Barclaycard....Advice needed

In message , Peter Saxton writes

No, by stopping the payment you are in default of the contract and the insurer then cancels the policy because of the default.

Why??

Its sad you didnt understand that the joke is on you.

By cancelling the DD merely puts you in default of your contract with the insurer. As a result they will cancel the contract. This is a completely different scenario to you cancelling the policy by writing to the insurer and it is quite reasonable for them to need the cancellation request in writing.

You might end up with the same end result because you couldnt be 'ar5ed' but it is your inability to understand the difference that is pythonesque, not the behaviour of the InsCo.

In message , Alex Heney writes

No, thats just a brand name. The insurer is a different company, albeit part of Barclays group.

In message , Peter Saxton writes

In this case is the Monkey the caller or the call centre? I am not sure.

In message , Peter Saxton writes

I dont know of any Card Co that is also an insurance company and there is nothing in the thread to suggest otherwise, other than a brand name.

Asking who?

In message , Peter Saxton writes

I accept this is a reasonable and valid view, although I disagree with it.

If CCAs were removed then it would, in effect, prevent a huge wodge of card based transactions. The result would be the removal of the ability effect card based transactions. Would the public put up with this? It is a matter for the market to decide, PLEASE no more regulation!!!!

I think the answer is that those card carrying clients who worry about CCAs just dont use their cards. If they want the convenience of using their cards with the merchant of the choice then they can continue to do so and accept the consequences, if they do not want the perceived worry CCAs give them, then they should choose another payment method and they would be restricted to merchants who offer an acceptable method. Its a matter for them, not regulation.

I disagree.

They should be available, but with the same rules as Direct Debits.

At 22:44:00 on 09/07/2006, Peter Saxton delighted uk.finance by announcing:

I like getting the cashback on regular bills (gas/electric, water, etc.)

At 23:46:46 on 09/07/2006, John Boyle delighted uk.finance by announcing:

No, it's nothing like that. Standing Orders and Direct Debits perform two distinct functions; the former allows the customer to control the date and amount of each payment whilst the latter hands this control to the merchant. CCAs perform the latter role but without the protection offered by the Direct Debit.

"John Boyle" wrote

It might (possibly) be "reasonable" to need the cancellation request in writing when the contract was taken out "in writing", but if it had (say) been taken out online or via telephone, then why shouldn't the cancellation be done the same way?

"John Boyle" wrote

Are you trying to say that there are two different types of "cancellation"?

If, according to the contract, the insurer *will* cancel the insurance on non-payment of premium, then why shouldn't the policyholder avail him/herself of that contract provision?

Yes, I think he is, and in a way he's right.

Rather, there's only one "type" of cancellation, but in one case it is achieved by amicable means, and indeed it is the insure*d* who does the cancelling. In the other, it is the insure*r* who does the cancelling as a penalty, as it were, for the insured breaching the contract.

To avoid being seen to be in breach of the agreement. It's an honour thing. It's just not, erm, British.

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

Aha!

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

Surely *both* cases are just as "amicable"?

In the one case, it is done under the contract term "write in and we'll cancel" and in the other case it is done under the contract term "stop paying and we'll cancel".

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

Nah - in *both* cases, it is the insure*r* who does the cancelling; it is just that in the former case it is the insure*d* who requests it (in writing), and in the latter it is the insure*d* (again) who requests it (by stopping payment).

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

It's hardly a penalty when that is what the policyholder **actually wants** !

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

How can it be a "breach" when it is specifically allowed for within the contract?

Both sides know that, according to the contract, if the policyholder stops paying then the insurance is terminated.

"Tim" wrote

... and this holds just as much as:- "if the policyholder continues paying then the insurance continues..."

But the latter isn't true. There will exist other circumstances under which the insurer may decline to continue cover.

No, the second "contract term" doesn't exist as such, there will be a term which *obliges* the insured to keep paying, and it provides the insurer with a remedy of withdrawing cover (by cancelling the contract) in the event of the insured vilating that term.

In both cases the insurer will withdraw cover, but the two cases differ in which party cancels the agreement.

Yes it is. It is an abnormal termination. You might as well say it isn't a penalty if you get sent to prison if that's what you want (free room and board, TV, etc, and otherwise no means to pay for them, so you go in for a bit of petty crime and make sure you get caught, etc).

It is not uncommon for contracts to expressly say that you most not do such-and-such, but if you do it anyway, then I get to do so-and-so which I wouldn't normally be allowed to do. They're generally knows as penalty clauses.

The effect may be the same, but the technical process is different.

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

But the term *obliges* the insurer to cancel, when premiums are stopped! They have no discretion...

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

That's arguable.

In both cases, it is the insure*d* who initiates the cancellation - by either writing in, or stopping payment.

In both cases, it is the insure*r* who actually completes the cancellation (in response to either the written letter or the premiums being stopped).

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

The OP wasn't bothered by the technical process; he's only interested in the "effect"!

In message , Tim writes

Then it wouldnt have been a DD but a Continuous Authority which isnt what we are talking about.

No, but that there is way of you cancelling it and a way of the InsCo cancelling it.

I note your use of the word 'if'.

How does the insurer differentiate between somebody who needs cover and whose payment failed for whatever reason. IN practice Life Insurers will make attempts to contact the insured once they learn that a DD mandate has been cancelled and will send new Mandates etc.,. many InsCos will keep the cover in place for up to 3 months whilst the position is clarified.

In message , Tim writes

No the cancellation is on the part of the insured. The insurer then ceases to provide cover and ceases to collect the DD.

No, in this case the insurer cancels the policy and also ceases the cover.

How does the insurer know that? It could be a mistake, it could be just that the insured wants to change bank accounts.

Quote?

How is cancelling a DD 'stops paying'? If you look at the contract you will see that merely cancelling a DD is not 'not paying'.

In message , Alex writes

Ere, thanks for the egg sucking lesson for my mother, The difference and usage between DDs and CCAs is as substantial as the difference between SOs and DDs.