you are taking them to the samll claims court in 10 days if they don't refund then why does that allow them to be relaxed?
I was not suggesting giving them an easy time.
You can still pursue them - with vigour if you wish.

and why should they have your money in their bank account if you truly feel the invoice is wrong?

a) Becuase they have the power of putting a (possbly truthful) late payment mark on your record which they then refuse to amend and doesn't go away for years.
b) You may be wrong and you might lose.

I really think it's up to people to decide for themselves how they want to play it.
If it was a question of damaging my credit record then I'd pay up and then pursue them like a rottweiler through the courts not allowing them any relaxation.

MarkyMarkD

Quentin It was the advice to enter into a formal dispute over the amount, rather than simply to pay what is legitimately due, that I was disagreeing with.

I concur wholeheartedly with Lisy's views in this regard.

Quentin

Well we can't have a heated debate after all - I didn't advise that at all.

My first post in this thread (#2) did advise the op to pay the bill if it was correct, otherwise they were leaving themselves open to black marking etc, (long before the same advice was repeated by Lisyloo).

If you reread the post that you are unhappy with you'll see that I was disagreeing with the advice that it is better to pay a bill you dispute than risk getting a black mark on your record and being unable to get a mortgage.

MarkyMarkD

Strangely, I expect each post to make sense on its own merit, without having to read back to earlier posts from the same user.

I still disagree with you! It's better to dispute amounts, but pay them under dispute, than refuse to pay and hence get into the risk of "black marks" on your credit history.

And I'm not sure that it's very helpful to talk about generic situations when the original question was clear and focused enough to warrant a focused answer.

Quentin

The original question got a focused answer from me in post#2.

It was another contributor who widened the discussion - and the post you take exception to was made in that (different) discussion.

You cannot expect each post in threads on this board to be completely self contained. The board threads aren't moderated, and nearly all original posts open up discusions which often are far removed from the thread's original title.

Your attitude towards paying a disputed invoice is of course up to you.

But if you get a bill you don't agree with, it does focus the bill sender to sort it out if you either refuse to pay until its sorted or only pay what you think is correct pending resolution.

There are plenty of agencies who will help you clear incorrect black marks if you don't feel up to sorting it out yourself (and black marks can erroneously get on your record even when your payments have been all on time etc).

lisyloo

There are plenty of agencies who will help you clear incorrect black marks

Genuine question.

If the dispute is not found in your favour e.g. you lose in court, then aren't the later payments correct?
Can the agencies sort out these black marks, which (IMO) are truthful late payments? and not incorrect ones.

I have had a few of my own credit reports and I've never seen anything to indicate whether an account is in dispute or not, only whether payments were late or on time.

I agree that every situation has to be taken on it's individual merits, but if this is the case then individuals need to weigh up the risks of potentially correct late payment markings staying on their report.

MarkyMarkD

Quentin I'm not trying to have a go - honest! I simply disagree with not paying amounts simply because there is some sort of dispute. It might be common business practice, but it's not best practice for individuals IMHO. Removal of "black marks" is fine but unless you are 100% certain that the dispute will be fully resolved in your favour, you won't necessarily achieve that.

Lisy is saying the same thing in her post (I've just noticed).

Quentin

Everyone to their own opinion, of course.

Horasio

Admiral stinks

MarkyMarkD

They don't "stink". They have an aggressive pricing policy which is funded (in part) by aggressive penalties for early cancellation.

Insurance is an annual contract. There's no particular reason why cancellations should earn a pro-rata refund, or in fact why cancellation penalties shouldn't be relatively high. All such high penalties do is enable the insurer to offer lower premiums to those customers who fulfil their side of the bargain by maintaining their policy for the full year.

If people think there is any chance of cancelling their policy early - and it's rare that people do this, honestly - they should obviously choose an insurer with low cancellation penalties, or stay with an existing insurer who doesn't charge any penalty at all in second or subsequent years of insurance (and there really are such insurers).

As usual, it's all about understanding the deal you are signing up to, rather than signing up blind and then complaining that the terms are unfair.