'I put the wrong date when getting a comparison quote... and my EXISTING insurer hiked my premium'

Former_MSE_Megan_F · 17 August 2018 at 5:31PM

A driver who got the date of her speeding fine wrong when doing a quick price check on a comparison site was shocked to see the premium on her existing policy jump by almost £50 after her insurer was automatically told. Her story shows why you should NEVER 'guestimate' your info when comparing insurance quotes, even if you're just checking prices and don't plan to buy a policy
...

Read the full story:
''I put the wrong date when getting a comparison quote... and my EXISTING insurer hiked my premium''

Click reply below to discuss. If you haven't already, join the forum to reply.

peterbaker · 17 August 2018 at 6:59PM

Having read the story, it looks to me like both the comparison site and Admiral are breaking the law with regard to processing questionable data that they do not yet have confirmed as being used as the basis for any live insurance contract.

All of us with any sense have used comparison websites to flit back and forward with different options to get a feel for what difference it makes with particular underwriters with and without convictions and accidents. There is no law against that and millions of motorists have long since been exploiting comparison site quote engine functionality in this way to get a good feel for what they are up against this year or next.

It is also cartel type behaviour by insurers in cahoots with comparison websites to agree between them unilaterally that their behaviour and responses in this regard are reasonable. They most certainly are not.

Where are the stories of existing insurers reducing renewal quotes because they just learned from a comparison website that the speeding conviction they are still rating on the policy has actually expired from the need to be declared a year earlier than the insurance company had originally underwitten? Eh?

ICO CMA, FCA and PRA should all jump on this commercial misbehaviour like a ton of bricks, but will they? I'll not hold my breath that any of them will.

It also remains to be seen how Moneysupermarket.com Group PLC, the owner of MSE, views these highly questionable commercial practices now that someone like me is pointing fingers.

So far, according to the article, we are told "A spokesperson for MoneySupermarket said insurers using its data would have to comply with their own privacy and data policies, and added: "If the insurer believes that the new information makes the policyholder a different risk from what they had been told, then the insurer may contact the policyholder for that purpose. That is a decision for the insurer." Right ... so passing the buck, eh? But who at MoneySupermarket decided to pass insurers large quantities of typically duff data in the first place?

Is the whole article an advertorial attempt at manipulating UK motorists into not exploiting the quote engines back and forth to find the weak spots in pricing? If so, it seems to be breaking Martin Lewis's core claim that MSE does not do advertisements. Funnily enough he is away from the office at the moment, right?

ValiantSon · 17 August 2018 at 8:39PM

peterbaker wrote: »

Having read the story, it looks to me like both the comparison site and Admiral are breaking the law with regard to processing questionable data that they do not yet have confirmed as being used as the basis for any live insurance contract.

No they aren't. The terms and conditions on the comparison sites state that they share your information with the insurance providers. You are not obliged to use their services, but if you do then you consent to those terms.

peterbaker wrote: »

All of us with any sense have used comparison websites to flit back and forward with different options to get a feel for what difference it makes with particular underwriters with and without convictions and accidents. There is no law against that and millions of motorists have long since been exploiting comparison site quote engine functionality in this way to get a good feel for what they are up against this year or next.

Yes, and you are advised not to use your real name, address, or number plate when you do this. You also shouldn't need to see what effect convictions have as you have no right not to declare them, so the information you glean is completely useless to you.

peterbaker wrote: »

It is also cartel type behaviour by insurers in cahoots with comparison websites to agree between them unilaterally that their behaviour and responses in this regard are reasonable. They most certainly are not.

Oh dear, another post that bangs on about cartels without actually understanding what a cartel is. Nothing in the report describes a cartel.

peterbaker wrote: »

Where are the stories of existing insurers reducing renewal quotes because they just learned from a comparison website that the speeding conviction they are still rating on the policy has actually expired from the need to be declared a year earlier than the insurance company had originally underwitten? Eh?

What? Firstly, there would have to be such a story. You cannot just assume that there is. Secondly, that story would have to be reported to a news agency (or in this case directly to MSE). Many people will not do so. Thirdly, have you considered the possibility that most people actually bother to check their details on existing policies, so don't have incorrect information about convictions sitting on active policies.

Logic would be nice.

peterbaker wrote: »

ICO CMA, FCA and PRA should all jump on this commercial misbehaviour like a ton of bricks, but will they? I'll not hold my breath that any of them will.

Why? There is nothing illegal about what is described.

peterbaker wrote: »

It also remains to be seen how Moneysupermarket.com Group PLC, the owner of MSE, views these highly questionable commercial practices now that someone like me is pointing fingers.

:rotfl:

peterbaker wrote: »

So far, according to the article, we are told "A spokesperson for MoneySupermarket said insurers using its data would have to comply with their own privacy and data policies, and added: "If the insurer believes that the new information makes the policyholder a different risk from what they had been told, then the insurer may contact the policyholder for that purpose. That is a decision for the insurer." Right ... so passing the buck, eh? But who at MoneySupermarket decided to pass insurers large quantities of typically duff data in the first place?

No, that isn't passing the buck. They provide information to the insurers for the purposes of generating quotes, but it is the insurer who sets premiums.

peterbaker wrote: »

Is the whole article an advertorial attempt at manipulating UK motorists into not exploiting the quote engines back and forth to find the weak spots in pricing?

No, it isn't.

peterbaker wrote: »

If so, it seems to be breaking Martin Lewis's core claim that MSE does not do advertisements. Funnily enough he is away from the office at the moment, right?

Conspiracy theory once again.

This is yet another of your rants at financial institutions.

peterbaker · 17 August 2018 at 9:51PM

Oh dear I see my presence on the forums is really upsetting the small worlds of a particular few ... er ... minds whose owners follow me round like a flippin' Jack Russell on heat.

ValiantSon · 17 August 2018 at 11:42PM

peterbaker wrote: »

Oh dear I see my presence on the forums is really upsetting the small worlds of a particular few ... er ... minds whose owners follow me round like a flippin' Jack Russell on heat.

Peter, I clicked on a link from a news story that brought me to this thread. I had no idea that you had posted in it. When I read your post, I noticed all the nonsense that you had written. Get over it.

System · 18 August 2018 at 8:20AM

"A driver who got the date of her speeding fine wrong when doing a quick price check on a comparison site"

As her present insurance details were presumably correct, her insurer doubtless reduced the premium again when told that the new date from the comparison site was wrong?

What is the point of the warning - that incorrect input gives incorrect quotations, or that changing information, correct or incorrect, will be penalised?

JuicyJesus · 18 August 2018 at 11:16AM

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

"A driver who got the date of her speeding fine wrong when doing a quick price check on a comparison site"

As her present insurance details were presumably correct, her insurer doubtless reduced the premium again when told that the new date from the comparison site was wrong?

They refunded her the additional premium.

What is the point of the warning - that incorrect input gives incorrect quotations, or that changing information, correct or incorrect, will be penalised?

Well, realistically, both. The former is the issue from the insurer's point of view (they might be induced to cover on the basis of information that isn't correct), the latter from the consumer's (because you shouldn't give false or inaccurate information to an insurer as it might compromise your cover at best.)

ViolaLass · 18 August 2018 at 2:13PM

ValiantSon wrote: »

You also shouldn't need to see what effect convictions have as you have no right not to declare them, so the information you glean is completely useless to you.

That seems a bit unimaginative.

ValiantSon · 18 August 2018 at 4:32PM

ViolaLass wrote: »

That seems a bit unimaginative.

No, it isn't unimaginative. The task described is pointless. It is not the same as seeing how much insurance would be on two different cars that you are considering buying. There are some speculative options that could materially affect cost and can legitimately be avoided, and then there are some which are unavoidable statements of fact; having convictions is an unavoidable statement of fact.

JuicyJesus · 18 August 2018 at 5:01PM

ValiantSon wrote: »

No, it isn't unimaginative. The task described is pointless. It is not the same as seeing how much insurance would be on two different cars that you are considering buying. There are some speculative options that could materially affect cost and can legitimately be avoided, and then there are some which are unavoidable statements of fact; having convictions is an unavoidable statement of fact.

Exactly. There are some things where a bit of fuzziness is allowed, but convictions are very black and white. What happened here is someone made a guess about something that's obviously black and white and it bit them on the backside.

I'm interested to know what people think is happening otherwise when they input information into comparison sites to get quotes, other than that information being sent to insurance companies. Do they think insurance quotations come from the ether? Certainly it would make perfect sense for insurance companies to match data from existing customers against information those same existing customers are using to get new quotations.

miller · 18 August 2018 at 5:03PM

At the minimum the insurer should double check/verify with the policy holder if they are going to effectively accept potentially anonymous/malicious information from a third-party webform.

'I put the wrong date when getting a comparison quote... and my EXISTING insurer hiked my premium'

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free