When a claim call is answered by a machine which begins by warning about prosecution for fraud, and this is followed by a live person making similar remarks, it seems to me fair to call those comments threats.
Their system asks that you begin by entering the policy number, so they should know that you've never claimed on that policy, and have made only two small claims in many decades.
At a time when you're worried about a problem, the last thing you need is to find them implying from the start that you're a liar.
And the final insult is to be called back after you hang up by a machine which asks you to rate their service by using your telephone keypad.
Sainsbury's underwriters were once pretty good, but now it sounds as though they're in financial trouble and are desperate to find quasi-legal ways to cheat their way out of meeting what should be their obligations.
So move to an insurance provider that doesn't try to scare fraudsters away. I'm sure they'll be more than happy to charge you much more than you're already paying to cover the costs of extra fraud.
I hope not, but it has become a familiar pattern to me. Summed up for me by a neighbour about 20 years ago, when I was a little more naive than I am today, who said "Desperate people do desperate things".
If so then I suppose I need to worry about collusion between my insurers and Direct Line. They claim to provide cover for the person two floors above me whose massive water leak has almost certainly gone all the way to the ground floor.
One can imagine that after seeing insurers' behaviour in disclaiming responsibility many may claim for everything they conceivably can. Even the normally honest.
If their initial behaviour is anything to go by, they will not be providing me with any cover at all if they can possibly avoid it. In which case I'll need to find insurers who will.
Perhaps I should begin each conversation with them by telling them that I will take them to court if there appears to be any fraud or unreasonable behaviour on their part.
Quite so. The advantage to an individual is far greater for him personally if he makes such a claim, than a slight increase in the premiums which everyone will henceforth have to pay.
A recorded message at the beginning of the call is not going to do anything to "scare" fraudsters. However it might put off legitimate customers so they are shooting themselves in the foot IMHO.
Just out of interest, do you have any evidence of cases where you know for a fact the insurer has wiggled out of something?
I ask, not because I hold any briefs for insurers, but if I were a shareholder I would expect them to be circumspect about how and when they paid out. Most of the population is dishonest in some way (no, don't suck your breath in) and insurers know this.
The existence of ombudsmen makes it plain that wriggling is common.
It would be their duty. It would also be their duty not to lose their customers, which no doubt accounts for the protective bafflegab. (Somehow, the customer is always wrong).
When hunting for an honest man, I wouldn't begin with banks or insurers.
I take it that you don't actually know of a case then?
Not necessarily. Customers will often take their insurers to the ombudsman in the hopes of winning the case (occasionally only because the insurer has slipped up over paperwork). It's a bit like tripping over a paving stone and suing the council in the hopes of getting a payout. Do you read the ombudsman news? You can get it by contacting them and asking. Makes illuminating reading.
Me neither, but I get fed up when people spout the usual diatribes against a section of the population simply on hearsay.
In 50 years of buying insurance, of one kind or another, either because it was a legal or contractual requirement or just because it seemed wise, there have been a few cases - very few - where I hoped that I would be covered. To the best of my recollection there were only two fairly minor instances where that hope was justified. On the other two or three occasions there was always a reason not to pay out, though I bet that Cherie Blair could have thought of a reason why payment should be made.
I can certainly believe that happens, but "often" ?
Claiming for an imaginary Ming vase (whatever that might be) must surely be a difficult thing to put across. Claiming for a broken leg when there's a bloody great hole in the ground might be another matter entirely. Do you walk much on pavements like Edinburgh's? There are few large holes, but it's very easy to trip (Watch a visitor; they're used to flat pavements). A fall for a youth means little, in general, but I've seen middle-aged ladies sprawled on the ground. Usually too embarrassed to do anything about it, I'd bet.
I've never worked in a Call Centre, thank whatever powers may be, but hearsay has it that their employees are told to follow instructions on a series of computer screens, and that seems believable. Teams of people no doubt laboured over those screens, deciding the best responses (least costly for the company). Age over 80? Follow this link for further questions. Under 18? Follow this. And so on.
This is very subjective, but one person I spoke to about the water damage (which did extend from top to ground floor and in large volume) almost seemed apologetic, as if he knew he was being forced to act unreasonably. To be cynical one might wonder if he had been trained to act in that way with certain people, but that seems a little far-fetched.
Someone else began by trying to persuade me not to claim, noted that I had a fairly large excess, muttered something about an excess on top of the excess, said that it might depend on whether or not there was negligence on the part of the owner of the faulty plumbing (why should that matter to me?), and generally convinced me that there was a hidden agenda.
I'll know more as and when they get around to contacting me as they said they would but haven't.
That raised a smile. I tripped and fell on an uneven passageway some weeks before I could save myself (unusual in my case, even though I'm
77).
I called the local authority immediately, and was told that the passageway is "not adopted", but that they would "have a look and see about fixing the raised paving stone". Last time I looked there was an aerosol circle round it, but I'm not holding my breath...
My shoulder recovered in a couple of weeks, my hip still hurts a little when I sleep on one side, but no break...
But doesn't the proportion of cases going to the Ombudsman, and the proportion of those being found against the insurer, actually suggest that wriggling is rather **uncommon** ?
BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.