Fugging Insurance Brokers and Insurance Companies

Neil W

Well-known member
UKGSer Subscriber
Joined
Sep 2, 2003
Messages
10,092
Reaction score
255
Location
Northumberland
Changed one of my car insurances (an Audi ) over from Swinton in November due to ridiculous hikes in premiums and went instead with Hastings Direct , all seemed to go smoothly and I even spoke to them to see if they required proof of ncd , to be told no its fine everything is in order.

Get an E Mail today saying that they require proof of ncd, copies of my wife and my licences within seven days or they will cancel my insurance , ring them up to be told that they basically believe that I am trying to defraud them by using one set of ncd on two cars ????????????

Ask them to explain and they say they have contacted both Swinton and Ageas who say that my ncd is still running with them on another car my VW Polo, explain to Hastings that I had two cars insured with Aegeas via Swintons and I hold 2 full sets of 9 years plus ncd on two separate vehicles.

Monkey I contacted at Hastings doesn't believe me so I have had to send them proof of ncd for the Audi, for the Polo, copies of our licences as we are obviously fraudsters.

Not sure who to be most pissed off with ...... Swintons because they have given Hastings the wrong information, Ageas because their records appear f*cked up or they have passed over the wrong information or the muppets at Hastings who appear to have asked the wrong questions of Ageas/Swinton but who have already said in November that they required no further documentation from me
 
So, aside from a couple of e-mailed photos and a phone call or two, what's the long term damage done here then?
 
Start with the fact that when I contacted Hastings the first thing they pointed out was that the call was being recorded and that was I aware that it is an offence to use one set of NCD on two cars , I personally get particularly pissed off when due to the incompetence of other people I am suspected of trying to defraud an insurance company and all the ensuing hassle that it can incur.

Also after 30 years of being a cop I have seen too many occasions when due to f*ck ups by brokers /insurers including clerical errors over ncd and direct debits innocent punters have found their policies cancelled without their knowledge and ended up with cars seized and even in court.

So in my book it is more serious than just a couple of e mailed photos and a few phone calls
 
Hi Neil

Interesting you say "innocent punters" are you saying you took individuals to court knowing they were innocent?

Derek
 
Not sure what you are describing (Hastings accusing you of) - is an offence at all.

Could be worse - you could be with Carole Nash......... Now they truly ARE a bunch of chimps
 
Hi Neil

Interesting you say "innocent punters" are you saying you took individuals to court knowing they were innocent?

Derek
How would he know they were innocent or guilty? Its not the business of a police officer to decide who is guilty and who is not.

I presume you're not familiar with the ways of the British legal system. Google is your friend.
 
How would he know they were innocent or guilty? Its not the business of a police officer to decide who is guilty and who is not.

I presume you're not familiar with the ways of the British legal system. Google is your friend.

Yes I am and with respect I expect more than you are. The Police should present their evidence (Having reasonable grounds to believe an offence has been committed) to the GPS whom will decide if it is in the public interest and if there is a good prospect of obtaining an conviction or at least that is what I was taught when I did the "English Legal System at advance level" a few years back (and passed).

Derek
 
Yes I am and with respect I expect more than you are. The Police should present their evidence (Having reasonable grounds to believe an offence has been committed) to the GPS whom will decide if it is in the public interest and if there is a good prospect of obtaining an conviction or at least that is what I was taught when I did the "English Legal System at advance level" a few years back (and passed).

Derek
Pity you didn't think of that before your last post then.

I presume the GPS are there to help everyone navigate the system?:rolleyes:
 
Hi Neil

Interesting you say "innocent punters" are you saying you took individuals to court knowing they were innocent?

Derek

No what I am saying is that the punters in all honesty believed they were fully insured and had no reason not to believe them but the insurers had cancelled the cover and as it is an absolute offence they ended up being prosecuted .

How about the punter who insured his vehicle and paid the first month on his card as a deposit and set up a direct debit to pay in 11 instalments , all done over the phone and somehow the bank sort code was recorded wrongly on the dd mandate , the driver had his certificate and assumed he was insured.

He had paid a full months premium and was more than miffed that after 2 weeks the company cancelled the insurance as they could not set up the dd with the wrong sort code, he was sent out a letter on the Saturday . Driver unlucky enough to be stopped on the Monday morning (post had not arrived ) as vehicle flashed up as unisured .

Now I would assume that as he had paid for a month he would still be insured until the end of the month, nope the insurance was cancelled and he was uninsured................. is that fair.

This type of f*** up was more common than you would think, especially with online transactions.

PS regarding Hastings , yes it is an offence to make a false declaration on an insurance proposal whether it be falsely claimimg extra ncd, telling them you don't have convictions or pending convictions, or that you are not a full licence holder ,or using a more insurance friendly address, or lying about your age

It is Obtaining a Pecuniary Advantage by Deception
 
How about "criminal intent"? For example if you walk out of a shop without paying for an item, without the intent to steal it, then you would have a defence I think. Whether you could convince the court you had no intention of stealing the item is another issue. Do I assume that you accept that what I posted is correct and that a Police Officer has to have a reasonable belief that a offence has been committed before submitting the evidence to the Crown Prosecution service for consideration. Therefore if you believed that the person was innocent why did you continue with the matter?

Derek
You're being a dick.
 
I once got 9 points to having no Insurance.

I was in crash and was asked to produce documents. My cover note had expired so I asked swinton for my certificate. They said I wasn’t insured. My lawyer said don’t worry it will be okay, take the cover note and proof that the direct debit was in place and that swinton had been taking the money.

I got 9 points and a fine because swinton didn’t complete the policy process.
 
Hi

It ia amazing to me that when you are unable to contribute you must either have a go at age or some other insults. Basically it was said the Police do not decide if you are guilty or not and I was saying in reply to an Ex Policeman, that attempted to put me in my place assuming I knew nothing about the subject. So if you happy to be taken to court by the Police when they do not think you have committed a crime, then it is you that maybe ought to look in the mirror rather than attack me with insults. You have every right to express an opinion and so do I. The big difference is I rely on substance rather than insults. Maybe you ought to try it one day.

Derek
 
Hi

It ia amazing to me that when you are unable to contribute you must either have a go at age or some other insults. Basically it was said the Police do not decide if you are guilty or not and I was saying in reply to an Ex Policeman, that attempted to put me in my place assuming I knew nothing about the subject. So if you happy to be taken to court by the Police when they do not think you have committed a crime, then it is you that maybe ought to look in the mirror rather than attack me with insults. You have every right to express an opinion and so do I. The big difference is I rely on substance rather than insults. Maybe you ought to try it one day.

Derek
I can only understand about half of that, but unless I miss my guess, you're still being a dick.

Somebody put me straight if I've got it wrong.:thumb2
 
So, aside from a couple of e-mailed photos and a phone call or two, what's the long term damage done here then?

Not a lot:blast

Why can't we just go back to using a local broker in town, where you can visit and and over the necessary paperwork

All this call centre/telephone/online computer malarkey just ends in tears
 
On the flip side of this (and nowt to do with vehicles) ... we have a policy that covers for home emergency stuff...leaky pipes, boiler busting etc.
Boiler went tits up on 28th Dec, we managed for a couple of days and I rang re getting it sorted. They would pay £200 for call out, £400 for parts and £400 for labour..or some such. £1k total. I had an idea what was wrong and rang the boiler manufacturer who do home visits for a fixed price of £299. I got the nod from insurance firm and got the boiler sorted...a week later.

We managed without heat and hot water by adding more logs to the fire and using a neighbours shower. When I sent the invoice in for £299, they emailed back asking for the additions. I told them that there were none. Got a further reply stating 'Stuff like having to buy a new radiator etc. Heating and paying neighbours for use of their facilities'. Feck me....its just £299...we don't want more. We didn't spend more. Our great neighbours wouldn't dream of taking a penny off us for the use of a bloody shower....I wait with baited breath to see whether we get £299 or more. Weird
 
So, your insurer - who we assume you paid a premium to - offered to meet all the costs of your claim (at their expense) up to £1000 but you opted to get it fixed yourself and bath with a friend, saving your insurer money.

Your insurer then offered to pay you some extra for additional costs you might have overlooked (or not realised you might have been able to claim for) up to and including some recompense to your neighbour for sharing the soap

...... and you somehow still manage to moan?

Funny old world.
 


Back
Top Bottom