I got a quote online for Bennett's insurance and it came out at £270 ish for ful comp and no year no claims as a first time rider. So as my dad has a full bike license, I thought i will see if the quote is cheaper if he is the main rider and me the second and it was at £115, so we did that, answered all the questions correctly as they asked. My dad has full no claims bonus on his car which he told them and said was fine, so I paid up the insurance for the year.
Then we get a call and letter saying that the insurance is invalid for giving false information which is rubbish as we gave all information they asked for and made sure the full no claims my dad had was ok and they said yes, then told I have to an extra £190 on top of what i have paid as they say we have lied to them and this is a penalty or if we cancel in 5 days i will get £39 back or they will just cancel the insurance and lose all what I have paid.
And the 12 months for 9 months advert in the bike mags seems to be false as they said they do not give discounts for first time quotes (ie new customers), so lying there as well.
So turns out it would have been better having my own insurance due the lying cheating beeps.
hi adz what you did wasn't quite right. if you're the main user then you must tell them so. you may have found that in the event of a claim they could refuse to pay out. be aware if they can find a way out they will. sort it properly its only a few quid but could cost you a lot if they say it's void.
bennetts called them today and cancelled my automatic renewal, they were charging me £370 ish I have online quotes for £189 with it appears same cover......
....the sales woman tried to justify it by saying but we are reliable and we are honest...you have been with us for a year........I said but how can I ignore over a£170 pounds saving....so she said we can drop it maybe to £300....I said well if you can do that why did you try to see me off for an extra £70.....she had no answer....I said "goodbye"...........
Yamahama, thats just it, we were honest the whole time with them. I was to be the second user on the bike and told them that i am a Learner and my dad does have a full license since he was 17, his now 57. He has some YCBs on his bike as well. But we did say the full years no claims was on his car and they excepted it and said it was fine. So they have lied, or more to the point breached the trades description act and mis-informed us by selling us the service under false information.
JB, thats bad on Bennett's side again as well, surely they would want to keep your custom but matching the quote seeing as it costs more to get new customers than to keep customers. Bad business methods there. Still they will be the ones to lose out.
Ace, although you told them all the factually correct details your intent was to get cheaper insurance for yourself whilst using your dad's driving record. The reason the insurance company was peeved is because of the switch in risk. You're a relatively inexperienced rider in comparison to your dad - hence his insurance for the risk was cheaper with you as occasional user.
What you were asking them to do was accept a bigger risk as the main rider but take the lesser premium. That isn't economically viable for them. If they took on that level of risk for less premium across the board they'd be bankrupt within a very short space of time because the claims would outweigh their income.
So what you were trying to pull was dishonest. Furthermore it's a form of insurance fraud - a criminal offence.
Playing fast and loose with insurance companies - especially now everything is on computer - is a very bad idea. If they were sufficiently peeved they could flag you up with every insurance company out there as giving false information to obtain insurance. As it is you will now find yourself having to declare that you've had an insurance policy refused for giving less than kosher information - or risk being found out when you next attempt to obtain a policy.
Insurance companies are not fools - they know all the tricks and wheezes.
My intent was to get cheaper insurance, just like the rest of us do by looking around at different insurance companies and yes we told them everything correct. Including that I will be riding the bike. As i did on my first year of driving my car, same again but they didn't turn around and change the goal posts.
All insurance companies to me and fraudster anyway, always finding ways and loop holes not to pay, been seen many times, including holiday insurance which is the biggest rip of them all. (least for me and others with conditions)
If they were peeved as you have put it, why not make me pay the original quote then, do you not think that is fair enough or do you think they should do what they did.
I do no think I was dishonest at all, told the them the facts and who will be riding, as my dad has also been riding the bike. If they are so bothered then why quote less knowing I will still be riding the bike? Surely it makes financial sense in that respect to charge more then, if two of us will be riding the bike.
Your right though, they ain't fools, they are legalised thieves that at every opportunity will try to con the customer out of payouts owed to them by finding any possible loophole there is. Furthermore, no insurance company can lose out really, the amount they charge, the amount they actually payout after finding there isn't a loophole, they really are like casino's, never lose in the end.
I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but Bennetts is just an insurance broker, the policy will be supplied by somebody else. (Bennetts used to use N.I.G, I don't know if they still do.) When you take out insurance your broker proposes the policy to their underwriter who will usually accept, but in this case they didn't.It sounds like they weren't clear to you how it all works, but I don't think they've been dishonest.
The way the risk is calculated is based on how likely one of the two riders is to be involved in an accident and which of the two is more likely to be at fault.
If your dad is riding it 90% of the time chances are that he won't have an accident in the course of a year. And if he does chances are high it won't be his fault. In that case they'll recoup the loss through the other party's insurers. The other 10% of the time you're riding it the risk rises but chances are good you won't have an accident either.
Switch that around and your being the main rider drastically increases the chances of you, being the less experienced of the two riders, having an accident. You're younger and likely to ride faster and a bit more, er, enthusiastically. That also increases the risk that an accident will be your fault. Which means that they'll get stuck with paying for your damage and that of the other party's.
To their way of thinking they'd caught you out in a deception - and having done that they probably thought something along the lines of "what else is he not telling us?" So they either bumped up the price to cover a worse case scenario of 'stuff you might be not-quite-honest about' or, possibly, to dissuade you from becoming a customer. I suspect the former - because otherwise they could have just said "sorry, we don't want to give you cover."
Although this may not seem apparent to you at the moment it sounds like they were actually cutting you a break because they didn't actually refuse to entertain the idea of giving you cover - they just bumped up the premium. So it's possible that although they rumbled your scheme they may not have flagged you up as being refused cover for trying to obtain insurance by deception. Although they might not have wanted you as a customer they didn't go that extra distance and make things harder on you.
If you haven't done so already why don't you try putting your details in one of those on-line insurance search engines to find the best policy?
I do it every year because I've always found that being a loyal customer doesn't pay. Insurance companies rely on people being lazy and sticking with them once they've found a reasonably priced policy. So new customers get a better deal because they need fresh clients. To afford this their old customers pay more for the same policy to offset the loss in profits.
RustyKnight In: Newton Aycliffe
Posts: 2462
Karma:
ace with all due respect you'd already requested a quote in your own name and this is recorded on a computer. You obviously decided to move the goal posts to get a cheaper quote and the insurance company have rumbled you! You can hardly blame them for that surely mate
The main problem is if they do refuse you insurance, because that will flag up on all future quotes when they get to the underwriter stage. Although it's a bugger, much better to charge you now than refuse to pay out later.
I used to deal with insurance companies through personal injury claims and their first response is always to refuse claims, almost regardless of circumstances. They hope we'll all give up and not take things further so it makes it worth their while.
Another necessary evil, like paying VAT on helmets which the government insist you have to wear.
Rant over.
British approved motorcycle crash helmets have been zero rated since 1974. That means that VAT is technically charged but that charge is zero. I guess they left the option open so they wouldn't have to draft it in later if they changed their minds.
Here's what HM Inland Revenue have posted:
3. Motorcycle helmets
3.1 How do motorcycle helmets qualify for zero-rating?
They are zero-rated when they comply with one of the following standards:
British Standard (BS) 6658:1985 (it will be marked with a British Standard 'kitemark'); or
UNECE Regulation 22.05 (it will be marked with a UN 'E' mark - the first two digits of the approval number will be ཁ').
However, BS 6658:1985 covers protective helmets for all vehicles. Helmets that comply with that standard which are not motorcycle helmets are standard-rated.
3.2 Are there any alternative standards?
Helmets may also be zero-rated if they comply with a European Standard which offers a level of protection which is equivalent to (that is the same as, or better than) BS 6658:1985 and are marked with a certification mark which is equivalent to the British Standard 'kitemark'. However, at the time of writing, we are not aware of any such standard or certification mark.
For the avoidance of doubt, UNECE Regulation 22.04 is not equivalent to the British Standard.
To be fair i wasn't out to as some have put it, con the insurance company. I wanted to get cheaper insurance as anyone else does seeing as we have no choice but to pay which mean insurance companies have us on that.
I did do a compare thing, they came out as best on quote. I may be young at 25 but im very cautious when it comes to riding and before its said i know the insurance company isn't to know or really give a dam long as they have your money.
No dishonest intent. But does seem insurance companies are very dishonest at every opportunity to swindle actual legit claims, but that seems ok for them to do that, but god forbid they lose out on £50. What is the point of having second drivers listed if they turn around and then say your dishonest, just because they most likely could have got more money the other way round.
Hmmmm, so nothing to be rumbled on here. As i said, my dad to uses the bike like i do.
I put this to you, its cheaper for say your partner to pay for shopping because they get a discount. Do you A. Let them pay for the shopping and pay them back or B. You pay because its your shopping and thus pay the higher amount because you feel your doing over the shop by using your partners discount?
"I put this to you, its cheaper for say your partner to pay for shopping because they get a discount. Do you A. Let them pay for the shopping and pay them back or B. You pay because its your shopping and thus pay the higher amount because you feel your doing over the shop by using your partners discount?"
You're comparing apples with oranges.
The shop giving the discount is offering it as an incentive to buy because they factored in a marked up profit even with a discount. It doesn't matter who makes the purchase because the shop isn't taking on an element of risk with the possibility of shelling out many, many, thousands of pounds. An insurance company is.
Let me put it to you this way.
Lets assume you need some work done on your bike. You take it to a particular bike shop because you know their mechanic is top notch. When you collect the bike you discover that the usual mechanic was off sick. But not to worry, Kevin, a recovering crack-head who usually does their sweeping up stepped in armed with a Haynes manual and a hammer. How pleased would you feel about that?
Bennetts was a small insurance brokers in the early 70's up by Hearsall Common in Coventry.
At that time us bikers were viewed as an underclass and bennetts were one of the only companies that would actually broker for bikers.
When other companies decided their profits were more important than their supposed 'scruples', more brokers and insurance companies began covering bikes. Bennetts carried on growing and eventually opened plush expensive offices in the city centre.
They have never been a particularly reasonable priced broker's especially after moving premises to the city centre, they just used their heads and specialised.
There is no reason to feel any sort of loyalty towards them.
Given the chance they will screw you over the same as the other brokers and insurance companies will.
Well, said Rattay, I agree, Insurance companies (whatever they cover) will always do their best to screw you over and avoid paying what is owed to you to line their pockets futher. It's a shame that by law we need to have insurance (I know in NZ you don't need insurance), if we did not need to have insurance by law then companies like Bennett's would not have us by the short and curly's and insurance would no doubt be cheaper for all concerned due to the need to complete for trade.
I know for a fact i will not go back to Bennett's and for insurance companies, that is not the good. Why, because it costs more for insurance companies to gain new customers through advertising (and other marketing techniques including R&D) and incentives to gain new customers (i.e. cheaper insurance for that year). If Bennett's had thus just charged me for what it would have been for me on my own, ok that exceptable but charging what they have, well, as thy say one bad experience spreads to more than a good experience.
I put that very simplistic example to illustrate a point, what would you choose?! Take the discount or not. There is some risk involved, even then. The risk being the card can still be abused by the card holder and thus the business in question will lose more of the profits they would have otherwise had.
As for the bike example, you would just ask for the work to be carried out another time if you do not want the other person working on your bike, simple.
But as you don't except the example, how about holiday insurance, there is risk for them there but you don't have to have it.
Your friend can get you a discount on holiday insurance, except or not except as it is your policy and not his. Regardless, he can get you the cover cheaper using his discount, do you except or pay the higher amount as it is insurance for you? The risk to the insurance is still there and as long as you answer the questions truthfully as they ask you, you are covered even when using the discount.
![As MCE, Bennett's are also bad news, least was for me - Forums [Biker Match]](/images/backgrounds/strips/8mobileLQ.jpg)
![As MCE, Bennett's are also bad news, least was for me - Forums [Biker Match]](/images/backgrounds/strips/8desktopLQ.jpg)
