Car windscreen cover and Hastings direct practices...

[Dave20046]

Last week I took out a car policy with Hastings direct, I bought through a slightly shoddy comparison site (not the main stream ones) to secure a cheaper price.
I rang up after to check they'd got the info and payment and to ask if I have a courtesy car, legal and windscreen cover included, they specifically told me I had windscreen cover and mentioned a maximum excess of £65

So couple of days later my rear windscreen smashed, I rang up to claim and was told my policy was an 'essentials' policy so had no cover for glass or much else. I explained in the absence of my documents I'd called to check everything was as it should be and assured I was covered, I gave the number I called, date time and reg number I quoted. After a bit of back and fro with them being unable to find it I was told I could buy a new policy with windscreen cover included... Useful suggestion.
Spoke to someone else after that and they explained they couldn't find the call because they don't record phone calls if there isn't an active policy on the reg quoted. Pointed out that at the start of the call it states 'all calls are recorded' and that not recording calls prepurchase would be supportive of serial miss-selling and threatened them with the ombudsman.
Low and behold they called back and 'found' the call and for 'some reason' I WAS advised I was covered for windscreens. I escalated a complaint.

Today my policy documents have turned up and also a letter from customer relations;they've offered me £30 compensation.... That's not quite a new windscreen.


Now the other scam; autoglass. I think everyone's been suspicious of their 'we'll sort everything out with your insurer ' thing. After the insurer rejected a claim they wanted me to pay £400 for a new windscreen.
This seemed a bit inflated, I was expecting about £200.
So I rang up a local company at 2pm and by 5pm they'd come and fit a new heated rear windscreen for £80
They did say it'd normally be £130 but had stock to shift, but that's still drastically less that the largest rival.


That's not even worth claiming for even if I did have cover! I did quotes and a claim for windscreens on your record adds a minimum if £20 to your premium year on year as well as the £65 excess.
So in other words its only worth claiming if autoglasses' pricing was the true value of the service they provide, and they no doubt charge the insurer that and put up our policies more
Any chance auto glass are owned by an insurance company?

[DJ123]

Generally certain insurance companies will only use a certain supplier as they get a preferential rate. You'll find that AutoGlass massively inflated your price as it wasn't through the insurance.
I am with Admiral & they only use national windscreens, no one else is covered if I am claiming through my insurance.

[Wideboy]

This is why I never take it out on my policy's. The one time I had it I claimed for a chip on my beemer. National windscreens came out to fix it, he had to drill out the centre to stop it spreading (understandable) but said if it cracked or got worse as he did it I'd have to pay for a new screen as my policy only covered incidental damage, but fitting would be free. Reluctantly I accepted, he repaired it all and went on his way. Fast forward a couple of weeks and I'm driving down the motorway with the sun in front of me, I notice the chip again. When I get home I see that all the resin had gone. I didn't bother getting them out again. Fixed it myself and it lasted.

[Wideboy]

When my van windscreen cracked I didn't have cover it was £60 to add it with a £150 excess. Autoglass wanted 600 odd for a new one fitted. I had a new heated screen from pilkington fitted by a mobile company for £190 cash.

It's not always the great deal its made out to be.

[NTECUK]

Insurance is just as corrupt as Energy and politics.

[Wideboy]

Insurance is just as corupt as Energy and polatics.

Oooh careful. I got flamed the last time I said that

[Dave20046]

It pishing is , they stack everything in their favour. You can buy online, ring to check details to ensure all is correct and if it's not its still your fault for not reading the statement of fact (which arrived yesterday!)

[Neeja]

Last week I took out a car policy with Hastings direct, I bought through a slightly shoddy comparison site (not the main stream ones) to secure a cheaper price.

There's your main mistake.

Insurance is just as corrupt as Energy and politics.

No, it's not, because it has a very consumer-focused regulator that can and will beat companies with a massive stick.

It pishing is , they stack everything in their favour. You can buy online, ring to check details to ensure all is correct and if it's not its still your fault for not reading the statement of fact (which arrived yesterday!)

You bought online, and the online quote would have mentioned something, somewhere about windscreen cover. Or it wouldn't have mentioned it at all, in which case - assume not covered.

However - Hastings confirmed that you had policy cover for glass damage. £30 compensation after a failed claim is rubbish given the circumstances. Escalate down their complaints process + take to the ombudsman.

[Dave20046]

There's your main mistake.



No, it's not, because it has a very consumer-focused regulator that can and will beat companies with a massive stick.



You bought online, and the online quote would have mentioned something, somewhere about windscreen cover. Or it wouldn't have mentioned it at all, in which case - assume not covered.

However - Hastings confirmed that you had policy cover for glass damage. £30 compensation after a failed claim is rubbish given the circumstances. Escalate down their complaints process + take to the ombudsman.
Agreed, but I called to check everything, the misselling would have been the same had I rung them initially in my opinion.

I will, but I'm weighing up whether to use it as an admin fee-less 'out' and to buy from another (less) clown company

[Wideboy]

If they're this incompetent when i comes down to a windscreen, imagine what would happen if you had to claim for a total loss!

[Dave20046]

Exactly my thought... So I checked the reviews... And it was reinforced (though I accept everyone moans... More so on the net)

[Neeja]

Agreed, but I called to check everything, the misselling would have been the same had I rung them initially in my opinion.

I will, but I'm weighing up whether to use it as an admin fee-less 'out' and to buy from another (less) clown company

To be clear, did you check by calling when you were on the internet setting up the policy but before it was incepted? If so, the FOS won't rule in your favour, as Hastings have no way of knowing exactly what policy you're looking at online. I do find it odd that you got their site through an aggregator - as a direct insurer they should only sell via their own website or by telephone lines. As such, I'm wondering if the aggregator is a crawler that inputs details in and doesn't really know what it's talking about.

One of the major issues with trying to get cheap insurance via the internet (particularly using aggregator sites) is that it's open to mistakes on both the part of the aggregator and the buyer. Aside from going through a decent broker (which really is the safest way to buy insurance), your best bet is to get the quote online then call the insurer directly to query their standard policy terms and see if they can match the price. Sometimes they can, sometimes they can't, but always try to run the quote through on their own website if you initially went through an aggregator, just in case of errors.

[Dave20046]

To be clear, did you check by calling when you were on the internet setting up the policy but before it was incepted? If so, the FOS won't rule in your favour, as Hastings have no way of knowing exactly what policy you're looking at online. I do find it odd that you got their site through an aggregator - as a direct insurer they should only sell via their own website or by telephone lines. As such, I'm wondering if the aggregator is a crawler that inputs details in and doesn't really know what it's talking about.

One of the major issues with trying to get cheap insurance via the internet (particularly using aggregator sites) is that it's open to mistakes on both the part of the aggregator and the buyer. Aside from going through a decent broker (which really is the safest way to buy insurance), your best bet is to get the quote online then call the insurer directly to query their standard policy terms and see if they can match the price. Sometimes they can, sometimes they can't, but always try to run the quote through on their own website if you initially went through an aggregator, just in case of errors.
The policy was purchased. A day later I called directed quoted my registration and was asked security questions so that they could verify my identity and check my policy

[Neeja]

In that case, follow through the complaints process. Be award that accepting the £30 is likely to be binding as full and final settlement of the complaint (depending on what department sent it to you etc.), so don't accept it if you want to escalate.

[Dave20046]

I was going to write a letter stating I'd accept it as part-resolution in the meantime of proper process but guess it could jeopardise the claim

[TamSV]

I'm not sure what the rest of your complaint consists of.

If you had been insured you would have had a £65 excess. The screen cost you £80 so you're currently out £15.

They're offering to not only meet that loss but double it. Seems fair in the circumstances.

[Neeja]

I'm not sure what the rest of your complaint consists of.

If you had been insured you would have had a £65 excess. The screen cost you £80 so you're currently out £15.

They're offering to not only meet that loss but double it. Seems fair in the circumstances.


I'll hold my hands up and say that I missed the £80 screen bit, but even taking that into consideration, I'd be asking for a free cancellation. If he'd called up and they'd advised correctly, I'd imagine he'd have cancelled then (paying admin charge, feeling sheepish). As it was, their misadvising resulted in quite a bit of hassle. It sounds like it wasn't just a quick misread of some information, either, with them including details on the excess. Also, the excess mentioned was a maximum - through a preferred repairer it may be lower.

[Dave20046]

I'm not sure what the rest of your complaint consists of.

If you had been insured you would have had a £65 excess. The screen cost you £80 so you're currently out £15.

They're offering to not only meet that loss but double it. Seems fair in the circumstances.

This is true.... But they don't know that! :p
No in honesty I do feel I was missold, there were comparable quotes that I'm sure will have included windscreen cover for only a little more. I'd either like them to cover me for windscreens in the future and ill pay this or let me out without admin fees

I'm not sure ill be able to haggle so well next time I want a windscreen doing.

So the real complaint is I bought thinking I was covered under their advice , now I'm stuck with a policy Im not covered on

[Dave20046]

I'll hold my hands up and say that I missed the £80 screen bit, but even taking that into consideration, I'd be asking for a free cancellation. If he'd called up and they'd advised correctly, I'd imagine he'd have cancelled then (paying admin charge, feeling sheepish). As it was, their misadvising resulted in quite a bit of hassle. It sounds like it wasn't just a quick misread of some information, either, with them including details on the excess. Also, the excess mentioned was a maximum - through a preferred repairer it may be lower.

Yep I even remember asking if they sneakily applied my young drivers additional excess to the windscreen access and they said no

[TamSV]

So the real complaint is I bought thinking I was covered under their advice , now I'm stuck with a policy Im not covered on

I'm not a fan of these stripped out policies. They're nothing new but there seems to be more of them around these days.

I suppose it's fair enough that they're available - if you really WANT horse meat in your lasagne then that should be an option. It just seems that, as in this case, it's not always clear to people what they're buying.

The marketing department usually come up with names such as "essential" and "value" which doesn't really help. Or they do something like call the normal policy "platinum" and the poor one "gold", which is worse.

If that was replaced with "cheapo", "shoddy" or "sub-standard" it might be a bit clearer. :)

Hastings have put some effort into making their standard policy fairly decent. The cheapo version is buried in their website like a dirty little secret. Bit of a shame really.

[Dave20046]

I'm not a fan of these stripped out policies. They're nothing new but there seems to be more of them around these days.

I suppose it's fair enough that they're available - if you really WANT horse meat in your lasagne then that should be an option. It just seems that, as in this case, it's not always clear to people what they're buying.

The marketing department usually come up with names such as "essential" and "value" which doesn't really help. Or they do something like call the normal policy "platinum" and the poor one "gold", which is worse.

If that was replaced with "cheapo", "shoddy" or "sub-standard" it might be a bit clearer. :)

Hastings have put some effort into making their standard policy fairly decent. The cheapo version is buried in their website like a dirty little secret. Bit of a shame really.

I'm not really sure if I'm disagreeing, but I don't find insurance products comparable on the whole (I'm in my 20s). When you compare butchers beef with all the nutrients and lovely fats you;d expect from a battered cow to reduced, expanded, reconstituted horse/goat/cow/rat meat from Asda's chav isle it's usually around half the price. (and for the record I shop at the butchers, or British supermarket's best).

In this case; Axa and adrian flux were about £560, Hastings was £530 - all are 'brands' I'd heard of and appeared to offer the same thing. It wasn't suspiciously cheap enough for alarm bells to ring (the reason alarm bells rang , was because I was dealing with insurance companies - hence calling them pre start date).

NOW, in addition/in general bear in mind policies from other providers offering LESS (in most cases) ; elephant, equity red star, AA, Tesco, Carole Nash (same as ardian flux what the hell??),churchill,admiral (my previous claimfree insurer of 4 years?!) were all £1000 plus.

What are you supposed to think?

In my opinion they just play market, targetting a different one each year or two years. The 100%+ markup isn't because they're offering more or better 'quality' (overall)




I do accept I'm in this boat and I went for the cheapest, but I've gone for the cheapest for years and always had the required cover.

[TamSV]

No I absolutely agree with everything you said there.

My point was it's OK to design a stripped out product for people who might want it, but it needs to be VERY clear that's what you're getting. Then, like your butcher vs Asda example, you can make something like an informed choice.

However, in too many cases the weakness in cover is not at all obvious to your average punter and is no more than a cynical ploy to write more business where success hinges on being £10 cheaper than the next guy. They know people buy these policies by mistake and, so long as there's a wall of text with a tick box to get them off the hook, they couldn't care less.

The industry likes to blame you for going for lowest price but 90% of its marketing tells you to do exactly that.

I don't get too excited when people say they hate the insurance industry. As far as the private motor business is concerned, I've seen far too much evidence that it hates you right back.

[Dave20046]

Hastings don't instill to much confidence as an insurer.

Reckon this is sufficient to take their £30 AND try and get them to add windscreen cover on?





Hello,
In light of your failure to respond to the below email, I will take that as confirmation that the cashing of the cheque sent to me by Hastings Direct is to be in no way taken as complete resolution of the associated complaint.
If I do not hear from you by the 4th of December 2013 I will be cashing the cheque for £30 under the premise that it is offered as partial compensation in the absence of Hastings offering full compensation, I will also be submitting my complaint to the Ombudsman at that time to ensure the matter will be resolved satisfactorily.
Regards,





From: dave
To: customerservices@hastingsdirect.com
Subject: REF: *****
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 19:32:31 +0000

Hello,
I have a voicemail stating someone would be calling me back to discuss this (see case reference in subject), I am still awaiting this.
I have now received a cheque for £30 in the post can you confirm Hastings is still looking into the case and the £30 is to be cashed as partial resolution in the meantime?
Thank you,