Consumer Action Group envelope labels
You are part of a community of over 195,000 people. Let your bank know that you won't give in. Display one of our labels on your envelopes. Full description here
Sheet of 20 self-adhesive envelope labels £3.50 inc p&p
|
Do your Internet search here Reclaim the Right Ltd. - reg.05783665 in the UK
reg. office:- 923 Finchley Road
London
NW11 7PE
| | | | Do your Internet search here:-
| | | CAG Announcements | |
Welcome Guest
Please register
Registration is free
There are no charges for using any of the facilities of this website.
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ.
You will have to register before you can post.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
You will also have to register to access our template letters and claims forms
registration is free
Are you being threatened over debts more than 6 years old? This may be unfair
See our new Unfair Trading Guide Bought an extended warranty? Not satisfied?
The warranty may be an example of unfair trading
See our new Unfair Trading Guide Have you been defaulted?
Would you like to clean up your credit file? Check it out Are you a victim of unfair trading? Check it out The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regs 2008 Have you been defaulted?
Would you like to clean up your credit file? Check it out | | | | | | Welcome to The Consumer Action Group and The Bank Action Group
Before beginning to claim your bank charges be sure to read the FAQ by clicking the link above. Read it carefully and also read as much of the forum material as you can manage before you start claiming your bank charges refund.
You will have to register before you can post or view the materials which may assist you in reclaiming your penalty charges: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. Understand what you are doing and you will be able to Reclaim the Right more effectively.
Why don't you come and introduce yourself in the Welcome section at the top of the forum. Then have a look around the rest of it.
Do not post or start claiming until you have read the entire FAQ section and step by step guides and you have a good basic idea of what to do and of the layout of the forum.
Good luck claiming your bank charges. We strongly suggest that you register under a UserID and not your own name |  |
13th June 2007, 19:55
|
#4 (permalink)
| | Classic Account Customer | Re: Being taken for a complete idiot? OK it sounds like he realised the NU policy was in force and then phoned to request they cancel which is probably why they have treated it as a straight cancellation etc.
Phone them up say that you did not wish to renew their policy and that you arranged alternative cover and ask them to lapse thei policy from the renewal date and refund all monies paid on the renewal (incl canx fees) as he has dual insurance. NU will probably ask to see a copy of the new insurers certificate to confrim his story.
Last edited by xrchris; 13th June 2007 at 20:26.
|
| |
15th June 2007, 15:12
|
#7 (permalink)
| | Basic Account Customer | Re: Being taken for a complete idiot? Quote:
Originally Posted by gyzmo btw on this, and before anyone else starts it off, having dual insurance is NOT illegal. If some dunderhead at the insurance company tells you otherwise, ignore them. There are many instances where dual insurance exists (think of cover away from home, holiday insurance and credit card protection for purchases - there are three there). Obviously, trying to claim on all three for the same loss is not on, but that is not what you are doing.
the only reason I mention this is that everyone I worked with always believed it was illegal, which casued no end of hassle for customers whose policies overlapped. | As a matter of fact (and I work in the business) having a dual insurance on a motor policy IS illegal and can be classed as a form of fraud. Not too sure about credit cards etc.
For this case (and NU can do it) call them and explain the dual insurance, they can then check the Motor insurers database (this has details of every insured vehicle in the uk, and the police also use this to determine who is and isnt insured when they pull them over) which will tell them when you took out the policy with Admiral (so long as it wasnt a different vehicle) and what happens is that you would be entitled to a 50% refund from NU and 50% from Admiral as any claims in that period would have to be settled 50/50 between the 2 insurers.
hope this helps
__________________ Halifax + BOS- £1300 WON from Halifax
- £713 WON from BOS
Have I helped? tip the scales |
| |
15th June 2007, 17:47
|
#8 (permalink)
| | Basic Account Customer | Re: Being taken for a complete idiot? Hi. I'm Darren Cornish, Norwich Union's Head of Customer Experience (bit of a fancy title - basically I and my team are here to try to improve service). Dyls - send me a copy of what you have forwarded - it should be getting looked at anyhow but happy to make sure. You can get me at : darren.cornish@norwich-union.co.uk. Pls apologise to your brother that he is having hassle with us. |
| |
16th June 2007, 08:45
|
#9 (permalink)
| | Classic Account Customer | Re: Being taken for a complete idiot? OK,
The solution to this is actually quite simple.
NU renewed the policy on a rolling contract. In the documentation originally received it would say somewhere that unless instructed otherwise, the policy would be automatically renewed. Basic reason is that it inflates an insurer's renewal retention stats !!!
All your brother needs to do is write back to NU with a copy of the new Admiral cert stating he did not intend to renew and the policy with them should be voided from inception without charge and a FULL return of premium taken.
I know NU are trying to drive up the fleet rates but didn't think they were into nicking money from personal lines policyholders ( Sorry NU guys, couldn't resist the "business" dig LoL).
That said, Admiral should have noticed that there was duel insurance as your registration number should have been flagged up when entered onto the MID which would show a policy was in force with NU. Probably a simple admin error.
Turning to Gyzmo's point, whilst there are many occasions where more than one insurer may be involved in providing cover, it is technically illegal to have motor insurance with 2 insurers, certainly in personal lines. There are one or two Non-conventional large fleet risks where there is an agreed split liability however the lead is the only one permitted in law to issue the certificate of insurance. Any co-insurance deal is "behind the scenes" so to speak.
Beanie, NU & Admiral would not split any claim/refund 50/50, they must agree who the actual insurer would be liable. In this instance, the intended insurer was Admiral and the NU policy is void.
Finally, back to the thread, I'm sure one of the NU guys will confirm this course of action & point you inthe direction of one of the senior personal lines underwriters to forward correspondence to as I only know the commercial ones. They're not all bad really ! NU are definately one of the better insurers.
Hope that this has clarified all points. |
| |
16th June 2007, 09:14
|
#10 (permalink)
| | Classic Account Customer | Re: Being taken for a complete idiot? Quote:
Originally Posted by Trojan1401 OK,
Turning to Gyzmo's point, whilst there are many occasions where more than one insurer may be involved in providing cover, it is technically illegal to have motor insurance with 2 insurers, certainly in personal lines. | I was always taught that it is not illegal to have dual (motor)insurance unless there is an intention to commit fraud. Surely if it were illegal just to have dual insurance then there would be some case law to back this up. I do not recall this even being mentioned in the various Road Traffic Acts let alone state that it is an offence. |
| |
16th June 2007, 09:39
|
#12 (permalink)
| | Classic Account Customer | Re: Being taken for a complete idiot? Quote:
Originally Posted by Trojan1401 Don't think there is any case law but this was/is stated somewhere in an old CII book on basic elements of insurance.
To be sure though I'll double check Monday at work. | I think i will check through mine to see if i can find it some time as well.
Dont mean to be argumentative about it just find it strange that there are so many differing views amongst those in the industry. |
| |
16th June 2007, 09:39
|
#13 (permalink)
| | Platinum Account Customer | Re: Being taken for a complete idiot? It isn't, and I would like to see some legislation (so far no-one has been able to) that shows it is illegal to have more than one insurance policy.
the nature of insurance itself lends itself in some cases to having more than one policy on the same subject matter. Obviously in the vast majority of cases there is no reason to have multiple insurance (such as with domestic cars), and indeed having dual insurance may be an indication of potential fraud, and claiming on two indemnitiy policies is indeed fraud, but that is not the point.
The fact is however that it is not illegal. at the risk of seeming to go off-topic, let me explain why I raised this point.
When I worked in insurance, I had a customer who had inadvertantly taken out two policies (he was rather elderly and somewhat confused - basically he took out another policy three months into his renewal, forgetting about the old one). When he came to cancel the old policy, it came to light that there were two policies operating. Both insurers wanted to take full premiums for the whole year and rescing the contract, and I was the only person who claimed this to be wrong. After going through underwriters (glorified call centre staff) I ended up going right through to the chief underwriter (my manager was furious) who asked whether or not insurance staff receive any training (my manager was still furious but did not seem to care that she was wrong). He sent and email ordering the policy to continue so long as the other insurance, for as long as it ran, to be listed as an additional policy through whom contribution can be sought.
If anyone can provide an statute which specifically prohibits having more than one insurance policy (in general) I will gladly eat my hat (with some salt and pepper though). |
| |
16th June 2007, 09:44
|
#14 (permalink)
| | Platinum Account Customer | Re: Being taken for a complete idiot? Quote:
Originally Posted by xrchris Dont mean to be argumentative about it just find it strange that there are so many differing views amongst those in the industry. | I know there are, but it seems that it is down to poor training. some of the things I have heard should make an underwriter's feet curl up. I have challenged people on this before and the best answer I have received is "because it is".
Basically becasue it is a policy of indemnity, the insured cannot be allowed to benefit from a loss. A such, any payments from policies should be made on a pro-rata basis.
In fact, if you look in your CII folder, you will see a section on contribution - the right of insurers to call on others where cover is provided - i.e, DUAL INSURANCE! If it was illegal, then the professional body of the industry would not be training people in how to calculate contributions from several different insurers! |
| |
16th June 2007, 09:56
|
#15 (permalink)
| | Classic Account Customer | Re: Being taken for a complete idiot? Quote:
Originally Posted by gyzmo
In fact, if you look in your CII folder, you will see a section on contribution - the right of insurers to call on others where cover is provided - i.e, DUAL INSURANCE! If it was illegal, then the professional body of the industry would not be training people in how to calculate contributions from several different insurers! | Was just reading this section as you were posting.
It does indeed confirm exactly what you and I were saying.  |
| |
16th June 2007, 10:14
|
#17 (permalink)
| | Classic Account Customer | Re: Being taken for a complete idiot? Here is an example Contribution clause as contained within an NU Powerpoint motor policy. Quote: Other insurance
If at the time of any claim arising under
this policy there is any other insurance
policy covering the same loss, damage or
liability, we will only pay our share
of the claim. This condition does not | | |