A salutory lesson indeed. Perhaps it's worth remembering the 'cheap' quotes have to get their cheapness from somewhere. The underwriters' fees are fairly constant - in fact there are many less of them, than brokers of course.
When you get a cheaper quote from brokers using the same underwriting company, you can be sure the 'cheapness' comes from a slick & efficient broking operation or the opposite.
As insurance only matters in the breach, as it were, I think it's more important to satisfy yourself as much as you can that the brokers (the people you actually speak to) run a good operation - from the customers' point of view.
|
A salutory lesson indeed. Perhaps it's worth remembering the 'cheap' quotes have to get their cheapness from somewhere.
SNIPQUOTE!
trouble is Woodbines, you only find out whether an insurer is any good when it comes to the 'crunch', as it were. By then its too late.
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 10/09/2008 at 20:01
|
|
|
|
He isn't an idiot - he is abiding by forum rules which forbid naming and shaming as HJ could be sued for permittting such posts.
so can someone explain how HJ can name and shame garages, councils and police services in his newspaper column then?
|
The site has 1000 posts a week say, all of which have to be checked by volunteer unpaid moderators. To keep it simple the site rules say:-
You may not identify (or post anything that allows others to identify) someone or an organisation you are accusing of dishonesty or a dishonest act. An accusation of a dishonest act would be "I paid for two but they only did one", "This company is a rip-off" and other similar comments.
You may know that what you say is absolutely true but the moderators and Honestjohn do not, and don?t have the time to find out. If what you say is not true, then this represents a serious issue for the website. It is not a risk that we will take.
HJ's Colum is 2 pages once a week and there is doubtless a team of lawyers to check what is said and decide what is lega and acceptablel.
|
|
|
in reply to retgwte:"Unfortunately, we will not be able to cover you for the coming year."
>>After chasing them today....They blamed poor admin and immediately issued a renewal quote of only circa 200 quid, which is the cheapest insurance quote I have ever had, which for a group 8 car only 2 years old isn't bad
So problem solved. Question is, why id you not ask to speak to a senior manager to ask for an explanation when the first missive arrived? [AFAIK, refusing to renew your insurance is not done lightly, and they would have had to give you a reason due to the implications of the refusal. But this is all conjecture as you have not been refused insurance after all.] As it is, some clerk made an error and you have now got the cheapest ever quote.
Also my ex-directory numbers are being bombarded by other insurance companies
Explanation as per Mapmaker's post. I get the feeling that blame is being put at door of the Insurance Co. in question without much evidence, except for their one admitted error.
Is the credit crunch so bad that insurance companies are wiping whole sections of their demographics off cover?
No evidence for that belief.
in reply to Armitage:
The couple of people who have questioned "naming and shaming" would appear not to have read the link provided by DynamicDave. In addition, one takes to using abusive terms like "idiot". Another one seems to ignore forum rules and quotes replies in full. I think from that we can safely deduce that they are best left alone for DD to deal with.
Edited by jbif on 10/09/2008 at 19:58
|
|
|
>>so can someone explain how HJ can name and shame garages councils and police services in his newspaper column then?
Right of reply is the most important.
The OP could post his story with the name of the insurance company in it, provided it's an accurate reflection of the facts of the case.
The insurance company can then reply of its own accord, or be approached for a reply, and the reader makes up his mind.
Put bluntly, those running the forum would be unwise to assume all such posts from members would be fair and accurate.
They don't have the resources to check every story and chase up the other side, hence the 'no names' rule.
|
Besides what's already been said,
What HJ writes in his newspaper column are his words - what you write in the Backroom forum are YOUR words. Ultimately YOU are responsible for what YOU write in this forum, as is what HJ writes in his newspaper column.
See the last paragraph titled 'Personal Liability' in the sticky "Welcome to The Backroom. Please Read"
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=33414
Or look at it another way, not only are myself and the other moderators saving ourselves a whole heap of trouble when we edit a post, we are also saving YOU from a whole heap of trouble because ultimately YOU would be liable for the full cost of any legal action and any damages incurred.
DD.
ps, and now back to motoring please.
|
Also my ex-directory numbers are being bombarded by other insurance companies offering me quotes
Leaving aside the issue of how these companies got your number in the first place I would suggest you register your number with the Telephone Preference Service - Highly effective in eliminating unwanted marketing calls.
|
i get the impresson its not a one off mistake by a clerk, rather its poorly implemented rules in their computer system, i get the impression i am not the only customer they have refused to renew in this way
er i was being bombarded by phone calls without having ever given this number out
although this evening i have started to look at a few other insurance web sites
dunno id rather pay a few quid extra for good service, as commerical union used to propmote "we dont make a drama out of a crisis", doesnt seem to be a modern equivalent i know norwich union who bought commercial union dont promise that
still a shame i cannot tell you all who this poor insurance company is, but many of the consumer review web sites are telling similar stories
|
Regarding time to get back costs from the other driver / insurance;
Experience on two no fault claims in the last five years.
Direct Line took about six months to finalise this when I hit a police car. (really, and her fault not mine. Her sergeant said at the scene "at least you know we will pay out")
Saga took about the same when a van hit SWMBO
Seems that six months is not unusual.
We did keep on at them at regular intervals.
|
I had an accident in April 2007, (yes 2007). There were four vehicles involved.
My insurance company initially took the view that I was, at least, partially at fault, but paid out for my total loss, less my excess.
I got a solicitor on my case and eventually one party admitted responsibility.
When the case was just about to come to court, (May 2008, some 13 months after the accident), my insurance company suddenly sat-up and wanted to recover their costs through my solicitor! The case has now been adjourned until October because of this, and this alone.
Meanwhile I've had to re-insure twice in this time with an AT FAULT claim showing on my insurance record, (it cannot show as "not at fault" until the court case is compete).
The insurance companies attitude appears to me to be "what goes around comes around", until they get a clear-cut opportunity to get their money back. I really believe they cannot be bothered to take the time and effort to resolve blame when it isn't blindingly obvious!
|
>>Whether you like it or not, it's forum policy.<<
I for one would be grateful if the censorers and HJ could review this.
It does seem to be a bit ridiculous having a discussion forum where you can't really discuss stuff. I appreciate that some people have issues with certain companies and others are ok with them. But how can you help people avoid bad garages/insurance companies etc if you can't tell them who they are - it defeats the object of us all trying to help each other out.
Back to the OP though - I have always thought protected NCB is a waste of money - all the insurance company does is inflate your basic premium but keep your NCB the same - still increasing your premium overall & making more money out of you.
|
But how can you help people avoid bad garages/insurance companies etc if you can't tell them who they are
In reply to Pendlebury:
Doesn't the link in the first post by DD tell you how?
My insurance company initially took the view that I was, at least, partially at fault, but paid out for my total loss, less my excess. I got a solicitor on my case and eventually one party admitted responsibility.
In reply to nick:
Your insurance company's interest is only to maximise profit. It will take the least cost option wherever possible.
I.M.O. That is why when you feel that you have a "no-fault" claim, it is far quicker to claim direct from the 3rd party [either DIY if you have the time and competence, or use a commercial specialist firm such as Helphire to do it for you].
|
I.M.O. That is why when you feel that you have a "no-fault" claim it is far quicker to claim direct from the 3rd party [either DIY if you have the time and competence or use a commercial specialist firm such as Helphire to do it for you].
When you are stuck in lane 3 of the M5, with your motor wrecked against the Armco, it's a bit tricky trying to get one of the other three parties involved to get their insurance company to come and recover your vehicle! Apart from that, point taken, but only for relatively minor incidents.
|
with your motor wrecked against the Armco,.. to get one of the other three parties involved to get their insurance company to come and recover your vehicle!
Is it a condition of your Insurance that you have to use them to recover your vehicle? None of my policies have ever had that condition, and allows freedom to use any Independent provider of that service.
Apart from that, point taken, but only for relatively minor incidents.
I.M.O. - it is wise to do so for all 3rd-party-fault incidents, and especially so for "non-minor" ones.
|
Nothing to stop people who have bad experiences to post comments which do not name and shame and invite interested BR Members to contact them for 1 to 1 exchange details of the problem and for specifics to be stated, privately.
|
......... I have always thought protected NCB is a waste of money - all the insurance company does is inflate your basic premium but keep your NCB the same - still increasing your premium overall & making more money out of you.
My long-standing insurer (CIS that was) doesn't increase the premium. I've had a protected NCD since I first qualified for one, and I have no intention of ever removing it from my policy.
Edited by L'escargot on 11/09/2008 at 13:58
|
update:
they have just refused to pay the solicitors who were looking at reclaiming the excess
what is the point of legal expenses cover if you cannot actually claim on it?
so NCB and legal expenses cover
both dodgy
this place should be shut down and stopped from operating
|
You are getting some serious obstruction/incompetence here. What a bunch of losers! try this link, as a next step. www.financevictims.co.uk/complain/how-to-complain....m
|
|
|
|
