Asked to justify why bike removal from policy requested.

[GSite]

Phoned Hastings the other day to advise that I had sold a bike and requested it be removed from the multi-bike policy.
Before they could action this the person has to speak to a "senior" whatever that means who in turn asked why I had made so many changes to the policy and that the explanation would determine the outcome, what ? They did not or could not explain why this was required.

The explantion is that I renewed the Multi-bike policy for the GS and Harley in March having been insured on those bikes with Hastings for two previous years. Added the Norton Commando owned for over a year to the policy when it's insuance expired in April, then sold the GS this week. They can see this so what else could they wish to know, just that the Norton was insured elsewhere the previous year and the GS sold as I was not using it much.

Stating that an unsatisfactory explanation may change the outcome seems odd, they only thing I can think of is that they suspect I may be dealer trying to get private insurance on bikes I am buying and selling to earn money.

Anyway, this seemed to satisfy them with a return of the princely sum of £13 after waiving the admin fee, other wise it would have cost more than the original premium to cancel, same old really. Interestingly, if I added bar risers to the Norton worth say £25, the increase in premium was £40, yet when I bought the policy it made no difference, don't think so Hastings, will make do without them.

 

[Nice 'n' Fat]

Stating that an unsatisfactory explanation may change the outcome seems odd, they only thing I can think of is that they suspect I may be dealer trying to get private insurance on bikes I am buying and selling to earn money.

It's this

 

[Wapping]

It’s also possible that the chimp thought that you might be money laundering. It sounds ridiculous, but it’s a ploy used. Insure something (that you might not even own) paying the premium with ‘dirty’ money and then cancel the insurance. Yes, you’d very probably get back less than prorata but the money that came back would be ‘clean’.

Anyway, it all seems to have been resolved and nobody died.

 

[JoeBiff]

Wow.
£13 money laundering exercise?
Name and address supplied.
Brokers knew where the original money trail lay, when the policy was purchased…..

I wouldn’t be asking @GSite to be a drugs mule for me.

 

[Wapping]

It’s only a possible guess.

The amount is irrelevant. A lot of public facing brokers have call centres with software that flags up supposed ‘odd patterns’, not dissimilar to ‘odd behaviour’ or ‘please enter your pin code’ for bank cards. Insurance premiums are a very easy way to launder money, as the threshold checks were very low.

As with many mass scams, the laundering is often done in bulk, via hubs well outside of the UK. With potentially millions of real and automated transactions a month, it is very easy shove umpteen fake entries through.

The junior chimp probably has no choice but to refer it up the chain.

Anyway, the OP has got his £13 and the world still rotates on its axis.

 

[Wapping]

Money laundering is easy.

I buy a car with cash, using grubby money. I then sell it. The money that comes back is ‘clean’ as it relates to a vehicle I’ve sold.

Set up a barber’s shop, accepting only cash. Grubby money in, suddenly becomes ‘clean’ as it’s logged against nonexistent haircuts. Pop-up shops and food stalls, too. 50 transactions of £10 a day, £500 for 7 days, is £3,500 a week in ‘cleaned’ money. I am being modest with the numbers. 10 shops £35,000 a week. That’s £1.8 million a year.

 

[wessie]

Money laundering is easy.

I buy a car with cash, using grubby money. I then sell it. The money that comes back is ‘clean’ as it relates to a vehicle I’ve sold.

Set up a barber’s shop, accepting only cash. Grubby money in, suddenly becomes ‘clean’ as it’s logged against nonexistent haircuts. Pop-up shops and food stalls, too. 50 transactions of £10 a day, £500 for 7 days, is £3,500 a week in ‘cleaned’ money. I am being modest with the numbers. 10 shops £35,000 a week.

I've always wondered if they rotate the ownership of the businesses every few months to remain under the VAT threshold or whether they are paying a proportion if the laundered money to HMRC in VAT. If the latter, it would be something of a dis-incentive for the Westminster government to clamp down on these outfits as the sums taken could be substantial.