www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15640340
Seems like a scam to me? Or are they more like the Ryanair of the car insurance world?
|
Owned by Brighthouse... where you can buy white goods on weekly payments at APRs...of 29.9% over 3 years...
It's all perfectly legal but anyone who pays £75 before their insurance is confirmed is - to be kind - financially naive.
It's just legal exploitation of the financially dumb.
|
|
Dumb and/or young and desperate for cheap car insurance maybe? It *sounds* like in many cases they had no intention of issuing insurance after charging £75 up-front for the privilege. Wouldn't that move it from exploitation into fraud?
|
Preying on the young and desperate, always been those who do, a nasty and painful pox on them.
Used a comparison site this year, but having been stung by sharp practices in previous years i ignored all cheap quotes till i came to companies likely to be sound.
|
|
Why on earth did they want her Licence? Only thing I've ever had to send to an insurance company is proof of no claims.
|
It used to be common practice to take copies of someone's driving licence when they had insurance. It seems to have stopped and insurance fraud is rife. Much harder to commit fraud when you need to prove who you are and it can then be cross referenced.
I think when I renewed last one of them wanted a copy of my driving licence including counterpart.
I wouldn't send the original by post though. No way.
|
I had to supply copies of both of ours to Ecar last year and will be moving this year as their quote is not competitive, so we'll see what the new company want next week.
Pat
|
|
Blimey, the firm's CEO libeled (assuming she isn't a cheat) the customer in that article!
|
|
Not only libel, but they arrogate to themselves a punishment clause. Sounds very doubtful. Extortion?
|
...Not only libel...
The quote raised alarm bells with me, but it's not libellous, it's a general statement of the firm's policy:
"It remains our policy to penalise those who cheat so that we can reward those who don't."
Further, the driver has been refunded, but the policy is to 'penalise those who cheat'.
If the CEO wanted to penalise the driver as a cheat, they would not have given her her money back, a court would probably find.
The fact the CEO 'regrets' refunding the money is not unequivocal enough - the 'regret' could be for any number of reasons.
The driver might not like the quote, but she's got no chance of successfully suing for libel.
|
>> The driver might not like the quote, but she's got no chance of successfully suing
>> for libel.
>>
Well, it's a civil matter so it's even less black and white than criminal law. "No chance" is a bit strong, the outcomes of such cases are pretty random.
|
|
The quote linked cheating to an individual: this individual might be harmed in others eyes, could make the statement libellous.
|
Norton and BP,
I have some experience of dealing with libel from both sides.
As I said, the quote rang alarm bells with me, but having examined it, it is clearly not libellous.
Proper publishers - such as the BBC - are more cautious than most people believe.
Highly unlikely they would take any risk, particularly for a relatively trivial story.
If the woman complained, the BBC might take down the quote - but only out of an abundance of caution.
But the company has a right of reply, so they might leave well alone, knowing any libel action would fail.
Last edited by: Iffy on Sat 12 Nov 11 at 06:31
|
>>> Wouldn't that move it from exploitation into fraud?
Yes, but proving they had no intention is going to be difficult unless an insider talks!
|
It sounds to me as if Ecar has the right idea. We all know people who cheat insurers, and hence honest policyholders,whether it's fronting, concealing remaps, or being economical with offences history.
They have also provided cover in the initial period. £75 sounds reasonable considering the £20-£35 that is commonly charged for admin changes on policies.
The worst they can be accused of is poor admin, on the basis of that story.
It's unlikely that they can make much, if any, money out of the cancellation fees after multiple customer contacts.
I hold no brief for Brighthouse either, but I can assure you that 29.9% APR is less than the rate for the job - of more concern is the pricing of products and the cost of the service contracts that a large proportion of customers end up with.
|
|
They obviously don't want me - quoted £1800 which is roughly 5 times what I pay with Elephant.
|
Insurance company with 25% rejection rate - madf
