Car Insurance Companies

[royoftherovers]

3 minutes ago, wharfhouse said:

The problem is that in a search listing it is not differentiated when you see a list of results but when you click on an item then in the box on the right hand side of the screen (or near the bottom of the screen on  the Amazon app) it will tell you who the item is "Sold by" which will either be Amazon or a 3rd party seller. If you see "Dispatched from and sold by Amazon." then this means Amazon is wholly responsible for the item as per any other retailer. The item however may be "Sold by" a 3rd party but "Fulfilled by Amazon" which means the seller is paying Amazon to deliver it. In these cases although the 3rd party is responsible for any claim you may make if the item is not delivered for some reason Amazon take responsibility. If you see "Dispatched and sold by xxx." then the 3rd party seller is selling the item and arranging delivery of the item. Since I have an Amazon Prime subscription all of my deliveries are included in that and so my order of preference when looking at items to buy (assuming similar prices) are:

1. Dispatched from and sold by Amazon. (I have no concerns placing orders for this - I have always found Amazon very good at refunds etc. with no quibble when I have had to return something)

2. Sold by xxx and Fulfilled by Amazon. (I will check the 3rd party seller ratings to make sure they have good ratings but I am confident the correct item will arrive or that Amazon will rectify that part)

3. Dispatched from and sold by xxx. (I take greater care in checking these sellers out first as this is where I have had the most issues, for example packages not arriving or wrong items shipped)

Anyway, hope you find that useful if you are buying from Amazon in the future.

All good stuff Phil and a sensible approach which is not taken by many.

[FTBBCVoodoo]

11 hours ago, Linas.P said:

Yes, absolutely... and that is why I always thought that legal minimum TP insurance should be either provided by government, or it should be strictly regulated to make sure it is fairly prices and criteria transparent and non-discriminatory. This being legal requirement there should be no behind the scenes shenanigans.. 

After that.. if you wanted comprehensive cover, gap cover, excess cover, cover for your belongings, modifications... or whatever else - that could be free for all, free market, whoever needs it could have it if they feel it is worth the price. And then I think the price would be much fairer, because once you could legally drive it would become nice to have and insurance companies would have no leverage (at gun point) to force you to buy product you may not need.

As it happens now - you are legally forced to have the cover from the private company without any oversight or regulation and they can literally charge you anything they like, they don't need to justify the price, they don't need to prove it is fair and incriminatory... and if you can't afford it... well then you can't drive. It is basically private companies which decides whenever you could or can't drive... 

I should have left it but please stop spreading these "lies" 😉

Insurance companies are regulated by standards set by PRA, FCA, GDPR and also PCI DSS amongst others.

Gender neutral is a regulation.  If you called your insurance company today and said you identify as a "woman" you wouldn't suddenly get a discount.  If you were a woman and called to identify as a "man" then you wouldn't suddenly have to pay more.

Many insurance companies are listed on the LSE such as Aviva, DLG, Old Mutual Wealth so are not "private"

You keep coming up with these sweeping generalisations though.

 

[Linas.P]

32 minutes ago, FTBBCVoodoo said:

I should have left it but please stop spreading these "lies" 😉

Insurance companies are regulated by standards set by PRA, FCA, GDPR and also PCI DSS amongst others.

Gender neutral is a regulation.  If you called your insurance company today and said you identify as a "woman" you wouldn't suddenly get a discount.  If you were a woman and called to identify as a "man" then you wouldn't suddenly have to pay more.

Many insurance companies are listed on the LSE such as Aviva, DLG, Old Mutual Wealth so are not "private"

You keep coming up with these sweeping generalisations though.

They are... in theory.

Tell me how insurance companies "private" database which "secretly" collects the data about customers for "fraud prevention" is compliant with GDPR. Could I get copy of all my data, including meta data and explanation how it is used? I actually should try and see what happens when I put in SAR, but I am sure request will be rejected because they deem it sensitive to the business ("fraud prevention").

PRA and FCA has nothing to do with insurance per say, they simply regulate financial part i.e. that you have right amount of collateral (so you will remain solvent when big claims comes in) and that you T&C, have right limits of liability. It does not regulate the prices of insurance you your relationship with customers.

Sure FCA in theory has such powers, but they choose not to use them. The new regulation which forces you to offer the same price to existing customer as new is in practice unenforceable. Why? Because again the process in which price is decided is not transparent and FCA simply could not check if you have abused it. Well I guess they could, but they won't.

You as well forgotten to mention FOS... completely useless, I had claim with them for unclear/conflicting information in insurance contract, but they said contractual matter is outside of their jurisdiction. They agreed that contract terms were unclear/wrong, but that they have no power to apply penalty on insurance company due to contractual matters and advised me to take insurance company to court.

PCI DSS - again has nothing to do with insurance, this is just standards for handling card payments security.

I mean c'mon... At least make half convincing … Do you think I and stupid and you just going to throw few abbreviations to me and that is job done?

Regarding gender... you know it is not that simple. If it would be that simple insurance companies would be long sued (and they were sued in the past) for discrimination. But when insurance companies asks for 100s of irrelevant questions, it is easy to hide any bias or discrimination.

I am sure you won't answer, because you can't, but here is the actual quote - explain me what it is if not sexism. Site - Compare the market:

1. Male, 13 years experience, 4 years NCB, 30 years old - insurance £1400
2. Female, 0 years experience, 0 years NCB, 24 years old - insurance £1580

All the rest is the same. Name were made-up, accounts were brand new, vehicle was selected from drop down instead of entering the VRN, license number not provided.

As well just for comparison... when I was 24:

• Male, 8 year experience, 0years NCB, 24 years old - Insurance £3300 Car insurance category was 29E instead of 40E.

Obviously, I am not expecting to see convincing answer as you could not provide one... there is no justification. And I am not even saying it is "unfair for man"... it is unfair for everyone... it is not like £1580 is fair price for female either. 

[FTBBCVoodoo]

3 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

They are... in theory.

Tell me how insurance companies "private" database which "secretly" collects the data about customers for "fraud prevention" is compliant with GDPR. Could I get copy of all my data, including meta data and explanation how it is used? I actually should try and see what happens when I put in SAR, but I am sure request will be rejected because they deem it sensitive to the business ("fraud prevention").

PRA and FCA has nothing to do with insurance per say, they simply regulate financial part i.e. that you have right amount of collateral and that you T&C, have right limits of liability. It does not regulate the prices of insurance you your relationship with customers.

Sure FCA in theory has such powers, but they choose not to use them. The new regulation which forces you to offer the same price to existing customer as new is in practice unenforceable. Why? Because again the process in which price is decided is not transparent and FCA simply could not check if you have abused it. Well I guess they could, but they won't.

You as well forgotten to mention FOS... completely useless, I had claim with them for unclear/conflicting information in insurance contract, but they said contractual matter is outside of their jurisdiction. They agreed that contract terms were unclear/wrong, but that they have no power to apply penalty on insurance company due to contractual matters and advised me to take insurance company to court.

PCI DSS - again has nothing to do with insurance, this is just standards for handling card payments security.

I mean c'mon... At least make half convincing … Do you think I and stupid and you just going to throw few abbreviations to me and that is job done?

Regarding gender... you know it is not that simple. If it would be that simple insurance companies would be long sued (and they were sued in the past) for discrimination. But when insurance companies asks for 100s of irrelevant questions, it is easy to hide any bias or discrimination.

I am sure you won't answer, because you can't, but here is the actual quote - explain me what it is if not sexism. Site - Compare the market:

1. Male, 13 years experience, 4 years NCB, 30 years old - insurance £1400
2. Female, 0 years experience, 0 years NCB, 24 years old - insurance £1580

All the rest is the same. Name were made-up, accounts were brand new, vehicle was selected from drop down instead of entering the VRN, license number not provided.

As well just for comparison... when I was 24:

• Male, 8 year experience, 0years NCB, 24 years old - Insurance £3300 Car insurance category was 29E instead of 40E.

Obviously, I am not expecting to see convincing answer as you could not provide one... there is no justification. And I am not even saying it is "unfair for man"... it is unfair for everyone... it is not like £1580 is fair price for female either. 

Merely stating that your comments that they are unregulated and private is complete BS.

[Linas.P]

9 minutes ago, FTBBCVoodoo said:

Merely stating that your comments that they are unregulated and private is complete BS.

And that is it... no need to elaborate on how those regulations are completely unenforceable, or simply irrelevant for the topic we are discussing here? 

I mean sure Insurance companies can't simply go and steal money from accounts (I am sure they would be glad to do that, but "sadly" this is not allowed), but that does not mean insurance price could not be highly sexist, biased, unfair or discriminatory. 

And not even sure what you mean they are not "private"... I mean that they are publicly traded, does not make them public sector. In essence they are still for profit organisations, but they are tasked to provide what I would argue is social service.

[LenT]

3 hours ago, royoftherovers said:

Hi Len, it`s another old cynic again.

It appears that Amazon is not in fact a seller, but is an Organisation through which a Seller sells his goods.

I have come to this matter late and am unwilling to read much of the thoughts of "Linas the Omnipotent", so If I have missed an important point, then I must apologise.

No problem, John.  Reading these posts is not a test…as such.  And you’ve been at it far longer than I have!

I did in fact mention the magic line ‘Dispatched from and sold by Amazon’  and its absence may indeed affect my purchase decision.  But as with  ‘Kettlegate’ it pays to be aware of your Consumer Rights.

Incidentally, for those who may be concerned about it, after one day the new kettle is still performing as new. 😊

 

[FTBBCVoodoo]

30 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

And that is it... no need to elaborate on how those regulations are completely unenforceable, or simply irrelevant for the topic we are discussing here? 

I mean sure Insurance companies can't simply go end steal money from accounts (I am sure they would be glad to, but sadly this is not allowed), but that does not mean insurance price could be highly sexist, biased, unfair or discriminatory. 

The regulations are enforceable by external auditors such as PwC (Price Waterhouse Cooper) before you accuse me of throwing acronyms at you) who are appointed by PRA and FCA do check what the companies are up to.

I work for an Insurance company that isn't UK based but owns several other insurance companies in the UK and globally.

I manage a load of techies who implement software changes to react to regulation changes/standards such as gender neutral, solvency II, GDPR.  I know these changes go in.

Actuaries create risk profiles for underwriters.  In terms of differing insurance companies and how they create their end price after matching someone up to one of 100's if not 1000's of risk profiles can come down to a lot of different things.  The 1st thing the company will/should do is a credit check.  That is the first part of the puzzle for a risk profile and it goes from there.  Most insurers only view up to 9 years NCB (ours is set to 9 as I type this) so you could have 25 years + NCB and it won't be any cheaper than having 9.  I think some only recognise 7 as the maximum NCB they will apply to your policy.

I don't know your own personal circumstances, where you live, what you do, how old you are or what car you currently driver other than I assume it's not an LFA.  I saw you mentioned earlier in the thread that you drive "like a nutter".  That probably doesn't help your case for cheap car insurance 😉

There is probably some stuff going on that is underhand as in most industries.  I am sure that there are big bosses all sat having a beer somewhere deciding when they should all bump their prices up or reduce them regardless of anti competition laws because people talk.

Insurance companies are far from perfect and I liken it to working in technology.  If everything is working people ask "what are we paying for for" or if something blows up you get asked "what are we paying you for" but in the case of insurance, you are best having it and not needing it than needing it and not having it.

There was a customer a few years ago who sadly injured young cyclist and the company I worked for at the time spent and continues to pay for the continued care for that cyclist.  From a business pov it would have been cheaper for the driver to have killed the cyclist (I am aware how horrible that sounds) as it would have been a one off compensation payment.  All it takes is a few cases like that and insurance companies will increase their prices to cover losses.  The customer who sat in that risk profile box would mean that the increase in particular would apply to anyone else who fit the profile.

Again, personal circumstances, but I am fairly sure most of us on here couldn't afford to pay for continued care if we injured someone while driving.

 

[Linas.P]

48 minutes ago, FTBBCVoodoo said:

The regulations are enforceable by external auditors such as PwC (Price Waterhouse Cooper) before you accuse me of throwing acronyms at you) who are appointed by PRA and FCA do check what the companies are up to.

I work for an Insurance company that isn't UK based but owns several other insurance companies in the UK and globally.

I manage a load of techies who implement software changes to react to regulation changes/standards such as gender neutral, solvency II, GDPR.  I know these changes go in.

Actuaries create risk profiles for underwriters.  In terms of differing insurance companies and how they create their end price after matching someone up to one of 100's if not 1000's of risk profiles can come down to a lot of different things.  The 1st thing the company will/should do is a credit check.  That is the first part of the puzzle for a risk profile and it goes from there.  Most insurers only view up to 9 years NCB (ours is set to 9 as I type this) so you could have 25 years + NCB and it won't be any cheaper than having 9.  I think some only recognise 7 as the maximum NCB they will apply to your policy.

PWC, Deloitte, EY and KPMG - they all have amazing track record when it comes to hiding dirty industry secrets and fixing audits as needed. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/blacklist-audit-firms-for-failure-to-root-out-fraud-urges-pirc-3vx3tq9zn

Now I think you are right to say that there are 1000s of risk profiles, but because those are not publicly known isn't there clear conflict of interest? Who is to say they are not biased or unfair? Now sure if insurance would be optional thing, then it is down to the business to decide, but because this is legal requirement I feel that it should be hold to a different standard.

For example I know that insurance companies checks credit score, but this is not widely known fact. And big question is why your financial information important? Isn't that straight away unfair that poorer people will pay more for insurance? I mean I known credit check is more than that, but equally I know that when there was mistake on my credit file my insurance skyrocketed right away... and when mistake was corrected it suddenly dropped again. And it wasn't something major - it was just an incorrectly reported missing credit card payment.

Should insurance companies even be allowed to check detail like that? Should insurance companies be allowed to check where you work, whenever you married, if you have kids? The relevance of all those questions are highly questionable. And importantly it is only in UK they are included... at least as far as I know, there may be other countries like Ireland where that is the case, but in most countries they take very little details (pretty much VRN and driver licence number - that is all what is needed).

And I mean appreciate you just work in IT and you care about systems, but then why say "it is all fair game"... I mean I am sure it is simpler just turn the blind eye on it... but that does not make things right or fair automatically.  

48 minutes ago, FTBBCVoodoo said:

I don't know your own personal circumstances, where you live, what you do, how old you are or what car you currently driver other than I assume it's not an LFA.  I saw you mentioned earlier in the thread that you drive "like a nutter".  That probably doesn't help your case for cheap car insurance 😉

Now that would be fair enough, maybe they could say "he has more experienced and has NCB, but he drives like a nutter"... But for exactly that reason we did 2 generic quotes, where everything was the same and no credit check or car could be checked. So as far as my example goes - the way I drive could not impact it.

The car in question was RC200t (yes not quite LFA). And finally, regardless of how I drive... insurance company cannot know that, because I have no fines and no accidents. I do have 3 non-fault claims and I know this is counted against me despite fairness of that could be questioned. So don't twist the question on my personal profile, which may be known to you because I told that here, but realistically can't be known at the time of the quote.

48 minutes ago, FTBBCVoodoo said:

There is probably some stuff going on that is underhand as in most industries.  I am sure that there are big bosses all sat having a beer somewhere deciding when they should all bump their prices up or reduce them regardless of anti competition laws because people talk.

Yes it happens in all industries, what makes insurance different is that it is MANDATORY BY LAW. So when milk price is fixed, or sugar prices is fixed it only makes the companies more profitable and maybe has minor impact on buyers, probably no impact on individual buyers. Still that is highly illegal, but maybe we overpay £100 in a lifetime on milk.. not big deal. Insurance is bug deal, because you can't just decide not to buy it.

[FTBBCVoodoo]

21 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

PWC, Deloitte, EY and KPMG - they all have amazing track record when it comes to hiding dirty industry secrets and fixing audits as needed. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/blacklist-audit-firms-for-failure-to-root-out-fraud-urges-pirc-3vx3tq9zn

Now I think you are right to say that there are 1000s of risk profiles, but because those are not publicly known isn't there clear conflict of interest? Who is to say they are not biased or unfair? Now sure if insurance would be optional thing, then it is down to the business to decide, but because this is legal requirement I feel that it should be hold to a different standard.

For example I know that insurance companies checks credit score, but this is not widely known fact. And big question is why your financial information important? Isn't that straight away unfair that poorer people will pay more for insurance? I mean I known credit check is more than that, but equally I know that when there was mistake on my credit file my insurance skyrocketed right away... and when mistake was corrected it suddenly dropped again. And it wasn't something major - it was just an incorrectly reported missing credit card payment.

Should insurance companies even be allowed to check detail like that? Should insurance companies be allowed to check where you work, whenever you married, if you have kids? The relevance of all those questions are highly questionable. And importantly it is only in UK they are included... at least as far as I know, there may be other countries like Ireland where that is the case, but in most countries they take very little details (pretty much VRN and driver licence number - that is all what is needed).

And I mean appreciate you just work in IT and you care about systems, but then why say "it is all fair game"... I mean I am sure it is simpler just turn the blind eye on it... but that does not make things right or fair automatically.  

Now that would be fair enough, maybe they could say "he has more experienced and has NCB, but he drives like a nutter"... But for exactly that reason we did 2 generic quotes, where everything was the same and no credit check or car could be checked. So as far as my example goes - the way I drive could not impact it.

The car in question was RC200t (yes not quite LFA). And finally, regardless of how I drive... insurance company cannot know that, because I have no fines and no accidents. I do have 3 non-fault claims and I know this is counted against me despite fairness of that could be questioned. So don't twist the question on my personal profile, which may be known to you because I told that here, but realistically can't be known at the time of the quote.

Yes it happens in all industries, what makes insurance different is that it is MANDATORY BY LAW. So when milk price is fixed, or sugar prices is fixed it only makes the companies more profitable and maybe has minor impact on buyers, probably no impact on individual buyers. Still that is highly illegal, but maybe we overpay £100 in a lifetime on milk.. not big deal. Insurance is bug deal, because you can't just decide not to buy it.

Never thought I would type this in this thread but to be honest, you do make some good points and it isn't as black and white as it should/would appear.

Yep, auditors don't always have a great track record and I question who audits the auditors but then you could go on forever.

3 non fault accidents will count against you.  I agree that is unfair.  My wife had her car hit while she was parked up (legally I might add) which ended up as a hit and run and her premiums rose because of it (even with staff discount 😉 )

Unfortunately it's a necessary evil and as I mentioned before, you wouldn't want to be paying out for continued care if you hit a cyclist or pedestrian.

As someone said to me years ago which I remind myself of from time to time...  "The sooner you accept that life and work isn't fair, then the happier you will be" 🙂

[Linas.P]

As I said before, I don't want to take it against people who work for insurance. Work is work and I am not saying because insurance industry as a whole isn't fair, then people working for it are as well evil. I certainly don't have anything personal against you, nor I believe something could be changed or planning a riot. It is not like I am saying - "hey chaps let's pull out the pitch forks and let's go stab some insurers".

I mean same can be said about banking, banks are not always fair and have ruined many lives over the years... But that is not to say that I am a bad person because I work in a bank. I guess the only reason why I am trying to hold insurance to higher standard than I would apply to say banking, is again - banking products are not mandatory, not only you can go to another bank, but if you prefer you don't even need to have bank account at all.

I just like discussing theoretically what would be fairer (that actually helps me to went some of the frustration and be happier). In this case actually I don't think Insurance companies are doing something unexpected or beyond what one expect from profit making industry - they have lucrative market with guaranteed profits, inelastic demand and they are milking it dry as long as it lasts. That is what for-profit business meant to do.

Finally, I think this is mainly government fault - they have created legal requirement which forces everyone to get certain service (automatically removing supply and demand equation), but they have failed to make sure this service is provided on fair terms. As such they basically transferred what is arguably goverment responsibility onto private sector. 

[FTBBCVoodoo]

7 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

As I said before, I don't want to take it against people who work for insurance. Work is work and I am not saying because insurance industry as a whole isn't fair, then people working for it are as well evil. I certainly don't have anything personal against you, nor I believe something could be changed or planning a riot. It is not like I am saying - "hey chaps let's pull out the pitch forks and let's go stab some insurers".

I mean same can be said about banking, banks are not always fair and have ruined many lives over the years... But that is not to say that I am a bad person because I work in a bank. I guess the only reason why I am trying to hold insurance to higher standard than I would apply to say banking, is again - banking products are not mandatory, not only you can go to another bank, but if you prefer you don't even need to have bank account at all.

I just like discussing theoretically what would be fairer (that actually helps me to went some of the frustration and be happier). In this case actually I don't think Insurance companies are doing something unexpected or beyond what one expect from profit making industry - they have lucrative market with guaranteed profits, inelastic demand and they are milking it dry as long as it lasts. That is what for-profit business meant to do.

Finally, I think this is mainly government fault - they have created legal requirement which forces everyone to get certain service (automatically removing supply and demand equation), but they have failed to make sure this service is provided on fair terms. As such they basically transferred what is arguably goverment responsibility onto private sector. 

Now is the time to mention...  Before working in insurance (Although I was at Fitness First for a year in between) I worked for Barclays for 14 years... 😉

They certainly had some interesting ethics 😉

 

[Linas.P]

12 minutes ago, FTBBCVoodoo said:

Now is the time to mention...  Before working in insurance (Although I was at Fitness First for a year in between) I worked for Barclays for 14 years... 😉

They certainly had some interesting ethics 😉

Even worse for me... Corporate, Investment and Private Banking... Everything we do is 100% legal and compliance is probably the biggest department in the bank, but moral and ethical aspects are questionable... 

This is how I came to know how "insurance companies" pays next to nothing in tax and reports almost no profit, despite making billions. Now I put insurance companies in quotes, because there are multiple parties - brokers, underwriters, offshore funds etc. But where the most profit is made, rest assured the least tax is paid.

Again - is this insurance companies fault, or is it fault of banks who facilitate that... no - it is fault of the goverment of leaving gaps (I assume deliberately) for these tax avoidance schemes to work. 

 

[Malc]

2 hours ago, Linas.P said:

Everything we do is 100% legal and compliance is probably the biggest department in the bank, but moral and ethical aspects are questionable... 

I don't understand how banks have the power to close any accounts willy nilly without requiring to give any reason at all ...  just reading today that Monzo have done this with 9000 accounts and people having trouble getting their money back

I personally have some interest in this as after 51 years blemish free banking with NatWest and having worked for them for some 23 years prior ...  and being a current shareholder too ...  I was advised they were closing my accounts .....  albeit with a month's notice tho' ....  explanation sought and advised they didn't have to give one and weren't going to.....................

Complaining to the top of the tree got me nowhere ....... I do hold other trouble free bank accounts with other more sensible banks thankfully ................. 

NatWest is   POO  

Malc

[royoftherovers]

Natwest certainly knows how to lose respect.

One hopes that they will reap what they sow/sew.

 

https://dhbusinesssupport.com/are-natwest-closing-accounts-at-random/#:~:text=Business owners have reported that,when they needed it most.

[Phil xxkr]

1 hour ago, royoftherovers said:

Natwest certainly knows how to lose respect.

One hopes that they will reap what they sow/sew.

 

https://dhbusinesssupport.com/are-natwest-closing-accounts-at-random/#:~:text=Business owners have reported that,when they needed it most.

Could not agree with you more John, I closed my account with NatWest after 50years! This was after their refusal to transfer  a small amount over the phone to my late mother's account at Nationwide to help her pay her energy bill. To say I was apoplectic is an understatement 🤯 and to add salt I was later called by a snivelling wretch of an employee who effectively claimed it was my fault as I didn't have electronic banking!!! That was 5 years ago and my blood still boils at the thought. 

[royoftherovers]

57 minutes ago, Phil xxkr said:

Could not agree with you more John, I closed my account with NatWest after 50years! This was after their refusal to transfer  a small amount over the phone to my late mother's account at Nationwide to help her pay her energy bill. To say I was apoplectic is an understatement 🤯 and to add salt I was later called by a snivelling wretch of an employee who effectively claimed it was my fault as I didn't have electronic banking!!! That was 5 years ago and my blood still boils at the thought. 

Today Phil, those details could be put on Social Media and Natwest ridiculed by Public Opinion. Beware the law of Libel though, but if it`s true it is true.

[Phil xxkr]

Just now, royoftherovers said:

Today Phil, those details could be put on Social Media and Natwest ridiculed by Public Opinion. Beware the law of Libel though, but if it`s true it is true.

It is 100% true John, best thing is that the NatWest was literally next door to the Nationwide and I even asked them to walk next door with the money - no go, unbelievable lack of empathy for the situation. I closed the account next day and moved to nationwide who have been just excellent. 

[royoftherovers]

15 minutes ago, Phil xxkr said:

It is 100% true John, best thing is that the NatWest was literally next door to the Nationwide and I even asked them to walk next door with the money - no go, unbelievable lack of empathy for the situation. I closed the account next day and moved to nationwide who have been just excellent. 

Interestingly Phil, I had a fallout with LLoyds which I had banked with for 50 years. I did receive a full apology and a small amount of financial compensation in the end, but the damage was done and I too went virtually next door to Nationwide. And they too have been excellent.

Customer is king, but only when people realise that as customers they have significant clout.

[Malc]

my NatWest accounts were arbitrarily closed in September 2019 .....  pre pandemic .............. my Lloyds accounts of some 30 years standing and Nationwide of 15 years remain ok and well used 

Malc

[Malc]

38 minutes ago, royoftherovers said:

Today Phil, those details could be put on Social Media and Natwest ridiculed by Public Opinion

unsurprisingly I tried to make a useful contribution to the NatWest Trustpilot comments only to be advised that NatWest don't recognise the validity ( or words to that effect ) of Trustpilot and therefore pursuing that line was a Bank engineered, waste of time

Malc

[Malc]

anyway .....   back to insurance maybe ?

Malc

[royoftherovers]

12 minutes ago, Malc said:

anyway .....   back to insurance maybe ?

Malc

`twas you that caused the diversion old pal🤣🤣

[Phil xxkr]

13 hours ago, royoftherovers said:

Interestingly Phil, I had a fallout with LLoyds which I had banked with for 50 years. I did receive a full apology and a small amount of financial compensation in the end, but the damage was done and I too went virtually next door to Nationwide. And they too have been excellent.

Customer is king, but only when people realise that as customers they have significant clout.

Some years ago I read a book by T. Scott Gross - Positively Outrageous Service. It should be mandatory for anyone in the customer facing environment. However it does not apply to Banks,because they do not see you as a customer but as a mere vassal who thinks you should be thanking them for allowing you to bank with them 🤡

[royoftherovers]

2 minutes ago, Phil xxkr said:

Some years ago I read a book by T. Scott Gross - Positively Outrageous Service. It should be mandatory for anyone in the customer facing environment. However it does not apply to Banks,because they do not see you as a customer but as a mere vassal who thinks you should be thanking them for allowing you to bank with them 🤡

"does not apply to Banks"

Is that your view Phil or the Author`s ?

[Linas.P]

But let's look into bright side... we are not forced to bank with any bank and pay thousands against our will. In the end of the day we can keep cash under the pillow and nobody can say anything!