75ZT Community

It has come to light something maybe worth sharing. Someone posted up on the OC how an insurance company had taken £136 not agreed to by direct debit for a customised exhaust which was not actually fitted. What is alarming is that the insurance company had set up alerts / trawling the internet for customers making enquiries about adding on extras like modifications and charging for them even if the extras had been fitted or not. I know we have to inform our insurers if any modifications are made but for those who have not got round to it yet or are thinking about it, it might be worth considering removing 'mods' from their profiles (unless they have been agreed to) if you get my point? Or
am I being paranoid I am not promoting deceitful behaviour as I believe everything should be legal. It is wrong that insurance companies can penalise the motorist for making enquiries into mods.

I had this with a previous Motorhome. It was a ducato cab and I posted on a Motorhome site I belong too that I wanted to fit a third seat in the cab. I was then quoted at my renewal as having a modification with the installation of a third seat in the cab. I had to contact them and tell them that it never happened and that I was only thinking about doing it. I now have AVG security on my laptop and use google chrome which allows me to stop any trackers.

Not being fully appraised of the facts and circumstances it would be very difficult to make a judgement into what exactly the insured did to attract the extra payment by Direct Debit. In any event monies taken by or paid by DD are subject to Direct Debit Indemnity which means the customer can claim back from their bank immediately any sum wrongly taken in a DD transaction. It is then up to the bank to reclaim the funds from the insurance company or whomever.

Apparently Mick the OP's insurer somehow monitored the comparison website he used when he looked at how his insurance would be affected by an exhaust mod? They somehow clocked this and then wrote to him asking about the mod, he said did not receive the letter, so naturally did not reply. The insurer then took that as an admission he'd had the mod done and contacted his bank for the additional premium, which they paid. I can understand their reason for doing this; how many people modify their cars and not tell their insurers? But they really need to be a little more certain before they go along and take money of people, where will it end? I trawl AutoTrader on a regular basis, can just picture it now; Mr. Moore we see you looked at 2006 V8 ZT which has now been sold, you must have bought it so your additional premium will be collected on the.....

I've just paid the insurance on the ZT and last year I went with SAGA, a week or so before the renewal date they wrote to me and said they would be taking the coming year's premium on the due date. As I was moving to another company I very quickly contacted them and stopped it happening. My new insurer asked if they could do the same, both with the ZT insurance and the Freelander's which I have just taken out. I naturally said no, but will keep my eye peeled in 12 months time.

At a guess I suspect the OP possibly didn't either tick a box or un-tick a box to tell them not to automatically collect his premium like this. You know how "cute" they can be with such things? I find this very big brotherish, I think the guy should take this up with the Insurance Ombudsman personally. I would.

FWIW it was Elephant I think?

Thanks for filling in the blanks Gary. One way to avoid getting caught in a DD trap is to pay by credit card, then clear the debt in one payment at no extra cost, you can get up to 56 days free credit if you hit it at the right time or a minimum of 28 days. Theoretically they can't further charge your credit card without your permission.

Er, sounds like hare coursing to me. You know , where a player looking for some sport sets the hare off and the pack gallops after it. It shies first one way, then the other. Pretty soon nobody knows why they’re chasing it or where it came from. Then they find out it wasn’t a hare after all, just a stuffed rabbit.

Looks like another of those cases which starts with ’Shysters, Thieves, Robbers’ and the ensuing hue and cry gives it credibility because nobody likes insurance companies.

The OP (other site of course) reported a fraction of what happened, half of what was left was surmised, and the remainder he had no way of knowing about. If everything happened as reported then serious offences have been committed. Does anyone know anything about his: comparison site knowledge or experience, computer literacy, mod history, previous post history? I’m not questioning his honesty in any way but after spending most of my working life in the business I am unable to swallow entirely the report as described. I recommend a dose of scepticism!

On the question of payment by card: there are potential problems when paying by credit card which can be entirely avoided by paying by debit card.

In the same thread was this link:

http://www.golfgtiforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=241219.0

Jumper has a point, surely this would take some considerable number crunching to achieve this? Looking at the post again he says that his insurers had trawled websites and found he'd asked for a quote for a modified exhaust.

The more I think about this!!!

I pay most of my bills by DD; the requesting authority have a duty to advise me that they will be taking a different payment amount on a given and agreed date. In almost thirty years of running a house I think it's gone wrong once.

Jumpers points are in much the same vein as mine in post 3 only more eloquently put. It does indeed sound pretty far fetched.

I am just out of time here, a second attempt to write a comment carefully written and disappeared into oblivion. These touch phones also have limitations. Back to the thread

Is it far fetched? I am not qualified to give the correct answer. Who has the inside knowledge on this matter?
I am not throwing in the towel here guys. I have a long haul flight early am and calling it a night on this for now. I am grateful for your perspectives on this.

Well I've just done a Comparethemeerkat with the re-mapped engine box ticked, no difference in price actually but nothing from my current insurer.

We'll see.

As previously commented - it would be unjustified for a third party to monitor your internet usage without incurring investigation from the authorities. I suspect a case of Chinese-whispers in this in so far that some of the information has been mis-transcribed (maybe more than once).

I have not experienced this myself where searching for insurance quotes has lead to my current insurer questioning my current policy. I doubt very much they would bother to be honest due to the amount of work involved for perhaps minimal gains in terms of profit reaped.

The only issue is, that from my understanding of the original post here, someone said it's happened to them. So are they just plain lying? I know it happens but seems a bit daft if they are. Why would they do that?

With the benefit of hindsight, ah, that old excuse (!), it ocurrs to me that others may resent some of the implications in my earlier post. Obviously not intended in any way, so below I give my real reasons for the somewhat harsh nature of my post.

Once you really believe that a person or a company (or politician or banker) is capable of doing something beyond belief, you find it much easier to believe they are capable of absolutely anything. And so never trust them again. Then when something that gets up your nose happens, from the same source, you refuse to accept a rational explanation and assume the worst. When others follow your lead, it strengthens your resolve and lends credence to your views.

In this case there are certain aspects of the original post that point to a reasonable assumption that there may be a misunderstanding. He said ’they said they had trawled websites where I’d sought quotes’. Eh? How? Even if they owned the comparison sites, details of uncompleted quotes are parked. Does anyone really think that they have the time to search by one name among millions? Paranoia extremis.
And they would not dare to admit that anyway.

Then there was the ‘opportunity to clarify’ that the missing letter was supposed to give. They presumably had his email address and phone numbers when he took his insurance. If we are to believe all this, why was that information not used - that’s precisely what it’s for! No, I’m afraid they just would not do that. Their contract with the insured is only on the basis of what you tell them! They would continue to cover until renewal and then load the premium. If a claim occurred in the meantime, they would refuse to indemnify if, following a garage report, it was found the insured vehicle had been modified. Currently, and it may be subject to change soon, it could only be used against the insured if the modification enhanced the performance or value of the vehicle. I think there has been an incorrect interpretation given to the OP which has led to a false impression.

I for one didn't think it harsh Jumper, actually it strikes me how polite, courteous and respectful it is on this site.

Back on thread, why would the OP on t'otherside post such a thread? Sorry for the naive question????

I did not make the fligh this morning t as I ended up collapsing in the taxi and am now admitted into Nairobi General feeling groggy but still here not in ICU so not too scary.

I thought Jumper gave another angle from behind the scenes as having worked in the industry. I had not perceived harshness.

I am just going to close

Hope you are back on your feet soon Phil, wishing you well and all the best.

Borg Warner wrote:I for one didn't think it harsh Jumper, actually it strikes me how polite, courteous and respectful it is on this site.

Back on thread, why would the OP on t'otherside post such a thread? Sorry for the naive question????

I don’t think your question is naïve, but can understand your curiosity. Can only follow the post by what’s in it, and draw conclusions. Unfortunately clairvoyance is not an area in which I excel and am reluctant to guess! Makes you think though. To take the charitable and therefore the only worthwhile view, I would suggest the OP misunderstood the person he allegedly spoke to.

Mick wrote:Hope you are back on your feet soon Phil, wishing you well and all the best.

Thanks Mick for that. Unknowingly I had become dehydrated and had no potassium and hardly any sodium in me. Am on I/V s now sorting it out and I expect to recover. Why I lost so much electrolyte I do not know as I was not ill. The nuns have just been in and they are looking after me. I am lucky