NUD cancelled policy cos of paying by cheque!!

[sb2675]

Nothing to do with claiming charges back, but just thought members might like to be aware of this issue.

 

I have been regularly paying my car insurance policy monthly by DD and everyone was happy, until, due to starting my own business and money coming in and going out at silly times of the month, it wasn't feasble to pay by this method (cos surprisingly enough I would have been charged by my bank!!).

 

I contacted them to see what other methods I could pay by, and there lovely call centre staff gave me an address to send cheques to.

 

Anyway, I then regularly sent them cheques that cleared in time for the payment date. Everyone still happy.... or so I thought...

 

On the 15th April, I received a letter to say that following my request, my policy had been cancelled as from 1st April.

 

Hang on a minute- it was now 15th April and I had been obliviously driving around unaware that I was uninsured!

 

I called up to see what the problem was, and they admitted that they had sent the wrong letter out and that in fact THEY had cancelled my policy as I wasn't paying by direct debit!!

 

I checked my current account online whilst they were on the phone and they had been cashing the cheques every month without comment!!

 

So it seems, Norwich Union Direct are only HAPPY if you pay the right way... maybe cheques are beneath them these days?!

 

I was so lucky not to have been stopped in those two weeks. I was fuming!!

 

They did offer to quote me on a new policy though... how nice of them!

 

I am now with Virgin! say no more....

[sPaNkGrRrL]

This exact same thing happened to me with Norwich Union - I missed a dd payment and then sent a cheque which they CASHED.

 

I had a car accident later that month and found out to my horror that they had cancelled my policy(without writing to tell me) and I was thus driving uninsured and unable to claim to get my car fixed. Never did i receive a letter informing me of this,, or asking for my certificate of motor insurance back.I made an official complaint to them which they turned down - I find this amazing since they were IN POSSESSION OF MY MONEY at the time of the accicent.

 

I'm still fighting this now - or at least trying to. As far as they are concerned it is case closed,I'm not sure what else I can do.

[hassansoyer]

Unfortunately, we are all looking for cheaper, even cheaper, even more cheaper car insurance. So obviously insurers have to cut costs, cheques cost more to process compared to direct debits so thats why they don't like this method.

[cazzaswfc]

NUD like many companys do not allow monthly cheque payments, ( they are happy to take this for a years premium) whilst I appreciate your frustrations on these NUD will not accept monthly cheques ( the only thing I can think of is there may have being some confusion around a monthly cheque) they will accept cheques for any outstanding payment (i.e dd get cancelled and client wants to send cheque for odd payment)

 

Basically monthly cheque payments are like standing orders, the company has no control over WHEN and how much you pay, that why NUD ( and other co's I'm sure) won't accept payment by cheque - nothing to do with cost of processing cheques.

[Conniff]

I don't think these post are actually about the payments by cheque, they are about the fact that the policies were cancelled without notice leaving the driver uninsured.

Now that is not on and I wonder how they would have faired in court if the op's had been stopped or worse, had an accident.

[cazzaswfc]

then again I'll disagree, I can confirm that NUD ALWAYS inform in writing (with details of rta etc included- if we had made an error then our customer relations dept would VERY quickly resolve it! ) of any possible cancellation due to o/s or non payment,

 

It always surprises me that some customers only ever receive the final cancellation letter! ( not that I'm implying anything of course)

[Trojan1401]

Mind you cazza. post does take a long time to get from Mumbai !!!

[cazzaswfc]

I agree, it does.........fortunatly our's are printed and sent from Bowthorpe in Norwich:)

[sturatc]

It is not good news for me at least.

[BADGER 69]

Surely as a matter of contract law as they have accepted consideration by cashing the cheque the contract is still in force. I'll see if I can find anything in contract law about this.

[gooey1]

I believe the issue with cheque payments is due to credit licensing laws.

 

NUD do not have a credit license as far as I am aware. Therefore, in order to take payment on a monthly basis - a valid DD mandate has to be in force. Failure to maintain that mandate will result in the policy being cancelled. This is common across alot of insurers.

 

It is likely you have been sent 2 or 3 letters before the final cancellation, although whether received or not is another issue. If the company can demonstrate they DID send requests for a new DD instruction however, then they have complied with relevant law/industry practice and therefore would not be at fault for cancelling your policy.

 

If you feel the situation has been mishandled up to the point of cancellation, I would recommend asking them to explain how the process has been carried out on your policy.

 

I do however, feel it is fair for them to cancel for you not keeping up with the agreement to pay via direct debit.

[Conniff]

Not sure where you got that from, but I haven't seen anywhere where it says without a licence you can only take DD.

[gooey1]

As stated, this is as far as I am aware. In other words, my opinion.

 

I can't verify it as I don't have the relevant experience in consumer credit, but I was under the impression a company could not arrange credit without having a credit license to do so.

 

Thus, paying by direct debit is considered more of a 'pay as you go' method instead of clearing an outstanding debt?

 

Again, not sure.

[Son of Shoestring]

NUD like many companys do not allow monthly cheque payments, ( they are happy to take this for a years premium) whilst I appreciate your frustrations on these NUD will not accept monthly cheques ( the only thing I can think of is there may have being some confusion around a monthly cheque) they will accept cheques for any outstanding payment (i.e dd get cancelled and client wants to send cheque for odd payment)

 

Basically monthly cheque payments are like standing orders, the company has no control over WHEN and how much you pay, that why NUD ( and other co's I'm sure) won't accept payment by cheque - nothing to do with cost of processing cheques.

 

It's all very well playing fair dinkums to NUD and others but let's not forget the real veiled reasons for the gradual erasure of cheques (as well as other historical banking transfer methods like standing orders).

 

NUD's habit of selectively refusing payments by cheque form part of an across the board strategy by corporations and government to introduce - by stealth - electronic money.

 

The purpose is that it can be easily traced. Tracking money is good for the tax authorities (although it is packaged and sold to the public under the all-purpose, all-singing anti-terrorism spin) as it severely hampers - in one fell swoop - anyone's ability to earn "black money".

 

It also enables corporation to effectively take control over your bank account, making it by default their bank account. The increasing drive to insist that payment be by DD (or debit/credit card) means corporations can take out what amount they want when they want it. Not what amount you want when you want it. That such actions force many people into overdraft or cause a "bounce" - with all the resultant bank and corp charges - is too well known about to warrant further comment here.

 

Personally I think the ease of explanation you have shown above in favour of NUD, simply shows you to be either beguiled, naive, or have an agenda. NUD along with most other massive transnational corporations make unseemly amounts of profit annually., They do this by cheating their customers out of due pensions, insurance payments on justified claims and other "legal" robber-baron methods of "wealth transfer". They do not deserve anyone's "understanding" concerning any additional feathering of their profits.

 

Shoestring

[LemonTwist]

It's all very well playing fair dinkums to NUD and others but let's not forget the real veiled reasons for the gradual erasure of cheques (as well as other historical banking transfer methods like standing orders).

 

NUD's habit of selectively refusing payments by cheque form part of an across the board strategy by corporations and government to introduce - by stealth - electronic money.

 

The purpose is that it can be easily traced. Tracking money is good for the tax authorities (although it is packaged and sold to the public under the all-purpose, all-singing anti-terrorism spin) as it severely hampers - in one fell swoop - anyone's ability to earn "black money".

 

It also enables corporation to effectively take control over your bank account, making it by default their bank account. The increasing drive to insist that payment be by DD (or debit/credit card) means corporations can take out what amount they want when they want it. Not what amount you want when you want it. That such actions force many people into overdraft or cause a "bounce" - with all the resultant bank and corp charges - is too well known about to warrant further comment here.

 

Personally I think the ease of explanation you have shown above in favour of NUD, simply shows you to be either beguiled, naive, or have an agenda. NUD along with most other massive transnational corporations make unseemly amounts of profit annually., They do this by cheating their customers out of due pensions, insurance payments on justified claims and other "legal" robber-baron methods of "wealth transfer". They do not deserve anyone's "understanding" concerning any additional feathering of their profits.

 

Cazzaswfc works for NU. There are many insurance workers on this forum who spend their free time giving advice to people needing help. There is never a need to insult anyone, even if you disagree with them.

 

Most of what you have written in your comment simply isn't true. In no way do direct debits allow companies to take control over your bank account, and a company can't just take out whatever they want without advising the customer.

 

This is what the direct debit guarantee says:

The direct debit guarantee applies to all banks and building societies taking part in the direct debit scheme. It says that:

 

 

If there is a change in the amount to be paid or the payment date, the person receiving the payment (the originator) must notify the customer in advance.

 

 

If the originator or the bank/building society makes an error, the customer is guaranteed a full and immediate refund of the amount paid.

 

Customers can cancel a direct debit at any time by writing to their bank or building society.

 

As for the last paragraph of your comment, in most of the cases where an insurer rejects a claim, there is a good reason for it. It is up to you to make sure you understand what your policy covers you for. If you think an insurer has rejected your claim unfairly, you can refer your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) once you have exhausted the internal complaints procedure.

 

It seems like you have a big grudge against insurance companies. I've read your other post on this forum, and you said you think your insurer has cheated you out of an insured claim. Why not tell us all about it then? Maybe someone here will be able to help you. It will get you a lot further than writing spiteful comments in response to other people's topics.

[Son of Shoestring]

Lemon Twist wrote:

 

Quote:

 

Cazzaswfc works for NU. There are many insurance workers on this forum who spend their free time giving advice to people needing help. There is never a need to insult anyone, even if you disagree with them.

 

 

Most of what you have written in your comment simply isn't true. In no way do direct debits allow companies to take control over your bank account, and a company can't just take out whatever they want without advising the customer.

 

Unquote

 

Nonsense.

 

You are elevating to an insult comments which simply recognised that Cazzaswfc was probably in the insurance industry and thus posting with professional bias.

 

Regarding the other issues…

 

Firstly, I invite you to read in detail the banking forum where the topic of direct debits has been aired fairly extensively. As well as the subject of the DD guarantee scheming. Secondly, I speak from personal and extensive knowledge as a former international banker of executive rank. Thirdly, I have spent many years investigating and writing about a wide range of unlawful and illegal corporate and government malfeasance and abuse.

 

In other words I speak of what I know.

 

Not of what you think I know.

 

Variable DD’s take over effective control of the customer’s bank accounts for the very obvious reason that they bestow upon the beneficiary the power to name the amount and date upon which the beneficiary wishes to activate the DD.

 

Not least eithert, is the fact that, as very often happens, the DD is activated at a time that forces the customer into an overdraw situation that allows the bank to charge a horrendous and unlawful sum in punitive charges. It is also very often the case that an additional non-payment or admin. charge is then made by the beneficiary too. A case of adding insult to injury. This “cycle” can and is often repeated the following day and several times thereafter – all before the customer receives a letter from his/her bank notifying him/her or the first bounce.

 

Moreover, the DD Guarantee scheme forces the customer to expend time and energy (and not a little frustration) to follow time consuming efforts to recover a wrongful charge that he/she has not authorised. Another way of saying this is that the customer has become the unwitting and unpaid administrative employee of the beneficiary and settling bank.

 

For these reasons corporations very rarely will accept as a means of payment the Standing Order system wherein the customer stipulates (and the bank is obliged to follow) the amount and date the payment is to become activated – and which bestows upon the customer all the expected rights and powers over his/her bank account.

 

There are also untold numbers of horror stories out there about customer’s cancelling direct debits by writing to their banks. It is not that uncommon for the bank to respond that the customer must write to the corporation/drawee to ask them to cancel the DD (been there, done that, seen the film, got the T shirt – as indeed I have on most of these issues). What the law says and what happens are very often in parallel worlds. It a minefield.

 

Lemon Twist wrote:

 

Quote:

 

As for the last paragraph of your comment, in most of the cases where an insurer rejects a claim, there is a good reason for it. It is up to you to make sure you understand what your policy covers you for. If you think an insurer has rejected your claim unfairly, you can refer your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) once you have exhausted the internal complaints procedure.

 

 

Unquote

 

Nonsense, too. In my view.

 

We all know that the insurance industry will take any amount of premium they can and then start to renege when it comes to payout by using any number of dodges covered by the interpretation of small print clauses.

 

Ultimately it comes down to the customer to consider whether they wish to expend the time and effort to fight and whether it will be financially viable to do so. Also, while you may have considerable confidence in the Ombudsman Service… I do not. The entire spectrum of regulators are ineffective and are designedly so, in my view. They give the appearance of aloof impartiality but are inclined towards partiality that favours business interests rather than the public interest.

 

You may or may not remember Margaret Thatcher’s axiom “the market will regulate itself”. Not only was this an inside joke by those in the know (markets can no more regulate themselves than monkeys can stop scratching their balls in public), but was a charter for larceny if ever there was one.

 

We live and breathe in a nation that is cleverly tilted towards corporate elitism. That you naturally side with the insurance industry in this discussion suggests to me that you are in some way connected to it or work in it?

 

Lastly, you are right to suggest that I have a grudge against the insurance industry. Except it’s not really a grudge at all but more of an understanding (and a so far un-disappointed expectation) of their complete lack of ethics and morals. These attributes have been supplanted by imported business models that instil insatiable greed and avarice at the executive level in the race to boost this year’s profits to achieve this year’s bonus/profit share/promotions.

 

Take the money and run…

 

As you know the insurance industry and the banking industry are closely allied – often being owned by the same overall group/s.

[Darkangelsdelite]

Is it just me or do i sense a hint of cynicism here?

 

I agree with LemonTwist regarding that claims situation, as I (and indeed most of the other insurance workers on here) have stated many times, the onus is on the consumer to check their documentation and read it. If there is anything they are unclear of or not happy with, help is a simple telephone call away. If a claim is repudiated and you haven't read your docs, then you have only yourself to blame.

 

I also have to say that i agree again with LemonTwists point on direct debits. If a company takes an amount out of your account via direct debit without your knowledge or consent, then you simply contact your bank for an indemnity claim and the money is immediately returned. the company is then notified of this and will contact you to arrange for the payment to be taken from a time that you agree.

 

As far as regulation goes, i remember the days when insurance was regulated by GISC (General Insurance Standards Council) We could pretty much say or do what we wanted. As soon as the FSA came in with all its new rules, i have to say i promptly s**t my pants as all of a sudden we had scripts we had to follow to the letter, we couldn't give any advice at all unless we passed lots of tests set by the FSA to make sure we were competent. All in all it was a big wake up call to the industry and now that its all settled down, the industry (banks included) are aware that they have to tow the line or else they'll get fined or even worse lose their licence to trade.

 

 

DA

[Son of Shoestring]

Is it just me or do i sense a hint of cynicism here?

 

Business and the lust for profit is as cynical as it ever gets, so yes, of course I am cynical. I understand business. I’ve seen inside the shadows and it ain’t pretty.

 

Do I sense a "collective" of Insurance staff here?

 

I think so.

 

 

I agree with LemonTwist regarding that claims situation, as I (and indeed most of the other insurance workers on here) have stated many times, the onus is on the consumer to check their documentation and read it. If there is anything they are unclear of or not happy with, help is a simple telephone call away. If a claim is repudiated and you haven't read your docs, then you have only yourself to blame.

 

I disagree with lemon Twist (and you) here regarding the claims situation. Quite strongly, in fact. Few people who take out insurance policies are lawyers or are able to understand the designedly convoluted legal jargon and escape clauses that pepper every insurance document. Nor do insurance brokers, or insurance companies, make an effort to clearly explain or underscore the many exceptions under which a claim will either be disputed or not paid out. On the other hand the industry rapidly pockets every premium payment it can lay its hands on.

 

Fair play dictates that if you are prepared to accept payment for a service then you must, in goodwill, render that service. Not seek to escape youre commitments by means of layers of incomprehensible lawyer-ese gobbledygook.

 

I also have to say that i agree again with LemonTwists point on direct debits. If a company takes an amount out of your account via direct debit without your knowledge or consent, then you simply contact your bank for an indemnity claim and the money is immediately returned. the company is then notified of this and will contact you to arrange for the payment to be taken from a time that you agree.

 

Of course you do....

 

But reality is to theory what chalk is to cheese. If the DD system was as fair and immaculate as you wish us to believe there would be no need for a DD indemnity scheme in the first place.

 

Under the Standing Order scheme, is a mistake was made then it was the responsibility of the bank to make good the error. This was the contract of the bank to hold your money, use it for their benefit, under clear fiduciary rules of procedure.

 

Under the DD scheme the banks have no real responsibility whatsoever. The contract is entered into between the customer and the beneficiary corporation. The bank's role is reduced merely to that of the vehicle of payment.

 

Which is why SO's have been reduced to near zero while DD's have been elevated to the norm... and are increasingly becoming the requirement for payment. DD's benefit everyone sector of business but are clearlt detrimental to the individual.

 

Corporate elistism as I said before.

 

Again, I refer you to read -- and absorb --- the numerous horror stories posted on the banking forum that have detailed the dangers of variable DD's and outlined numerous appalling cases connected to DDs.

 

 

As far as regulation goes, i remember the days when insurance was regulated by GISC (General Insurance Standards Council) We could pretty much say or do what we wanted. As soon as the FSA came in with all its new rules, i have to say i promptly s**t my pants as all of a sudden we had scripts we had to follow to the letter, we couldn't give any advice at all unless we passed lots of tests set by the FSA to make sure we were competent. All in all it was a big wake up call to the industry and now that its all settled down, the industry (banks included) are aware that they have to tow the line or else they'll get fined or even worse lose their licence to trade.

 

As I thought at the top of this post, you are also an insurance industry bod, which makes your view biased. Hardly surprising I might add.

 

Ever hear of Northern Rock? You know, that millstone of £60 billion hanging around every taxpayers neck for the next couple of decades?

 

The FSA is a joke.

 

Since you are sharing historical anecdotes, allow me to share one of mine. Some years ago, prior to the FSA, I spoke to the Bank of England and asked them about the weakness of their regulatory arm as it pertained to a certain old and stately "crashed" UK bank. I was told that the Old Lady's position was that it favoured deregulation, because a corner-stone of the City's strength was the 400 plus banks that operate there. These banks had made it abundantly clear to the government of the day, and the banking regulator, that unless it agreed to deregulation, these foreign banks would move lock, stock and all-smoking-barrels to another European centre that was more amenable to allowing them to operate in an environment free from control (meaning they could fleece their customers as much as possible and engage in even more drug money laundering than usual).

 

Knowing how banks use such threats (been there, done that) I am fairly certain in my own mind that there were idle in the extreme. But then the government of the day actually favoured extreme greed and did so in the name of the political economist Adam Smith (boy, he must have shriveled in his grave to hear them use associate his name to their policy of money-lust)

 

I hope you like that anecdote.

[Darkangelsdelite]

"I disagree with lemon Twist (and you) here regarding the claims situation. Quite strongly, in fact. Few people who take out insurance policies are lawyers or are able to understand the designedly convoluted legal jargon and escape clauses that pepper every insurance document. Nor do insurance brokers, or insurance companies, make an effort to clearly explain or underscore the many exceptions under which a claim will either be disputed or not paid out. On the other hand the industry rapidly pockets every premium payment it can lay its hands on."

 

 

 

You don't need to be a lawyer to understand an insurance policy, all you need is a bit of common sense and some time to read it through. As i clearly stated in my post, anything you don't understand is a simple phone call or letter away (or in the case of brokers a discussion with a person face to face) and all will be clarified.

 

Also just to point out that most major insurers, as well as a whole host of other companies, have now got the Crystal Mark from the 'Plain English Campaign' which means that their documents are clear and easy to understand and don't contain "designedly convoluted legal jargon and escape clauses" that you seem to think they do.

 

Plain English Campaign | Insurance, assurance and pension firms with Crystal Marks

 

 

I'm gona leave it there as this is going waaaaay off topic and escalating into an argument. IF someone wants to start a new thread about differences of opinion on the finance industry then we cant post there.

 

 

 

DA

[Trojan1401]

SoS

 

Strange but there could be a collective of insurance staff here as funnily enough, it is the insurance forum.

 

Insurance cover is there primarily to indemnify someone n the event of a loss. It is a contract between two parties where the proposer must disclose all material facts pertaining to such proposal of insurance. The onus is in the proposer to declare anything which may influence an underwriter's decision whether to accept a risk or modify terms applying to the policy.

A claim is normally declined due to non-disclosure i.e. not declaring driving convictions/previous accidents, construction of buildings, criminal convictions etc depending upon insurance type. You would be suprised what people do and don't say but generally trip themselves up when submitting a claim.

Insurance fraud is big business and we all pay more in premiums because of such fraudulent claims. That is the main reason why certain claims are investigated and declined.

[Son of Shoestring]

"I disagree with lemon Twist (and you) here regarding the claims situation. Quite strongly, in fact. Few people who take out insurance policies are lawyers or are able to understand the designedly convoluted legal jargon and escape clauses that pepper every insurance document. Nor do insurance brokers, or insurance companies, make an effort to clearly explain or underscore the many exceptions under which a claim will either be disputed or not paid out. On the other hand the industry rapidly pockets every premium payment it can lay its hands on."

 

You don't need to be a lawyer to understand an insurance policy, all you need is a bit of common sense and some time to read it through. As i clearly stated in my post, anything you don't understand is a simple phone call or letter away (or in the case of brokers a discussion with a person face to face) and all will be clarified.

 

That you may find such language simple merely reflects the fact that you work in that industry and are familiar with the way it operates.

 

In regard to the phone call you mention, why should it fall to the customer to clarify exceptions...especially as so many ordinary mortals don't understand the intent of the wording used.

 

Surely, the responsibility should rest on the shoulders of the insurance industry (if misselling is to be avoided) to amplify, in simple understandable terms, the innumerable situations under which a claim will be declined at the time they accept the premium -- rather than the industry wide practise of knowingly accepting premiums in the clear actuarially tested knowledge that a given (and not always small) percentage of accepted policies will not be paid out when a claim is initiated -- the latter based on highly "swervy" and technical grounds?

 

Regarding the phone call of which you speak, I believe I am right in stating that in claims situations that customer's call is vectored through a computer using Computer Voice Stress Analysis (CVSA) software, and that the claims agent listening to the call is looking at the analysis of each answer to each question he/she asks, in order to assess whether the customer is telling porkies - and then using this dodgy means of assessment to decline to pay out on a claim?

 

CVSA is far less reliable than the polygraph that it attempts to replicate using the minute and inaudible signals allegedly given out by the human voice when presented with stressful situations. Independent tests show that it has no better chance of being accurate than predicting the toss of a coin.

 

I would also point out that our kind American cousins in the Pentagon use CVSA as an interrogation tool at their torture base in Guatanamo Bay. Which goes some way to showing the mindset that of the insurance industry to use the same apllication on their customers as a means of significantly reducing payouts.

 

Also just to point out that most major insurers, as well as a whole host of other companies, have now got the Crystal Mark from the 'Plain English Campaign' which means that their documents are clear and easy to understand and don't contain "designedly convoluted legal jargon and escape clauses" that you seem to think they do.

 

Plain English Campaign | Insurance, assurance and pension firms with Crystal Marks

 

As a retired professional writer (and former international banker) I think I will continue to trust my own experience of what constitutes clear and easy to understand language. But thank you all the same.

 

I'm gona leave it there as this is going waaaaay off topic and escalating into an argument. IF someone wants to start a new thread about differences of opinion on the finance industry then we cant post there.

 

Yes, I'm sure you do want to leave it here. Very quickly. I find it intersting that what you typify as an argument, I simply regard as a debate. Which is, after all, one of the purposes of internet forums. Moreover, there are -- as I keep telling you -- hundreds upons hundreds of threads already in existence on the banking forum about the finance industry. No need to start a new one when this one is going so well, eh.

[Son of Shoestring]

SoS

 

Strange but there could be a collective of insurance staff here as funnily enough, it is the insurance forum.

 

Yes, I see. Irony is lost on you.

 

Insurance cover is there primarily to indemnify someone n the event of a loss. It is a contract between two parties where the proposer must disclose all material facts pertaining to such proposal of insurance. The onus is in the proposer to declare anything which may influence an underwriter's decision whether to accept a risk or modify terms applying to the policy.

A claim is normally declined due to non-disclosure i.e. not declaring driving convictions/previous accidents, construction of buildings, criminal convictions etc depending upon insurance type. You would be suprised what people do and don't say but generally trip themselves up when submitting a claim.

 

I would not be in the least be surprised. Individuals, like industries, are inherently crooked when it comes to money. The difference is the uneven playing field environment between the individual and industry. Most individuals are just not clever enough to understand that they are thoroughly beaten even before they pay the first premium.

 

The industry thrives on the inherent dishonesty of those seeking insurance. I doubt that you could see it, but this alone makes the industry itself ethically and factually dishonest.

 

Insurance fraud is big business

 

Both inside and outside the industry, no.

[BADGER 69]

This is going way off the subject.

 

As someone who is studying law I took sb2675's original post and cazzaswfc's responce to my lecture yesterday for my tutor , a barrister, to have a look at as I felt that as NUD had accepted payment by cheque on several occasions I felt that the original contract would still be valid. It was his opinion that as there was consideration (the cheque) and intention (as original ) then NUD would be hard pressed to avoid paying up if sb2675 had had an accident. There may have been a breach of the conditions but it would be incumbent upon NUD to inform of this before cancelling. Also it would only be right to allow for future payments to be made by DD.

[Son of Shoestring]

What your lecturer said entirely validates the point I was making. The insurance industry tries on all sorts of tricks all the time in order to minimise payout to buttress their performance and balance sheet. The customer is the one left out of pocket needing to take action to either appea to them, or the regulator, to show decent sense, to lump it, or engage a legal representative to take up proceedings on their behalf. The latter costs money as well as time, whereas the other actions take time and effort -- commodities that are stretched and in ever shorter supply these days.

[LemonTwist]

Regarding the phone call of which you speak, I believe I am right in stating that in claims situations that customer's call is vectored through a computer using Computer Voice Stress Analysis (CVSA) software, and that the claims agent listening to the call is looking at the analysis of each answer to each question he/she asks, in order to assess whether the customer is telling porkies - and then using this dodgy means of assessment to decline to pay out on a claim?

 

CVSA is far less reliable than the polygraph that it attempts to replicate using the minute and inaudible signals allegedly given out by the human voice when presented with stressful situations. Independent tests show that it has no better chance of being accurate than predicting the toss of a coin.

 

There was an article about this in The Observer today. Not many insurers in the UK actually use it, but of those that do, they all say that they don't rely soley on the results of the voice risk analysis program when deciding whether to reject a claim. They only use it to determine whether they need to question the claimant further.

 

You also keep saying that the insurance-related opinions of insurance workers on this forum are biased. The same could be said of you, as you have had a claim rejected and you are angry about it.

 

The reason I'm on this forum is because I do care about consumer rights, and I try to give people advice when I'm able to do so. I am also against the mis-selling of policies and any other bad practices that go on in our industry. I won't defend the industry for bad things, but if you've heard any lies about it, I'm going to explain you the truth.