Sold worthless Insurance policy...
Discussion
A while back i was off on trip to the iom to see the gp & have some fun on my bike. When i insured it i got an internet quote which included £150 excess. However when i bought it the agent added on a sneaky extra £250 excess without my knowing. Bike value £400.
Unfortunately for me my bike was stolen later that year so i dig out my policy & soon find out the bad news
. Pretty annoyed about it as it means i have lost my bike & the money to insure it. The policy was worthless. Surely this is not allowed.
I have written to the company in question & am still waiting for a response 10 days have passed & im thinking they dont want to know.
What are my rights here?, is there such a thing as an insurance ombudsman?
Any advice would be great. Thanks
Unfortunately for me my bike was stolen later that year so i dig out my policy & soon find out the bad news
. Pretty annoyed about it as it means i have lost my bike & the money to insure it. The policy was worthless. Surely this is not allowed.I have written to the company in question & am still waiting for a response 10 days have passed & im thinking they dont want to know.
What are my rights here?, is there such a thing as an insurance ombudsman?
Any advice would be great. Thanks
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/
But read the process first, they are not a first port of call, you need to follow and exhaust the complaints process first with the seller of the policy. Not sure with your situation - would probably be with the broker first.
Keep everything in writing.
Keep it all filed.
But read the process first, they are not a first port of call, you need to follow and exhaust the complaints process first with the seller of the policy. Not sure with your situation - would probably be with the broker first.
Keep everything in writing.
Keep it all filed.
Edited by Grenoble on Tuesday 5th March 17:45
I feel your pain; I had a similar excess shock recently (luckily found when examining paperwork, not as the result of a claim).
I should know better to meticulously check ts and cs, but it transpires that my R1 (motorbike) policy has an excess of £1000 !!! I thought it was £150. Needless to say I won't be renewing with them.
As it happens I've hardly used the bike all year and its up next month.
I should know better to meticulously check ts and cs, but it transpires that my R1 (motorbike) policy has an excess of £1000 !!! I thought it was £150. Needless to say I won't be renewing with them.
As it happens I've hardly used the bike all year and its up next month.
A lex said:
On something worth £400 you are buying the policy to cover the 3rd party aspect should you bin it and damage someone/thing else. Its not a 'worthless' policy as the insurance company have taken on liability for the insured period; should you pile in to bus stop for example.
You do not insure anything worth £400 to recover the financial outlay should it be stolen...... surely
Why not though? Given that insurance is compulsory then why shouldn't someone be covered for their £400 of hard earned. Although I do agree that the future premium hike will probably make it not worth claiming but the value should still be covered, no matter how much or little it is.You do not insure anything worth £400 to recover the financial outlay should it be stolen...... surely
A lex said:
You do not insure anything worth £400 to recover the financial outlay should it be stolen...... surely
Apart from law telling me i must insure it, the whole point of insurance for me is that its covered against theft. Couldnt care less about liability. I'd struggle to do any real damage on a 125 in any case. EventHorizon said:
Apart from law telling me i must insure it, the whole point of insurance for me is that its covered against theft. Couldnt care less about liability. I'd struggle to do any real damage on a 125 in any case.
So if you were drive like a twonk, which causes another driver to take avoiding action and results in their death/permanent disability so that he/his family come after you for £1m damages, are you really sure you'd be happy to pay this out of your own pocket?EventHorizon said:
Apart from law telling me i must insure it, the whole point of insurance for me is that its covered against theft. Couldnt care less about liability. I'd struggle to do any real damage on a 125 in any case.
Except there is no law saying that you must insure your bike against theft.EventHorizon said:
Apart from law telling me i must insure it, the whole point of insurance for me is that its covered against theft. Couldnt care less about liability. I'd struggle to do any real damage on a 125 in any case.
I don't think it's you the liability insurance is compulsory for?Still not nice though! It should of been made clear!
kambites said:
Theft insurance isn't compulsory.
Have you tried insuring anything 3rd party only nowadays? I find it almost impossible, and then for some dubious reason known only to the robbing insurance companies it is often more expensive than fully comp.In my opinion the b
ds should be forced by law to offer third party only cover IE 'for the purposes of the road traffic act'at 30% less than fully comprehensive.EventHorizon said:
Couldnt care less about liability. I'd struggle to do any real damage on a 125 in any case.
You need to get such stupid ideas out of your head ASAP. People on push bikes and even on mobility scooters have killed people; you could very easily cause a death on a 125cc bike (other than your own).Mercky said:
Have you tried insuring anything 3rd party only nowadays? I find it almost impossible, and then for some dubious reason known only to the robbing insurance companies it is often more expensive than fully comp.
In my opinion the bds should be forced by law to offer third party only cover IE 'for the purposes of the road traffic act'at 30% less than fully comprehensive.
Hello, I'm a bIn my opinion the b
ds should be forced by law to offer third party only cover IE 'for the purposes of the road traffic act'at 30% less than fully comprehensive.d. 
The reason it's dearer, is that people with TPO cover tend not to bother reporting the accident, so we end up with a much higher bill than if we offer you FC at a lower price and you report the claim.
That way we can try to keep the Third party costs under control.
Customers; bunch of w
kers 
Mr2Mike said:
Why? Is the risk of theft always proportional to 30% of the premium?
No it probably isn't.But we are talking fully comp with all the self inflicted accidental damage, theft cover, pointless legal expense cover,and all the other crap that you don't need versus third party only insurance.
Back in the day it used to be at least 30% less, whats changed apart from the insurance companies getting out of control?
LoonR1 said:
Hello, I'm a bd.
The reason it's dearer, is that people with TPO cover tend not to bother reporting the accident, so we end up with a much higher bill than if we offer you FC at a lower price and you report the claim.
That way we can try to keep the Third party costs under control.
Customers; bunch of wkers
See above. Typical of how insurance companies come up with contrived excuses to rip you off. Unbelievable. As Littlejohn would say, you couldnt make it up.. d. The reason it's dearer, is that people with TPO cover tend not to bother reporting the accident, so we end up with a much higher bill than if we offer you FC at a lower price and you report the claim.
That way we can try to keep the Third party costs under control.
Customers; bunch of w
kers Mercky said:
No it probably isn't.
But we are talking fully comp with all the self inflicted accidental damage, theft cover, pointless legal expense cover,and all the other crap that you don't need versus third party only insurance.
Back in the day it used to be at least 30% less, whats changed apart from the insurance companies getting out of control?
Read my answer and you'll see why. Or would you prefer to continue to spout irrelevances?But we are talking fully comp with all the self inflicted accidental damage, theft cover, pointless legal expense cover,and all the other crap that you don't need versus third party only insurance.
Back in the day it used to be at least 30% less, whats changed apart from the insurance companies getting out of control?
I suspect that you were fully informed at the point of sale that the policy had a £250 compulsory excess and a £150 voluntary excess. If you're sure that's not the case then you could always request that the sales call is listened to or even get a copy yourself. If you were missold the policy then a refund would be in order.
As LoonR1 and others have said the insurers have been carrying the risk of you causing 3rd party damage so the policy isn't worthless. If you had run over and crippled a barrister or a surgeon would you have been able to cover medical costs and loss of earnings yourself?
As LoonR1 and others have said the insurers have been carrying the risk of you causing 3rd party damage so the policy isn't worthless. If you had run over and crippled a barrister or a surgeon would you have been able to cover medical costs and loss of earnings yourself?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff