gloomygoblin
-
Posts
26 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by gloomygoblin
-
In my case I experienced exactly the same thing when dealing with BISL last year, so would guess its a practice which is employed by them at all times? Effectively it seems to me little more than fraud, as I would guess the price charged to a broker for a specific risk is likely to be the same, notwithstanding where the customer has obtained the quote. If a broker charges a far higher price, then the difference is directly related to a greater profit for them. To be honest though I thought that BISL was a broker not an insurer as you advise, and obviously if they are actually underwriting risks themselves, then I would suppose they are able to charge exactly what they want? However if they are a broker, then it seems a bit like Tesco charging £2 for a pack of horseburgers online, and £5 instore for exactly the same product? Is that wholly acceptable?...............I rather think not perhaps!
-
Anyone noticed the very large differences in prices related to motor insurance between those provided online through one of the comparison sites, and those obtained directly from a broker over the phone? Last week I had an email from Go Compare regarding insurance, and they returned 43 prices ranging from £224 to £1200. As current insurance was through BISL (Budget, Dial Direct etc etc), and bearing in mind its sometimes difficult to get present brokers to disclose NCD details, I decided to continue using BISL. BISL price was £267 through their Dial Direct trading style, and having found the prices differed greatly between online and over the phone, I called the number provided for Dial Direct, and was quoted £434 for exactly the same cover whose online price was £267! When I queried this with the BISL phone drone I was forced to listen to what seemed like a mish mash of obvious lies and prevarication. The conversation was becoming extremely tedious so I terminated the call, immediately called back and was then quoted the price I had obtained online. Strangely enough the FCA is quite comfortable with practices such as this, even though it is clear that anyone without net access may well be required to pay far more for insurance products, than anyone who can access the net. I wonder are these practices common across the whole of the insurance sector, or are they only things employed by concerns such as BISL?
-
In this case I have been an SSE customer for 13 years, with no problems at all. As I understand it they are wanting to dump small business customers (which they see as high risk), by asking for security deposits and higher charges, simply as a ploy to be able to do this lawfully. I have asked them about dumping small business customers (which they deny), and have suggested that if they cannot clarify the exact reasons they want to charge a deposit and higher unit costs, that my feelings about dumping are quite correct.
-
The MSM is unlikely to be interested, as they seem to me to work hand in hand with the business interests which are ripping us off.................
-
They have changed their minds now, and have forgotten about the "security deposit" and credit scoring, and offered me a lower unit cost! When I suggested this was purely and simply due to my kicking up a bit of fuss, there wasnt much they could say to deny this. Unfortunately this sort of bullying is becoming more and more common, and I would guess that for every 10 people that object there are probably 50 that dont! The profits these people make are already enormous, and I feel that kicking small business customers in the balls, through telling lies over non existent credit checks is something that deserves publicity.
-
In this case SSE has advised they have no particular criteria in respect of credit scoring, and have seemingly decided to dump me as a customer on an arbitrary basis. I wonder if I have any right to apply under FOI for the reasons as to why I have been refused?
-
Recently received a renewal notice for the electricity supply for my small business from SSE. This stated that I would need to pay 19 weeks supply charges up front, and may also have to pay increased unit cost charges. SSE claimed that the reasons for this was due to my failing a credit check, but when I contacted them on the phone they were unable to outline the reasons for my failing, or to explain why I had passed the 3 previous checks with no problems (all since reference checks started). This seemed to like SSE clawing extra profits out of hard bitten small business customers, and in my case the fact they had been providing me with electricity for 13 years, with no issues related to payments, did I felt have some bearing on the situation. Over the course of a couple of days I spoke to several SSE droids about this situation, with one of them claiming that charging deposits, and increased unit costs did not result in higher profits! A customer of mine works in an executive position in one of the smaller energy companies, and I discussed this with him. It would seem companies such as SSE are dumping higher risk small business customers, by far more stringent credit checks, which mean customers either pay the deposits required, and in some cases unit cost increases of up to 30% higher. The reason for the use of this strategy, is down to the fact they cannot lawfully refuse to supply a customer, so are encouraging them to go elsewhere using the method outlined above. I wonder have any other forum members running small businesses got one of these notices? Seems to me that the greed of these people is astonishing, and bearing in mind the current economic situation, and the enormous profits the energy co's posted last year, that the press might be interested in what seems to me an obvious way of sidestepping the law, to ensure even higher profits?
-
This matter has now been resolved. Full refund of all the monies paid to One-Sure, with the addition of an extra £50 as a gesture of good will. The debt collection operation has now applied for a licence, and I doubt very much if they had been operating lawfully, that I would have got anything at all.
-
Direct debit mandates (some info)
gloomygoblin replied to gloomygoblin's topic in General Consumer Issues
Santander..................and yes I would agree with the laziness suggestion 100%! -
Direct debit mandates (some info)
gloomygoblin replied to gloomygoblin's topic in General Consumer Issues
Thanks....................still waiting to hear if the people who took the dodgy DD payments, are operating without an OFT licence (OFT had no record of them being licensed) -
Direct debit mandates (some info)
gloomygoblin replied to gloomygoblin's topic in General Consumer Issues
The 2 dodgy DD payments taken from my account have now been refunded, One Sure is being investigated by TSS and I have made formal complaint to the appropriate ombudsman service. -
Direct debit mandates (some info)
gloomygoblin replied to gloomygoblin's topic in General Consumer Issues
In my case the bank involved did not advise there was any need for a written instruction to cancel the arrangement, so this was done verbally. I guess this means the guarantee scheme isnt applicable, simply due to my not having looked into matters more carefully, and being unaware of the need for a written instruction? Its worrying though that in this instance I have apparently been lied to my 2 members of bank staff, who claim the only certain way of stopping a DD payment is by closing the account from which its being drawn? Incidentally the DD in this case originated from an automated system, but I guess that doesnt make a scrap of difference to the fact I was ignorant of the need to cancel in writing? Thanks for the help on this one, and not altogether surprised that members of bank staff tell lies to customers................... -
Direct debit mandates (some info)
gloomygoblin replied to gloomygoblin's topic in General Consumer Issues
I informed the bank verbally to stop the DD, and at the time there was no indication from them that the request needed to made in writing. Is there any legislation relative to DD payments I wonder, as it seems worrying that I seem to have been misinformed on 2 separate occasions by bank staff? -
Direct debit mandates (some info)
gloomygoblin replied to gloomygoblin's topic in General Consumer Issues
Thats exactly what I thought at first, but cant quite understand why the banks fraud department as well as a member of staff would suggest otherwise? It looks as though the bank are going to have to provide a refund. -
I was told by someone at my bank a while back that the only way to be 100% sure of stopping a direct debit payment coming out of my account, was to close the account and open another which would obviously have different details. To be honest I didnt think there was much possibility of what I had been told being correct, but after having 2 direct debit payments removed from my account after that arrangement had been cancelled by me, what I had been told was then grudgingly confirmed by the banks fraud department! So before setting up a direct debit mandate, its worth remembering that there is nothing you can do to stop payments being taken, short of what I had to do, which was to threaten those involved with immediate legal action should the payments continue for any reason! The direct debit guarantee scheme appears to be a complete waste of time, unless you action any untoward payments within a few days of them being taken, which in many cases is quite impossible.
-
I have written to One Sure altogether 10 times, and recorded delivery letters to Lear personally 4 (all of which have been ignored by him!) As well as letters I have spent altogether 57.5 minutes on the phone to them, and have recorded all the conversations (including members of staff misleading me!). The FSA is being dissolved in the near future and it would seem in their closing months of operation, they are addressing complaints a little more seriously than in the past, so I shall be writing to them making a formal complaint about One Sure and its apparent links to what according to the OFT is an illegal DCA operation.
-
I wonder why exactly I should want to waste my time writing the the MD of an insurance company, if the FOS were already involved? The issues here initially related only to concerns I have with the way One Sure continued to remove money from my account after insurance cover with them had been cancelled (as had the direct debit arrangement). As One Sure felt it appropriate to ignore these concerns, and employ the services of an unlicensed DCA to intimidate me into paying more money I dont owe, formal complaints have now been made to the relevant bodies, and the DCA is being investigated by TSS.
-
Already done..............hopefully will be rather more effective than continuing to waste time writing letters to Lear which are all ignored.
-
The "evidence" here is that my bank advise 2 direct debit payments were taken from my account in regard to insurance cover, which was cancelled some 2 months previously, at the same time the direct debit arrangement was also cancelled by me. I have also been contacted by a DCA who the OFT advise is unlicensed, and is trading illegally. It seems to me that those involved with One Sure certainly appear to be less than honest, and cannot see any point whatever in adding to the numerous amount of letters I have sent them, as these are either ignored entirely, or elicit responses which support the notion that One Sure are less than honest.
-
I have written to Lear about 4 times now, as well as sending him emails. No response from him at at all, so I contacted the OFT who advised that Cobra, which appears to be linked directly to Lear's insurance business, is seemingly trading without a license (which supposedly is illegal!). One Sure do have an OFT license, but should the TSS investigation into Cobra suggest illegal trading, then I would imagine this is something that would be taken into account when that license is due for renewal? Not sure whether its generally known or not, but any company which is the subject of a complaint to the FOS, has to pay a fee if they choose to deny what has been suggested, so in this case it seems strange that Lear is unable to respond..........
-
Sorry I thought the OFT advising that a dodgy debt collection agency was trading without a licence, and then referring the matter to Staffordshire TSS, kind of suggests it would be a bit of a waste of time my complaining to either the DCA or the insurance company? (both of whom suggest the OFT are wrong about the licence!). My point here was that if One-Sure/Cobra are involved with anything illegal, then they are unlikely to admit it, and any "investigation" into complaints about such practices, would be dealt with in a manner similar to that employed by the police in quickly dismissing complaints about their conduct. DCA's have no power in law whatever, and rely mainly on threats and intimidation to obtain payment, and it seems strange that members of a consumer forum, should spring to the defence of a DCA which according to the OFT is trading illegally? Maybe it would be a better idea to await the findings of the TSS on this matter, and if it is confirmed that crimes have been committed than place details of all those involved on the CAG database, which may help others avoid dealing with One Sure in future?
-
Interesting point of view! Do you perhaps ascribe to the idea that its a good plan for people like the police to investigate themselves?
-
Cobra according to the OFT doesnt have a licence, and is not registered as a "trading style" related to One Sure, so would appear to be operating illegally. This issue is currently being investigated by Staffordshire TSS, who I would imagine may well have received other complaints about the One Sure/Cobra operation? It seems to be largely unknown that even though a bank can cancel a direct debit mandate, that there is nothing to stop the arrangement being reactivated by the payee if they so wish. I was told that this was the case by someone at my bank, and must say I found it surprising! Seems to be the case though as 2x payments were taken after I had cancelled the DD.
-
The worrying thing here is that direct debits continued even though the policy had been formally cancelled, and I had cancelled direct debit personally by visiting my bank. In reality the only way to be 100% sure your account cant be accessed, is to close it and open another with different details............and I am not sure thats something that is generally known? There is also the fact that the cover provided by One Sure in the event of an accident was not likely to be valid in any case, as the underwriters had not been provided with the required documentation. Yes I do have a letter from Cobra, it only has a Staffs PO box No, but the phone hold message is exactly the same as One Sure, so I would guess they are based in the same offices? Does anyone have an idea of whether or not a debt collector trading without a license is regarded as serious, or is it something they will find it easy to wriggle out of, if this is indeed the case?
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS