Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
    • too true HB, but those two I referred for starters - appear to be self admitted - One to excuse other lockdown law breaking, by claiming his estate away from his consistency and London abode was his main home the other if he claims to have 'not told the truth' in his own words via that quote - to have mislead his investors rather than broken lobbying rules   - seem to be slam dunks - pick which was your law breaking - it seems to be both and much more besides in Jenricks case Starmer was director of public prosecutions yet the tories are using seemingly baseless allegations for propaganda and starmer is missing pressing apparent blatant criminality in politics
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Tesco car insurance cancellation


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4639 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi

 

Looking for some advice if possible please everybody! Ive been insured with Tesco car insurance for 6 years and today i rang up to cancel my policy. They told me that i would have to pay £145 to cancel it as my renewal date was 26th may and being outside the cooling off period i have to pay fees for things like breakdown,legal fees etc and also £30 cancellation charge!!

 

Can anyone tell me if this is allowed and if theres anyway around paying this scandalous amount!!??

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone tell me if this is allowed

Yes

 

and if theres anyway around paying this scandalous amount!!??

No, you agreed to the T&Cs and they're not illegal/unfair.

 

Why are you cancelling now when you've only just renewed?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I pressume you are paying monthly, but you have taken out a years policy; so if you had paid it all up front and wanted to cancel you would expect a refund!

now because the policy has only been in existance for about one month, they would charge this at a higher short term rate which is normally 30-35% of the annual rate/month.

The cancellation rates would be in the T & C anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I pressume you are paying monthly, but you have taken out a years policy; so if you had paid it all up front and wanted to cancel you would expect a refund!

now because the policy has only been in existance for about one month, they would charge this at a higher short term rate which is normally 30-35% of the annual rate/month.

The cancellation rates would be in the T & C anyway.

 

So how does a one month or twelve months contract make the same individual a higher risk? Just another bloody insurance con.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some Insurers do increase their premiums for monthly payers. They way they explain this, is that they offer a discount to annual premium payers and if you change to monthly, you lose this discount and pay interest for the monthly option. This is fairly common, but not all Insurers do this. Tesco I believe are one company that do so.

 

If you read some of the FOS rulings on this cancellation issue, actually you will see that they have said that some cancellation rates are too high and have said that a time on risk should be charged, plus a maximum of £50 for a cancellation admin fee. So if you are unhappy with the way in which a cancellation was handled, you can complain and ask the FOS to take a look at it.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also as some sompanies act as a broker, and effectively pay the year up (swinton springs to mind) if you cancel they try to cover their costs.

 

Why is OP cancelling just into contract year? if its to go to another insurer, why wasnt this done at renewal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi, I've had the same happen to me. Plus I purchased online and I've checked through everything and there is no mention of short term rates, ergo I did not agree or enter into a contract regarding short term rates. Probably this guy has found a cheaper insurer a month after automatically renewing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's been some misinformation in this thread. I'll try to clarify.

 

 

There is no such thing as short term rates. This is a complete misnomer. The insurance policies you are talking about is for annual cover. There are seperate and distinct short term policies, and they will have their own pricing structures.

 

When you purchase your insurance policy and select to pay monthly you are not paying for the insurance policy month by month. What happens is that you take out a loan to cover the full annual payment. Then the monthly bill that you pay is the repayment of that loan. This is why you are charged interest on monthly payment methods - sometimes as much as 30% APR or more.

 

Additionally insurers will look at the risk cost to charge a premium they feel is indicative to your risk. There is statistical evidence to show a correlation between people who select a monthly payment option and a higer risk of claiming. Nobody knows exactly why this correlation occurs. Therefore insurers would, if they could, charge a higher premium for people who would want to pay monthly. However you don't select your payment method until after you are given a quote so it is not possible to change the price at this stage. Therefore some insurers display both prices, with a "discount" offered for annual payment.

 

 

If you can afford it then taking out an annual payment option could reduce the amount you pay. It could be better to take out a personal loan with a lower APR from another company than pay the generally high APR fees associated with the monthly payment selection.

 

 

 

That all said you have purchased annual cover. Think of it another way - if you rented out a room in your house to someone, and you both agreed that the person would live there for a year, and you both signed a contract agreeing that you would rent this room for one year then how would you feel if that person moved out after just 2 months? They have broken the contract you both agreed to.

 

In order to give some flexibility insurance companies do allow customers to cancel a policy, and will return the pro-rata risk premium. They do however have a cancellation fee. This is not an administrative charge in the same way that banks have fees for you going over your overdraft fee (etc), but a contract penalty for your early exit.

 

Once area where you may have cause for complaint however is that these fees are often not clearly marked out in the terms and conditions of the policy. They should be clearly stated up front before purchase, as they are a major facet of the contract. Check through the pre-sales information to ensure that the cancellation fees were clearly provided to you prior to purchase (and not just in the information sent to you after you had bought the policy). If they are not there then raise a complaint on the issue of TCF - that a major contract clause was not explained to you before entering the contract. If they are present then I'm afraid that you have agreed to those conditions and you have no choice but to pay the cancellation fee.

 

Although it won't prevent you from having to pay, you are also entitled to complain if you feel that the cancellation fee is excessive. You should do this to the company first, and if you do not receive a satisfactory answer then you can refer the matter to the FOS once all options with your insurer has been exhausted. It is also worth writing to the ABI about your concern over rising costs of cancellation fees in the insurance sector.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...