You're uninsured

[Noger]

crackedfinger said:

saaby93 said:

tom2019 said:

What I don't get is why bother asking for a certificate , why not just rely on the database and then get insures to send a letter confirming you've been put on the database.

Same with tax , why bother having a tax disk if its all on a database ?

the databases arent updated straightaway and its not mandatory anyway

Because the databases used are clearly developed from stone age technology. Unreliable and can't be trusted.

IIRC MID is a DB2 database (or UDB or whatever IBM fancy name it is this week) which is not known for it's reliability problems !

It is mandatory, the EU regs require it to be.

Immediate update is possible, but not ideal, it is better to do it on a batched basis, that way you don't end up with a load of "on cover off cover" transactions if the operator is doing something complicated.

[F i F]

I got banned from SP&L due to naming and shameng such an incident as this.

Mrs renewed, premium paid on CC, (sorry oldsoak but we pay the bill in full every time, if M&S want to lend me free money so be it) letter arrives thanking for renewing, gives a renewal reference, documentation to follow in a few days.

Few days goes, letter arrives saying much the same about non renewal as no contact.

Mrs rings me up in a panic, I check MIDB, sure enough not on cover. She calls insurance company, they've cocked up their procedures and say yes we did say that, and we did say it was renewed but the operator screwed up and we didn't process it properly, but we haven't got any money, honest.

Mrs said OK I'd like to renew now please.

Ins Co flatly refused to renew on same basis and continually ramped up the renewal premium from 400 to 800 plus, refused to accept that their previous renewal quote was valid because it had now timed out, even though it hadn't timed out at the time of the renewal THEY screwed up, and finally toys were thrown out of pram and a formal complaint lodged.

The answer from that complaint was basically, suck it up, and as they never actually took any money due to their muppetry it seems they can get away with this.

We hadn't the patience to take it any further, but that organisation have lost a LOT of corporate business that I have been able to influence in one way or another. Karma. They can suck that up.

[rypt]

oldsoak said:

saaby93 said:

LD1Racing said:

Did they take any money from his card when he first tried to renew his policy?

no they just checked the number they had on file was correct, so that come the due date they could take the payment. They didnt.

So when he found he had more money in his account than he should have had...he still waited for the insurance company to send that letter before checking why he had all that money he really shouldn't have had if the payment had been taken?
I'm sure if I had more money than I should have in my account that matched an insurance payment I'd be on the dog to them before they had chance to send letters to ask why they hadn't taken the payment.

Edited by oldsoak on Thursday 11th March 12:03

My insurance company took payment about 15 days after my renewal started, and never sent me any new documents to confirm the renewal taking place after the initial renewal quote letter (which had a new certificate in it so that they wouldn't have to send me one should I renew).
So it's not always as simple as seeing if money has been taken, or seeing if you have got any new letters from them.

[skwdenyer]

F i F said:

I got banned from SP&L due to naming and shameng such an incident as this.

Mrs renewed, premium paid on CC, (sorry oldsoak but we pay the bill in full every time, if M&S want to lend me free money so be it) letter arrives thanking for renewing, gives a renewal reference, documentation to follow in a few days.

Few days goes, letter arrives saying much the same about non renewal as no contact.

Mrs rings me up in a panic, I check MIDB, sure enough not on cover. She calls insurance company, they've cocked up their procedures and say yes we did say that, and we did say it was renewed but the operator screwed up and we didn't process it properly, but we haven't got any money, honest.

Mrs said OK I'd like to renew now please.

Ins Co flatly refused to renew on same basis and continually ramped up the renewal premium from 400 to 800 plus, refused to accept that their previous renewal quote was valid because it had now timed out, even though it hadn't timed out at the time of the renewal THEY screwed up, and finally toys were thrown out of pram and a formal complaint lodged.

The answer from that complaint was basically, suck it up, and as they never actually took any money due to their muppetry it seems they can get away with this.

We hadn't the patience to take it any further, but that organisation have lost a LOT of corporate business that I have been able to influence in one way or another. Karma. They can suck that up.

Out of interest, what was the reason you had to "suck it up". If the letter you received was precisely as you've described, a contract was formed.

[F i F]

skwdenyer said:

F i F said:

I got banned from SP&L due to naming and shameng such an incident as this.

Mrs renewed, premium paid on CC, (sorry oldsoak but we pay the bill in full every time, if M&S want to lend me free money so be it) letter arrives thanking for renewing, gives a renewal reference, documentation to follow in a few days.

Few days goes, letter arrives saying much the same about non renewal as no contact.

Mrs rings me up in a panic, I check MIDB, sure enough not on cover. She calls insurance company, they've cocked up their procedures and say yes we did say that, and we did say it was renewed but the operator screwed up and we didn't process it properly, but we haven't got any money, honest.

Mrs said OK I'd like to renew now please.

Ins Co flatly refused to renew on same basis and continually ramped up the renewal premium from 400 to 800 plus, refused to accept that their previous renewal quote was valid because it had now timed out, even though it hadn't timed out at the time of the renewal THEY screwed up, and finally toys were thrown out of pram and a formal complaint lodged.

The answer from that complaint was basically, suck it up, and as they never actually took any money due to their muppetry it seems they can get away with this.

We hadn't the patience to take it any further, but that organisation have lost a LOT of corporate business that I have been able to influence in one way or another. Karma. They can suck that up.

Out of interest, what was the reason you had to "suck it up". If the letter you received was precisely as you've described, a contract was formed.

Well, their stance is that because they never took any money a contract wasn't formed and they refuse to budge from that. Personally I agree with you, I think the contract was formed when my Mrs said OK yes I agree to that and gave her card details, and the operator accepted that she would accept payment by that card, the card was valid and confirmed that she was proceeding and gave the reference number with documentation to follow as confirmed by the letter the next day.

The failure to take money and obviously renew at that point was due to an operational error on their part which they admitted.

We took it as high as we could and got precisely zilch, a complete stone wall. Next step was Ombudsman or civil court and frankly both Mrs and I had lost will to live by this point. The amount of flannel and backside covering plus lack of anybody willing to stand up and take responsibility was staggering. By this time we had cover with someone else so not sure what we were going to gain from any further action other than just take more time out of our own lives fighting a vindictive battle. Incidentally even the most helpful person that we encountered in that organisation, who did a lot of digging to find out what had happened and what could be done to help, eventually threw their hands up and said they were outraged at what had happened and how my Mrs had been treated.

Reluctant to cover any more details considering the earlier PH moderator activity. I just sucked that up as well, but not forgotten either when I see others exhibiting even worse examples of N&S which are totally ignored.

[saaby93]

Mate's insurer refused to backdate the week, and started a new 12 months from the time he phoned up again.
Are theye so worried in case somethings happened that theyre unable to correct a mistake?

[streaky]

Noger said:

crackedfinger said:

saaby93 said:

tom2019 said:

What I don't get is why bother asking for a certificate , why not just rely on the database and then get insures to send a letter confirming you've been put on the database.

Same with tax , why bother having a tax disk if its all on a database ?

the databases arent updated straightaway and its not mandatory anyway

Because the databases used are clearly developed from stone age technology. Unreliable and can't be trusted.

IIRC MID is a DB2 database (or UDB or whatever IBM fancy name it is this week) which is not known for it's reliability problems !

GIGO ... nuf sed? - Streaky

[Noger]

saaby93 said:

Mate's insurer refused to backdate the week, and started a new 12 months from the time he phoned up again.
Are theye so worried in case somethings happened that theyre unable to correct a mistake?

Illegal to backdate cover iirc

[skwdenyer]

Noger said:

saaby93 said:

Mate's insurer refused to backdate the week, and started a new 12 months from the time he phoned up again.
Are theye so worried in case somethings happened that theyre unable to correct a mistake?

Illegal to backdate cover iirc

This wouldn't be backdating cover; this would be making the paperwork line up with the contracted cover already offered and accepted. In law I believe the cover already existed.

[Oakey]

I'd like to know why car insurance is the only industry that seems to operate in some alternative, topsy turvy upside down existence.

If you take out a 12 month mobile phone contract, or Sky TV, they don't charge you interest on your monthly payments. But choose to pay your car insurance monthly and you have to pay interest bumping the price by quite a bit.

Likewise, if you miss a payment on your mobile phone or Sky TV, you can bet they'll hound you to death for that payment. They'll phone you, email you, send you letters, etc and it'll be another month before they even terminate the service. Insurance companies seem to see any payment difficulties as an opportunty to cancel with immediate effect. They're supposed to notify you well in advance, but it's a miracle if you get a single letter.

And if you do breach your contract with those other services, you're liable to pay the remainder of the contract. Not in the magical world of car insurance. Once they've cancelled, that's it, you have to take out a new policy, they don't even give a st about the money you owe them. Even more bizarrely, they're happy to provide you with cover again. I'm sorry, what?! I had a problem with payment, you cancelled, but you're still willing to provide me with new cover? Despite knowing I just breached the original contract? Are you fking mental?

And finally, any other business would reward you for repeat business. Ha, not so with car insurance! My quote for this year was £500 more than the previous year, for no reason whatsoever. Clearly they think I'm sort of gibbering monkey who's just going to swallow that without bothering to look elsewhere.

[Noger]

skwdenyer said:

Noger said:

saaby93 said:

Mate's insurer refused to backdate the week, and started a new 12 months from the time he phoned up again.
Are theye so worried in case somethings happened that theyre unable to correct a mistake?

Illegal to backdate cover iirc

This wouldn't be backdating cover; this would be making the paperwork line up with the contracted cover already offered and accepted. In law I believe the cover already existed.

Which is exactly the thing that is not allowed. You cannot provide backdated Cert. You can indemnify your insured as per contract. The two are not the same.

Which is why I said that in practice the insurer would provide confirmation of cover to police/court. But would not provide a backdated cert.

[MrsMiggins]

Just as a matter of interest, do any of the folks here who have had their policies cancelled due to insurer cock ups declare those problems when taking out a new policy now?

You know, when they ask "have you ever had a policy cancelled or been asked to agree to special terms?". If you don't declare and you subsequently try to make a claim I wonder what could happen...

[Oakey]

MrsMiggins said:

Just as a matter of interest, do any of the folks here who have had their policies cancelled due to insurer cock ups declare those problems when taking out a new policy now?

You know, when they ask "have you ever had a policy cancelled or been asked to agree to special terms?". If you don't declare and you subsequently try to make a claim I wonder what could happen...

Mine was cancelled last year. Being self employed my pay days are erratic, so I phoned them to inform them I'd be late paying the latest installment. They said it wasn't a problem and they'd made a note of it 'on the computer'. I told them it'd be about two weeks.

Two weeks later I phone up to make the payment only to be told they'd cancelled it. Conveniently they said a letter had been sent out 'yesterday' (I hadn't yet received it and nor did I ever receive it). After much arguing and complaining they admitted that there was a note on the computer telling them when i'd be paying. Despite this being their cock up they said there was nothing they could do. After more arguing and complaining they agreed to reinstate the policy, however,m they wanted me to pay the remainder of the balance in full!

Cue more arguing and complaining before they agreed to let me pay in three installments.

As for your question, if anyone has ever used confused.com or the likes then I bet 99% of people will have been declined from at least one insurer they get quotes from making the question "have you ever been declined insurance" liable to pretty much everyone.

[skwdenyer]

Noger said:

skwdenyer said:

Noger said:

saaby93 said:

Mate's insurer refused to backdate the week, and started a new 12 months from the time he phoned up again.
Are theye so worried in case somethings happened that theyre unable to correct a mistake?

Illegal to backdate cover iirc

This wouldn't be backdating cover; this would be making the paperwork line up with the contracted cover already offered and accepted. In law I believe the cover already existed.

Which is exactly the thing that is not allowed. You cannot provide backdated Cert. You can indemnify your insured as per contract. The two are not the same.

Which is why I said that in practice the insurer would provide confirmation of cover to police/court. But would not provide a backdated cert.

I may be a simple non-insurance person, but surely being indemnified by an insurance company as per contract is, by definition, an insurance policy?

[saaby93]

Noger said:

Which is why I said that in practice the insurer would provide confirmation of cover to police/court. But would not provide a backdated cert.

Without him having an accident or being stopped in the intervening period it would be difficult to prove what would have happened but the insurer did say 'you were lucky you werent stopped' rather than 'dont worry we'd have covered you'

[F i F]

MrsMiggins said:

Just as a matter of interest, do any of the folks here who have had their policies cancelled due to insurer cock ups declare those problems when taking out a new policy now?

You know, when they ask "have you ever had a policy cancelled or been asked to agree to special terms?". If you don't declare and you subsequently try to make a claim I wonder what could happen...

Well in the case I referenced above then no. They cannot have it both ways, claim an insurance has been declined when they also claim a contract was never made and then go on to offer cover at a price they know will not be commercially acceptable simplt to get their backsides out the line of fire and make the customer go away.

Then what about the term have you ever been refused cover? That covers 100% of the driving population, no cover for that vehicle, no cover under 20, 25, 28 whatever the profile of the insurer and the insured, no cover for vehicles where the policyholder is not the main driver and so and so on.

[Noger]

skwdenyer said:

Noger said:

skwdenyer said:

Noger said:

saaby93 said:

Mate's insurer refused to backdate the week, and started a new 12 months from the time he phoned up again.
Are theye so worried in case somethings happened that theyre unable to correct a mistake?

Illegal to backdate cover iirc

This wouldn't be backdating cover; this would be making the paperwork line up with the contracted cover already offered and accepted. In law I believe the cover already existed.

Which is exactly the thing that is not allowed. You cannot provide backdated Cert. You can indemnify your insured as per contract. The two are not the same.

Which is why I said that in practice the insurer would provide confirmation of cover to police/court. But would not provide a backdated cert.

I may be a simple non-insurance person, but surely being indemnified by an insurance company as per contract is, by definition, an insurance policy?

I know, it seems mad. The received wisdom is that backdating cover is illegal.

This may be buried in the Motor Car Insurance (Third-party Risks) Act like the other requirements for the motor cert. I have never seen anything in the RTA to this effect. So received wisdom may be wrong.

I can see why it would be so, otherwise you could buy yourself out of a prosecution for driving without insurance.

However, if it was a mistake on behalf of the insurer, and they write you a letter of indemnity, it is possible the court would take this as a valid defence ?

It seems to be that split between "delivering a motor cert" and "covering your losses" that is at issue.

[Noger]

Oakey said:

As for your question, if anyone has ever used confused.com or the likes then I bet 99% of people will have been declined from at least one insurer they get quotes from making the question "have you ever been declined insurance" liable to pretty much everyone.

Who asks the "have you ever been refused insurance" question now ?

[saaby93]

Noger said:

I know, it seems mad. The received wisdom is that backdating cover is illegal.

Yes maybe he shouldnt have said backdating. Really it was late payment ( a week) for something he thought was already in place

[MrsMiggins]

Noger said:

Who asks the "have you ever been refused insurance" question now ?

Well I just went to the Aviva site and checked their online quote service and that question is asked before you even start entering your details.

Aviva said:

To save you time, we base your quote on a series of some assumptions. Please confirm that you meet these criteria before proceeding with your quote:
No driver has had any criminal convictions in the last 5 years (other than motoring offences), been previously refused insurance or has a policy cancelled.

My guess is that they will all be the same.

I don't disagree that the whole question of what constitutes being refused insurance is a bit of a grey area now with so many people getting multiple quotes online using comparison sites. Are you being refused insurance if a company declines to quote? If a 17 year old phones Saga for a quote is that a refusal when Saga says no? I don't think that's what they mean, but I'm struggling to define what it does mean instead.

Edited by MrsMiggins on Monday 15th March 15:44