Hi

I don't want to intervene on a private argument. Appears a bit of waste of time. Companies and individuals make mistakes. We should all note the various renewal dates on a calendar, with entry 7 days before due date (with phone number), perhaps on the same one as used for Birthdays. Atleast you can then phone to chase if necessary.

I have managed customer service teams dealing with automated renewal systems. The reliability of document printing is a problem affecting a lot of companies. The computer will show renewal or chaser letter has been sent to be printed but will not confirm it has actually been printed and most importantly posted. Thousands of documents are printed every day and this is made worse when you have centralised print centres on or off site. Some companies do also outsource their printing. I know there are companies that barcode their documents but I don't know how accurate these are at tracking documents. Problems often arise when printers break down or computers fail as sometimes it can be difficult to recover the print queue. You will have all experienced receiving duplicate documents when companies have lost track of printing.

huckster:

Problems often arise when printers break down or computers fail as sometimes it can be difficult to recover the print queue. You will have all experienced receiving duplicate documents when companies have lost track of printing.

Nope, but then perhaps I get what I pay for?

Again, what system are you used to using Huckster? Sounds remarkable lol? All systems that I have ever used provide errors on documents that have not been printed and the administration system will verify if it is missing a document....?

---

Coyote

All I would say is Coyote, you have been very lucky. You would be surprised that many major companies still operate systems which are not as ideal as the one you have been fortunate to use. They are moving in this direction but are not there yet, due to IT budgets. I think error rates to be fair are generally minimal but they do happen.

I know where I worked, there were often bill run complications and delays. They might know there was a problem but not which bills had failed and which had gone out. We had plenty of customers who would complain that they'd never received bills or reminders or letters. Obviously they could just be saying that but we always gave them the benefit of the doubt and if a serial offender, sent things signed for.

And there is human error if its not an automated system - specifically with individual complaints rather than mass mailings. Its not uncommon for staff to say they'd called someone when they hadn't, and on a few ocassions piles of letters dating back weeks, were found on peoples desks who just hadn't posted them. And this was in the Chief Exec's office of a major communications company. As technology advances and better systems come in, this can be monitored better and maybe stopped - I know our system we had to log at least 3 outgoing call attempts before we could write to a customer, and sofware came in to log calls so you know if the attempt was made, and if people were "releasing" calls - but it does happen that you can play the system and call when you know people won't be there to pick up so can write rather than confront them over the phone. Thankfully I'm out of call centre hell, 7 years hard labour was quite enough - but the experiences there you'd not beleive sometimes, and I bet other call centres be they utilities, insurance, other communications companies, banks - will all have examples of the same!

Some of these posts really aren't helping, I think there is a lot of comeback here.

1st of all, it's not her negligence, it IS the insurance brokers responsibility to reminder them and advise of renewal in good time, and Budget should have records to show this. We get post for the Cheshire Building Society and the County Court next door, all the time, and It's not unheard of that a sales person might "accidentally" bin the renewal letter, especially if they are down on their renewals target, and yes that does happen, I have seen it a lot. So it is entirely reasonable to assume that a single item of post, might not be delivered, and under audit, this wouldn't look very good if there was no follow up.

2ndly, what if the customer had accrued some penalty points during the year? Without any contact, how would Budget know all details were the same as last year? You can't just make the assumption that it is and hope to remain compliant, and it IS the broker's responsibility to ask these questions. After all, you can't ring up for a quote, and the broker assumes you have no points or accidents, he has to ask you. Imagine the policy was auto-renewed and then an incident occured, cover could be withdrawn with serious consequences for the insured and Budget, who might be open to a PI claim, nevermind any auditing issues. I once saw a policy auto renewed in this fashion, and the same things happened, only it turned out the policy holder had been imprisoned 3 mths previously, so the firm I was with, ended up with egg on their face and out of pocket.

3rdly, if the payment was declined, again, where was the customer contact? Besides the letter advising cancellation after 7 days, which has to be sent to be compliant, where was the telephone call to obtain alternative payment there and then?

4thly, the £112 might well be cancellation charges if they can knock it down to £51. If it was time on risk cover, you wouldn't be able to change the amount due, and it does seem very steep for 7 days worth.

5thly, just because it says X, Y & Z in the terms and conditions, doesn't mean it isn't an unfair contract and therefore unenforceable.

This has been handled by Budget in an incredibly unprofessional manner, and given what we've been told, this file might look very weak under audit. And yes, Treating Customers Fairly is a guideline, but brokers are supposed to operate "within" that guideline, and not outside it. In any given complaint a broker has to show that he has indeed, treated the customer fairly. Also, the FSA study the information they get about complaints and sometimes this is used to decide who they should go and audit, and no broker wants to be audited by the FSA, so following the complaints procedure all the way through, and then escalating it to the watchdog is definitely worth doing. If they can't show clearly that they have been fair and compliant, they will probably settle this complaint in house.

The first step I would take is to ring the insurance company direct and ask them what the time on risk charge was, and compare it with what Budget are telling you, then take it from there.

---

Thank you, that is much more along the lines of my thinking.

We are just waiting to see what the result is of the letter we sent. Parents are safely insured elsewhere and not likely to overlook this next time re when renewals are due, so we're just sorting out the money outstanding issue. Dad is quite prepared to go to court over the debt and offer to pay £1 a month out of his incapacity benefit if they don't see reason.

I don't think it will get that far, it would cost the insurance company too much.

I still really don't agree with the practice of holding card details though for a paid yearly policy and people really don't notice it in the small print. I pay mine monthly by direct debit and I know there will always be funds there to cover a smaller monthly payment and I expressly give permission to take the amounts as its direct debit.

I just don't think this tacit renewal and the possibilities for issues like this to arise is a good way to work. It is far too open to abuse for any number of reasons and I really do think its only good customer service to give a courtesy call and say "there is a problem with your card payment, can i check the details?" Thus saving all this fuss.

There was a large benefit to the company if this renewal went through without parents noticing, the renewal had gone up £60 yet was available cheaper on line. Had they seen the renewal on a notice, or been called, they'd have said there and then that the did not want it and gone elsewhere. The way it happened, if the card hadn't declined, they'd have pocketed the lot and parents would have been none the wiser. At least with direct debit you can dispute things under the DD guarantee scheme, there is no such thing for debit card payments - when its gone, its gone, unless its fraud and then they refund.

1st of all, it's not her negligence, it IS the insurance brokers responsibility to reminder them and advise of renewal in good time, and Budget should have records to show this. We get post for the Cheshire Building Society and the County Court next door, all the time, and It's not unheard of that a sales person might "accidentally" bin the renewal letter, especially if they are down on their renewals target, and yes that does happen, I have seen it a lot. So it is entirely reasonable to assume that a single item of post, might not be delivered, and under audit, this wouldn't look very good if there was no follow up.

What are you badgering on about Matt? Why would someone accidently bin a renewal letter for targets LOL!? If you get post for the Court and Building Society then that's the postie's fault?!

2ndly, what if the customer had accrued some penalty points during the year? Without any contact, how would Budget know all details were the same as last year? You can't just make the assumption that it is and hope to remain compliant, and it IS the broker's responsibility to ask these questions. After all, you can't ring up for a quote, and the broker assumes you have no points or accidents, he has to ask you.

Incorrect. It is good practice and almost standard practice to ask for these questions but the Insured must offer these details as it is a material fact. If the broker does not ask the question the Insured should volunteer the information as this material fact could affect the decision of a prudent underwriter. If the Insured accrued penalty points during the year, then it is they who have to inform the insurer at renewal.

Imagine the policy was auto-renewed and then an incident occured, cover could be withdrawn with serious consequences for the insured and Budget, who might be open to a PI claim, nevermind any auditing issues. I once saw a policy auto renewed in this fashion, and the same things happened, only it turned out the policy holder had been imprisoned 3 mths previously, so the firm I was with, ended up with egg on their face and out of pocket.

Budget wouldn't be open to any PI claim at all. They are not clairvoyants and are not expected to know material facts unless they are brought to their attention. The only time they would be open to a PI claim in this instance is if the Insured informed the Insurer of the material facts but they had failed to input this on the system causing a loss or consequential losses after an Insured event becomes and uninsured event due to the negligence of the company. I don't believe your anecdote RE policyholder being imprisoned and the company being out of pocket. Either the firm you work for are a bunch of dohnuts with no knowledge of PI claims, or insurance for that matter, or you've mis-heard the story.

3rdly, if the payment was declined, again, where was the customer contact? Besides the letter advising cancellation after 7 days, which has to be sent to be compliant, where was the telephone call to obtain alternative payment there and then?

This may have been made, it may not have been. It's not a legal obligation to telephone as notice was sent via post.

4thly, the £112 might well be cancellation charges if they can knock it down to £51. If it was time on risk cover, you wouldn't be able to change the amount due, and it does seem very steep for 7 days worth.

The £112 are not cancellation charges.

5thly, just because it says X, Y & Z in the terms and conditions, doesn't mean it isn't an unfair contract and therefore unenforceable.

I've read Budget's terms and conditions which is why I refer to them as a 'crap company' (see above). However there is nothing in there making it unfair. They disclose everything that is required of them. In actual fact, I'd say that it's to the contrary and very fair!

This has been handled by Budget in an incredibly unprofessional manner, and given what we've been told, this file might look very weak under audit. And yes, Treating Customers Fairly is a guideline, but brokers are supposed to operate "within" that guideline, and not outside it. In any given complaint a broker has to show that he has indeed, treated the customer fairly.

I agree but we're not quite at this stage yet... as far as we know, Budget have sent the document but it has failed to reach the Insured?

Also, the FSA study the information they get about complaints and sometimes this is used to decide who they should go and audit, and no broker wants to be audited by the FSA, so following the complaints procedure all the way through, and then escalating it to the watchdog is definitely worth doing. If they can't show clearly that they have been fair and compliant, they will probably settle this complaint in house.

The FSA won't do anything until it's gone through the proper channels beforehand.

The first step I would take is to ring the insurance company direct and ask them what the time on risk charge was, and compare it with what Budget are telling you, then take it from there.

Good advice!

---

Coyote

Thank you, that is much more along the lines of my thinking.

So, because this information is what you want to hear you are happy, despite the majority still being looked at from one side of the coin? Blimey lol. You'll go far!

We are just waiting to see what the result is of the letter we sent. Parents are safely insured elsewhere and not likely to overlook this next time re when renewals are due, so we're just sorting out the money outstanding issue. Dad is quite prepared to go to court over the debt and offer to pay £1 a month out of his incapacity benefit if they don't see reason.

We learn from mistakes...

I don't think it will get that far, it would cost the insurance company too much.

No it wouldn't, they'd be in the right and you'll be in debt (Clearly, as you'll offer the £1 a month)

I still really don't agree with the practice of holding card details though for a paid yearly policy and people really don't notice it in the small print. I pay mine monthly by direct debit and I know there will always be funds there to cover a smaller monthly payment and I expressly give permission to take the amounts as its direct debit.

Small print? No such thing these days but it's what you choose to read (or not to read).

I just don't think this tacit renewal and the possibilities for issues like this to arise is a good way to work. It is far too open to abuse for any number of reasons and I really do think its only good customer service to give a courtesy call and say "there is a problem with your card payment, can i check the details?" Thus saving all this fuss.

It's a very successful scheme and luckily the majority don't have a problem with it. It prevents driving accidently without insurance. No excuses!

There was a large benefit to the company if this renewal went through without parents noticing, the renewal had gone up £60 yet was available cheaper on line. Had they seen the renewal on a notice, or been called, they'd have said there and then that the did not want it and gone elsewhere. The way it happened, if the card hadn't declined, they'd have pocketed the lot and parents would have been none the wiser. At least with direct debit you can dispute things under the DD guarantee scheme, there is no such thing for debit card payments - when its gone, its gone, unless its fraud and then they refund.

Well of course it will go up. It's a 'value' product. Whereby they attract you with the instant low price, are crap when it comes to settling claims and put the premium up at the end. One ends up spending more money by going with the cheap companies but people. just. don't. listen.

I appreciate your frustration but ownership of responsibility must be taken by the Insured person to make sure they are adequately insured at all times and ensure smooth transition of monies due on the due date. With or without notice. Post does go missing, things do go wrong. Wotsits face up there ^ has post delivered meant for the next door. I get utility bills for the neighbour who lives other end of the street because the number is similar. If I had failed to deliver this back to the intended person myself, is this the utility company's fault for it not arriving and cutting off the supply? No.

As per initial paragraph, see what happens. If it is their fault I'm sure it will be rectified but if not, you'll know to keep an eye for renewal date.

---

Coyote

1st of all, it's not her negligence, it IS the insurance brokers responsibility to reminder them and advise of renewal in good time, and Budget should have records to show this. We get post for the Cheshire Building Society and the County Court next door, all the time, and It's not unheard of that a sales person might "accidentally" bin the renewal letter, especially if they are down on their renewals target, and yes that does happen, I have seen it a lot. So it is entirely reasonable to assume that a single item of post, might not be delivered, and under audit, this wouldn't look very good if there was no follow up.

What are you badgering on about Matt? Why would someone accidently bin a renewal letter for targets LOL!?

Isn't it obvious?? To achieve their monthly bonus of course. Having worked in various financial institutions, I have frequently come across unscrupulous individuals who will do anything to get their bonus. You only have to watch the news to know this is true.

If you get post for the Court and Building Society then that's the postie's fault?!

I thought my point was clear enough. If it is reasonable to assume post may go missing (because it does) and that it is the broker's responsibility to advise renewal, then surely it is good practice to follow it up.

2ndly, what if the customer had accrued some penalty points during the year? Without any contact, how would Budget know all details were the same as last year? You can't just make the assumption that it is and hope to remain compliant, and it IS the broker's responsibility to ask these questions. After all, you can't ring up for a quote, and the broker assumes you have no points or accidents, he has to ask you.

Incorrect. It is good practice and almost standard practice to ask for these questions but the Insured must offer these details as it is a material fact. If the broker does not ask the question the Insured should volunteer the information as this material fact could affect the decision of a prudent underwriter.

OK, so by your logic, perhaps the broker shouldn't ask any questions at all, if it's not his job, the customer should tell them everything they need to know without prompting. In actuality, good practice or not, to be compliant, a broker must ask if there are any material facts they should know about.

Imagine the policy was auto-renewed and then an incident occured, cover could be withdrawn with serious consequences for the insured and Budget, who might be open to a PI claim, nevermind any auditing issues. I once saw a policy auto renewed in this fashion, and the same things happened, only it turned out the policy holder had been imprisoned 3 mths previously, so the firm I was with, ended up with egg on their face and out of pocket.

Budget wouldn't be open to any PI claim at all. They are not clairvoyants and are not expected to know material facts unless they are brought to their attention.

Actually there would be grounds for this. Sending one letter is not evidence that you have checked anything with the insured, and as I have repeatedly said, letters DO go missing, so if a customer claims, quite reasonably, they didn't get the letter, then there is some basis for a claim. It's not exactly watertight is it??

The only time they would be open to a PI claim in this instance is if the Insured informed the Insurer of the material facts but they had failed to input this on the system causing a loss or consequential losses after an Insured event becomes and uninsured event due to the negligence of the company.

Sending one communication and making so many assumptions could be construed as negligent.

I don't believe your anecdote RE policyholder being imprisoned and the company being out of pocket.

It's not a "story", his arrest is on the BBC news pages. The auto-renewal went through because we didn't hear from him. At the time he had a lot of policies, so it wasn't cancelled straight away, as we wanted to keep his business and we gave him time to respond. After several attempts with no contact, the company ended up with a time on risk charge to pay. After we found out where he was, so it was pointless chasing the money.

Either the firm you work for are a bunch of dohnuts with no knowledge of PI claims, or insurance for that matter, or you've mis-heard the story.

I no longer work there, and no, I admit PI is not my area of expertise, but it's not as cut and dried as you seem to think it is, but I really appreciate the doughnut comment.

3rdly, if the payment was declined, again, where was the customer contact? Besides the letter advising cancellation after 7 days, which has to be sent to be compliant, where was the telephone call to obtain alternative payment there and then?

This may have been made, it may not have been. It's not a legal obligation to telephone as notice was sent via post.

No, it's not a legal obligation, but why on earth would you not ring them and ask them for the money???????

4thly, the £112 might well be cancellation charges if they can knock it down to £51. If it was time on risk cover, you wouldn't be able to change the amount due, and it does seem very steep for 7 days worth.

The £112 are not cancellation charges.

You do not know this to be fact. Some or all of it could very well be cancellation charges.

5thly, just because it says X, Y & Z in the terms and conditions, doesn't mean it isn't an unfair contract and therefore unenforceable.

I've read Budget's terms and conditions which is why I refer to them as a 'crap company' (see above). However there is nothing in there making it unfair. They disclose everything that is required of them. In actual fact, I'd say that it's to the contrary and very fair!

You seem to be a fair and reasonable person...

This has been handled by Budget in an incredibly unprofessional manner, and given what we've been told, this file might look very weak under audit. And yes, Treating Customers Fairly is a guideline, but brokers are supposed to operate "within" that guideline, and not outside it. In any given complaint a broker has to show that he has indeed, treated the customer fairly.

I agree but we're not quite at this stage yet... as far as we know, Budget have sent the document but it has failed to reach the Insured?

If Budget's complaint procedure isn't followed through and the the case is refered, then effectively the case will be audited, because Budget will have to show their documentation and records of when, how and what contacts were made.

Also, the FSA study the information they get about complaints and sometimes this is used to decide who they should go and audit, and no broker wants to be audited by the FSA, so following the complaints procedure all the way through, and then escalating it to the watchdog is definitely worth doing. If they can't show clearly that they have been fair and compliant, they will probably settle this complaint in house.

The FSA won't do anything until it's gone through the proper channels beforehand.

"so following the complaints procedure all the way through, and then escalating it to the watchdog", i.e. follow their complaints procedure all the way through, AND THEN escalate it.

The first step I would take is to ring the insurance company direct and ask them what the time on risk charge was, and compare it with what Budget are telling you, then take it from there.

Good advice!

Oh thank you so much, I feel so honoured by your comment. I bask in the glow of your magnanimous compliment.

I don't really see you offering anything positive. I don't think PonyGirl welcomes your comments and neither do I. You are simply winding people up and causing aggro.

---

Matt W, have you only just realised that Coyote is a wind up merchant ! I think Coyote has valid points but there is a way of putting these in a helpful way Please spare a thought for Ponygirl. All she was trying to do was be a good daughter helping her parents. I suspect she has fled to the hills to get away from her computer.

In short, Ponygirl get your parents to phone Budget Customer Relations and make a formal complaint. Under FSA rules you can complain by phone and I think they have to respond within 2 days and issue a letter within 8 days. Budget should have already replied to the letter if it was treated as a complaint. The company I worked for dealt with complaint letters usually with 2 days of receipt, even if it just was a phone call to the customer to acknowledge. I used to deal with these types of complaint. Budget will back down and write the money off. If Ponygirls Mum & Dad have not received renewal from Budget you have to take that at face value. I know the FOS will rule in favour of the policyholder if it gets that far and Budget will not risk an FSA inspection.

No, still here. Letter went off mid last week and as yet have heard nothing at all. Sent to Customer Relations in the first instance.

Matt has been helpful, though I can see what Coyote was trying to say on the other side, I still think yes, confrontational and rigid.

Yes parents have learnt a lesson, but I'm not backing down helping them, and no-one will change my mind that holding debit/credit card records for a year for tacit renewals is anything but a handy way for insurance companies to grab your money and in some cases unfairly.

Its the main reason I'm thankful to be out of call centre hell. The one I worked for used to have morals but got taken over by the French then it was get every last penny out of everyone and it all went to pot. Customer Service went right out of the window, never mind the customer excellence that was once their aim.

Of course making a telephone complaint is near impossible with Budget, getting the address out of them was hard enough as its a foreign call centre and very difficult to understand and make yourself understood.

Yes, I did take him seriously to begin with, and if he's reading this, I am not going to reply to any more of his posts.

To Ponygirl, I am glad to be of help, I do hope you get sorted with this.

As someone who works in the industry, their behaviour reflects badly on the rest of us. Many times I have lost a customer to another broker, only to see them return at a later date, simply because we parted on good terms, and these things are remembered.

---

1st of all, it's not her negligence, it IS the insurance brokers responsibility to reminder them and advise of renewal in good time, and Budget should have records to show this. We get post for the Cheshire Building Society and the County Court next door, all the time, and It's not unheard of that a sales person might "accidentally" bin the renewal letter, especially if they are down on their renewals target, and yes that does happen, I have seen it a lot. So it is entirely reasonable to assume that a single item of post, might not be delivered, and under audit, this wouldn't look very good if there was no follow up.

What are you badgering on about Matt? Why would someone accidently bin a renewal letter for targets LOL!?

MATT: Isn't it obvious?? To achieve their monthly bonus of course. Having worked in various financial institutions, I have frequently come across unscrupulous individuals who will do anything to get their bonus. You only have to watch the news to know this is true.

COYOTE: No, Matt. Can you please explain how an insurance broker is going to achieve their monthly bonus but discarding of the renewal invitation LOL?

--------------------------------------

If you get post for the Court and Building Society then that's the postie's fault?!

MATT: I thought my point was clear enough. If it is reasonable to assume post may go missing (because it does) and that it is the broker's responsibility to advise renewal, then surely it is good practice to follow it up.

COYOTE: In this instance the broker HAS advised renewal but it hasn't reached the intended party. Yes, it is good practice to follow up.... but I don't follow?

--------------------------------------

2ndly, what if the customer had accrued some penalty points during the year? Without any contact, how would Budget know all details were the same as last year? You can't just make the assumption that it is and hope to remain compliant, and it IS the broker's responsibility to ask these questions. After all, you can't ring up for a quote, and the broker assumes you have no points or accidents, he has to ask you.

Incorrect. It is good practice and almost standard practice to ask for these questions but the Insured must offer these details as it is a material fact. If the broker does not ask the question the Insured should volunteer the information as this material fact could affect the decision of a prudent underwriter.

MATT: OK, so by your logic, perhaps the broker shouldn't ask any questions at all, if it's not his job, the customer should tell them everything they need to know without prompting. In actuality, good practice or not, to be compliant, a broker must ask if there are any material facts they should know about.

COYOTE: Now you're just being plain ridiculous. Of course the broker should ask questions at inception of the policy but we are talking about renewal here. In order for the broker to be compliant they have to ascertain the Insured's demands and needs and place cover accordingly. It is the Insured's responsibility to disclose all material facts that may affect the judgment of a prudent underwriter; in the same way that the Insurer or it's representative must disclose all material facts from that side ie. significant exclusions etc. If the Insured fails to update the Insurer with any alteration to the material facts that they assume under contract by previous disclosure then the onus is on them for misrepresentation and non-disclosure. Again, I refer back to the crystal ball...

---------------------------------------

Imagine the policy was auto-renewed and then an incident occured, cover could be withdrawn with serious consequences for the insured and Budget, who might be open to a PI claim, nevermind any auditing issues. I once saw a policy auto renewed in this fashion, and the same things happened, only it turned out the policy holder had been imprisoned 3 mths previously, so the firm I was with, ended up with egg on their face and out of pocket.

Budget wouldn't be open to any PI claim at all. They are not clairvoyants and are not expected to know material facts unless they are brought to their attention.

MATT: Actually there would be grounds for this. Sending one letter is not evidence that you have checked anything with the insured, and as I have repeatedly said, letters DO go missing, so if a customer claims, quite reasonably, they didn't get the letter, then there is some basis for a claim. It's not exactly watertight is it??

COYOTE: Trust me, there are no grounds for the PI insurers to be worried here. You cannot claim under PI because a letter wasn't received unless such a letter was promised with guarantee of arrival and there be a financial penalty for it's failed arrival; which is why the majority of insurers do not say 'it will arrive in the post tomorrow' but merely 'it will be sent first class' etc. The PI claim here would be the promise. The person promising is negligent in the fact that they are not in control of the item and a promise should not have been made. Under subrogation, if the party had sent it guaranteed and providing no conditions prohibit, the monies can be claimed from the delivery company (Royal Mail, courier etc.)

----------------------------------

The only time they would be open to a PI claim in this instance is if the Insured informed the Insurer of the material facts but they had failed to input this on the system causing a loss or consequential losses after an Insured event becomes and uninsured event due to the negligence of the company.

MATT: Sending one communication and making so many assumptions could be construed as negligent.

COYOTE: No, because they are not assumptions they are facts to which the Insured presented to the Insurer prior to inception of the original policy. We are talking about the renewal here remember... Keep up Matt!!!

--------------------------------

I don't believe your anecdote RE policyholder being imprisoned and the company being out of pocket.

MATT: It's not a "story", his arrest is on the BBC news pages. The auto-renewal went through because we didn't hear from him. At the time he had a lot of policies, so it wasn't cancelled straight away, as we wanted to keep his business and we gave him time to respond. After several attempts with no contact, the company ended up with a time on risk charge to pay. After we found out where he was, so it was pointless chasing the money.

COYOTE: I'd be ever so grateful if you could point out the link to an archive detailing this. It would be very useful to see as I STILL don't believe this to be the case and you are, perhaps, not seeing the bigger picture here! Imprisoned. ROFL.

-------------------------------------

Either the firm you work for are a bunch of dohnuts with no knowledge of PI claims, or insurance for that matter, or you've mis-heard the story.

MATT: I no longer work there, and no, I admit PI is not my area of expertise, but it's not as cut and dried as you seem to think it is, but I really appreciate the doughnut comment.

COYOTE: Clearly...! I wasn't referring to you as a dohnut.

---------------------------------------

3rdly, if the payment was declined, again, where was the customer contact? Besides the letter advising cancellation after 7 days, which has to be sent to be compliant, where was the telephone call to obtain alternative payment there and then?

This may have been made, it may not have been. It's not a legal obligation to telephone as notice was sent via post.

MATT: No, it's not a legal obligation, but why on earth would you not ring them and ask them for the money???????

COYOTE: Hang on a minute, do we actually know they have the correct numbers on system (or even address for that matter lol). Perhaps they tried? Either way, it's not the issue if you intend to complain because it's not a requirement albeit bad business conduct.

--------------------------------

4thly, the £112 might well be cancellation charges if they can knock it down to £51. If it was time on risk cover, you wouldn't be able to change the amount due, and it does seem very steep for 7 days worth.

The £112 are not cancellation charges.

MATT: You do not know this to be fact. Some or all of it could very well be cancellation charges.

COYOTE: It is a fact and I do know it to be a fact as it is not possible! I'm not disputing the some of it is charges... that's obvious! Not all of it is cancellation. I've never seen or heard of a cancellation charge this high (be very careful if you are going to come back with an anecdote and that you thoroughly research the definition of 'cancellation charge').

-------------------------------

5thly, just because it says X, Y & Z in the terms and conditions, doesn't mean it isn't an unfair contract and therefore unenforceable.

I've read Budget's terms and conditions which is why I refer to them as a 'crap company' (see above). However there is nothing in there making it unfair. They disclose everything that is required of them. In actual fact, I'd say that it's to the contrary and very fair!

MATT: You seem to be a fair and reasonable person...

COYOTE: Yes - a fine upstanding citizen nicknamed 'Captain Planet'. You can call me Captain.

--------------------------------

This has been handled by Budget in an incredibly unprofessional manner, and given what we've been told, this file might look very weak under audit. And yes, Treating Customers Fairly is a guideline, but brokers are supposed to operate "within" that guideline, and not outside it. In any given complaint a broker has to show that he has indeed, treated the customer fairly.

I agree but we're not quite at this stage yet... as far as we know, Budget have sent the document but it has failed to reach the Insured?

MATT: If Budget's complaint procedure isn't followed through and the the case is refered, then effectively the case will be audited, because Budget will have to show their documentation and records of when, how and what contacts were made.

COYOTE: You're still at 'If'. Apologies, we passed that a while back.

----------------------------------

Also, the FSA study the information they get about complaints and sometimes this is used to decide who they should go and audit, and no broker wants to be audited by the FSA, so following the complaints procedure all the way through, and then escalating it to the watchdog is definitely worth doing. If they can't show clearly that they have been fair and compliant, they will probably settle this complaint in house.

The FSA won't do anything until it's gone through the proper channels beforehand.

MATT: "so following the complaints procedure all the way through, and then escalating it to the watchdog", i.e. follow their complaints procedure all the way through, AND THEN escalate it.

The first step I would take is to ring the insurance company direct and ask them what the time on risk charge was, and compare it with what Budget are telling you, then take it from there.

Good advice!

MATT: Oh thank you so much, I feel so honoured by your comment. I bask in the glow of your magnanimous compliment.

COYOTE: Credit where credit is due... you done well with that sentence! You are more than welcome, Matt! :)

--------------------------------------

MATT: I don't really see you offering anything positive. I don't think PonyGirl welcomes your comments and neither do I. You are simply winding people up and causing aggro.

COYOTE: No, you just don't appreciate being challenged. In the real world we face challenges on a daily basis. You have to listen to other's views, especially when they are trying to correct misleading comments which will waste PonyGirl's time thus not helping her at all. Therefore, whether PonyGirl welcomes my comments or not, I am helping her more-so than your kind self and QED... job done!

----------------------------

---

Coyote

No, still here. Letter went off mid last week and as yet have heard nothing at all. Sent to Customer Relations in the first instance.

...and did you send this registered?

Matt has been helpful, though I can see what Coyote was trying to say on the other side, I still think yes, confrontational and rigid.

So would you be dear when people don't listen to what you're saying ;)

Yes parents have learnt a lesson, but I'm not backing down helping them, and no-one will change my mind that holding debit/credit card records for a year for tacit renewals is anything but a handy way for insurance companies to grab your money and in some cases unfairly.

I'll refrain from the bait :-X lol

Its the main reason I'm thankful to be out of call centre hell. The one I worked for used to have morals but got taken over by the French then it was get every last penny out of everyone and it all went to pot. Customer Service went right out of the window, never mind the customer excellence that was once their aim.

Of course making a telephone complaint is near impossible with Budget, getting the address out of them was hard enough as its a foreign call centre and very difficult to understand and make yourself understood.

Unfortunately with budget prices come budget customer services. The clue really is in the title :(

---

Coyote

Yes, I did take him seriously to begin with, and if he's reading this, I am not going to reply to any more of his posts.

No that's a promise! Note to self: Take double dosage of Night Nurse to assist with sleep deprivation. Requirements: A conscience.

I'll grin n' bear it!

To Ponygirl, I am glad to be of help, I do hope you get sorted with this.

As do I !

As someone who works in the industry, their behaviour reflects badly on the rest of us. Many times I have lost a customer to another broker, only to see them return at a later date, simply because we parted on good terms, and these things are remembered.

Completely agree but who is 'their'? Oh, you can't answer can you? ... <thinks>.... Can you semaphore? ROFL.

---

Coyote