I had insured my car with Churchill … until the police told me I hadn’t
https://www.theguardian.com/money/article/2024/sep/10/insure-car-churchill-police-told-renewal Version 0 of 1. The company had stopped my annual renewal without telling me and I don’t know a reason For the past three years I have used Churchill to insure my BMW X5. The policy started in June 2021, I have paid by monthly direct debit ever since, and it was set up to auto-renew every year. So imagine my concern when I received a letter last week from Surrey and Sussex police informing me that, according to the Motor Insurance Database, I did not appear to have valid insurance. At first I thought it was a scam, but I felt that I’d better just check with Churchill. One of its staff confirmed that, in fact, my policy no longer existed, but she couldn’t tell me why. I then bought a new policy with another insurer. I don’t like receiving letters from the police, so I need some kind of explanation from Churchill. It raises the worrying question as to why an insurer can cancel a policy with no good reason, and then not tell the policyholder. It claims it informed me, but it didn’t: I have no record of a cancellation letter, email or text. How do I find out what happened and prevent it happening again? AS, by email I asked Churchill about your somewhat unusual case. The company tells me that, in May, it wrote to you to tell you that it was no longer insuring your type of car, and therefore was not prepared to renew your policy a month later. This has been happening rather a lot recently as insurers decide they no longer want to insure certain categories, or makes. They are perfectly within their rights to do so, but do owe a strong duty of care to tell affected customers. The odd thing about this case is that Churchill appears to have only sent one letter – one that got lost. I think you could have reasonably expected two, and to be emailed/texted as well. When I recently switched home insurer, I received four letters from the company that I had not renewed with. Churchill did, at least, agree to indemnify you, offering retrospective insurance cover – meaning that you have not been prosecuted by the police. It was at pains to say that the policy was not renewed, rather than cancelled. It has apologised and offered £150 compensation. The moral of the tale, I guess, is to always check a policy has renewed – and that the payments are still leaving your bank account – particularly if it is a Churchill one. More O2 customers billed for phantom calls Last month, I featured the case of an O2 mobile customer who had been sent a £150 bill for a call the company claimed was the result of a 50-minute call he had made to Armenia at 5am. O2 claimed he had fallen victim to a “Wangiri” scam, where people are duped into phoning back a premium-rate number in a particular country. At the time, O2 refunded the customer and said it was impossible for a call he had not made to appear on a bill. However, several more readers and O2 customers have since contacted us to say they, too, had had the same problem. And all seem convinced that they did not make the call. I can understand a few people may have dialled the numbers by accident, but not this many. I sent two of the cases to O2. In each one it has now refunded the £150 they were both charged. It maintains both calls were made. “We’re investing heavily in technology, including AI, to help prevent fraudulent calls from reaching customers, and to flag calls to them when we believe it may be a scam or spam. Customers can help us protect others by taking a few seconds to forward calls like this for free to 7726,” it says. I would urge all O2 customers to log into their account and set a bill cap at £0, or a low sum appropriate to the number of international or chargeable calls they make. This will stop this scam in its tracks. We welcome letters but cannot answer individually. Email us at consumer.champions@theguardian.com or write to Consumer Champions, Money, the Guardian, 90 York Way, London N1 9GU. Please include a daytime phone number. Submission and publication of all letters is subject to our terms and conditions. |