Any members had the Tesco: "you need do nothing scam"? I've been with Tesco for a few years, & when running towards re-newal they sent me this "you need do nothing" letter - whereby on the due date they were expecting to just snatch the fee from my bank, based on my bank details they held. Un/fortunately I'd changed my bank details - & already committed to another Ins Co. Undeterred they're mailing me about the "outstanding" fee. Anybody experienced this?

.

That's a tactic used by a lot of insurance companies, did you tell them to Lapse the policy before the renewal date ?

udtrev said:

That's a tactic used by a lot of insurance companies, did you tell them to Lapse the policy before the renewal date ?

Click to expand...

Whats that?

PlopHole said:

Whats that?

Click to expand...

Not auto-renew it

Let the policy lapse instead of renew.

as udtrev says, many companies adopt this method now and it is usually the default position. If you fill in paperwork there'll probably have been a tick box so you could opt out and if you do on the phone, well I remember being asked by Tesco if I wanted to adopt this. It's kinda useful as you don't run the risk of being uninsured but then as they have you signed up you don't get the keenest renewal. I always call everyone at renewal time now to say I'm moving and it's amazing how quickly that discount that only new customers get is offered. On home insurance Churchill told me to ring every year so as to get the reduction. Don't agree with this - no reqard for loyalty at all.

on the flip side it ensures people are not left uncovered
the sort of people who fail to cancel the auto renewal are probably the type who could forget to renew

G’day to all my readers.

They’ve not tried this stunt on before - & I’ve been insured with Tesco for something like a decade. In mid term of my last annual contract, I upgraded from a 1.2/8v 65hp petrol to a 1.9/16v 150hp turbo-diesel – & (as one might expect) I gave insurance a hard-look this time round.

I found a new insurance provider that offered terms at something like 20% off that of Tesco’s “you need do nothing” deal. What impressed me with my new provider was – they gave a straight quote, with no `what have we got to beat?’ They also advised I could pay quarterly with no interest charges. (But I remind myself this is a new relationship - & to watch-out for any creep-back of taxes, fees or charges once they think you’re captured).

Returning to my annual contract. I don’t recall giving consent to my annual contract being `automatically’ renewed should I remain silent. I do recall the issue being covered at my law school – `acceptance’ cannot be indicated by `silence’ Felthouse v Bindley [1862]. On what law do Tesco (& the like) rely? How are they working it? Do they think you’re a member of their `club’ - & it’s like your annual subs are overdue? Has it been tested in court?

Thinks 1
FIAT dealer: “Thanks for buying your 2009 car from us last year, we’ll have a 2010 ready next week – if you remain silent … it’ll be yours & we’ll snatch the money on 01 April 2010 from your bank details from last year.

Thinks 2
Landlord: “Your next pint’s on the bar, Sir - if I hear nothing from you, I’ll just add it on to your credit card.”

.

I really don't see an issue over this - and definitely wouldn't get myself wound up over it, or see it as a 'scam'.

If you are savvy enough, you will shop around once the renewal docs come through - and deal with Tesco accordingly - to either get a better price, or say you are going elsewhere.

If you really can't be bothered with it all, then you get auto-renewal [albeit at a higher price] but you remain covered.

Correct me if I'm wrong but they sent you a letter, probably worded very similar to the one I got from Chris Knott, saying "If you want to renew, you need take no action. Otherwise, contact us and cancel your Direct Debit.". If you didn't contact them then that's your fault, not theirs.

I now shop around as I use a cashback site, therefore I lapse my policy every year rather than renew.

Mind you it helps if you can pay annually as well (no interest to pay )

Silly thing is even if you lapse your cover and start a new policy it often works out cheaper then just renewing it as you get the "new customer Hook deal"

Eklipze3k said:

Correct me if I'm wrong ...

Click to expand...

Thank you for your interesting comments.

My contract of insurance was for 12 months. The start & end date were clear. Settlement was made by a one-off debit card payment (there was no `standing order’ or `direct debit’) - & this method was customary. There was no rolling-contract. There was no suggestion they’d retain my business year-on-year. There was no duty to inform them they’d lost my business.

I find that my law school were correct. Felthouse v Bindley [1862] apparently still holds good after some 150 years - & acceptance cannot generally be communicated by silence. To circumvent this general rule – Tesco would have to show that it was customary in their business for silence to be viewed as acceptance. Perhaps Tesco (& others) hope to develop that over time. But they can’t show it’s been customary for me to fall for that one. Further to avoid the general rule - I understand the `suggestion’ of acceptance by silence must come from the offeree (& not the offeror).

.

dear lord,you dont want then cancel
is it really the biggest scam on the planet?

Caravadossi said:

Thank you for your interesting comments.

My contract of insurance was for 12 months. The start & end date were clear. Settlement was made by a one-off debit card payment (there was no `standing order’ or `direct debit’) - & this method was customary. There was no rolling-contract. There was no suggestion they’d retain my business year-on-year. There was no duty to inform them they’d lost my business.

I find that my law school were correct. Felthouse v Bindley [1862] apparently still holds good after some 150 years - & acceptance cannot generally be communicated by silence. To circumvent this general rule – Tesco would have to show that it was customary in their business for silence to be viewed as acceptance. Perhaps Tesco (& others) hope to develop that over time. But they can’t show it’s been customary for me to fall for that one. Further to avoid the general rule - I understand the `suggestion’ of acceptance by silence must come from the offeree (& not the offeror).

.

Click to expand...

So what about the fact that you signed a initial contract agreeing to these T+C's

Most Easterly Pandas said:

So what about the fact that you signed a initial contract agreeing ...

Click to expand...

Fact is MEP – there is no contract in paper form with my signature. Not that it matters – as the contract was formed by agreement over the `phone. But then you’re hoping to discover evidence that I’ve agreed to auto-renewal – that I’d argue you won’t find. Given any conflict – presumably they’ll have to disclose their recording of the conversation.

This auto-renewal lark is new to me, I don’t recall hearing of it before - & given a modest `current balance available’ at any time, I think I’d remember consenting to any potential snatch from my bank account. It’s been my custom to `phone prior to expiry date & settle-up with a one-off debit card payment for the next 12 months.

.

But you've agreed to the T+C's.

They may not have been mentioned over the phone, but would have been sent with policy (all the smal print).

If you read them and are not happy you can then take it up with insurer and if needs be, cancel under the 14day thingy.

If its not in small print then I'd take it further, but somehow I suspect it probably will be.

Caravadossi said:

Fact is MEP – there is no contract in paper form with my signature. Not that it matters – as the contract was formed by agreement over the `phone. But then you’re hoping to discover evidence that I’ve agreed to auto-renewal – that I’d argue you won’t find. Given any conflict – presumably they’ll have to disclose their recording of the conversation.
.

Click to expand...

Whatever is agreed on the phone or clicking an OK button complys with authorising of details over the phone or internet. Therefore you agree to the terms and conditions of the company, becuase if you do not agree, you should have ended the conversation or brower.

Ignorance is not a defence, saying "well i didnt sign anything" will make you look a tad silly becuase I bet you havent read the T&C's. In the modern world, there is many more ways to streamline processes and this im afraid is one of them. Paper is slowly going out of fashion

T&C's don't mean diddly squat in the eyes of the law. All T&C's are the product of the company's internal workings (in effect the conditions of the contract) and comes under several Acts of law, including Contract Law and the Unfair Terms Act. A T&C can not superceed (or cancel) an act of Parliament.

Any company can add whatever they want in their T&C's but it doesn't mean that they will hold up in court. Indeed, a T&C could state that every Wednesday the person has to stand on one leg and run their heads whilst drinking a pint of beer, but that doesn't mean it would be a legal requirement in a court of law.

Accepting a company's T&C's isn't a be-all-and-end all situation. A civil court can overrule a company's T&C status.

LeighJet150 said:

Ignorance is not a defence, saying "well i didnt sign anything" ...

Click to expand...

Put another way - ignorance (of how contracts are formed outside of signatures) is no excuse.

What I actually said was …

… there is no contract in paper form with my signature. Not that it matters – as the contract was formed by agreement over the `phone.

Whatever is agreed by `phone can only be agreed from the envelope of what is communicated at that time - signing a paper later won’t change that. Unless of course it’s a cunning plan to push-the-envelope by slipping-in varying T&C’s n-days later in the hope you won’t notice & will sign agreement to what then effectively becomes a new contract.

The World is full of sales types ready to jump-on-you with their price lists and their T&C’s – if you accept without challenge, then that’s your loss. But I don’t think there are many that meekly accept an offer without some haggling – it’s up-to-you whether you make them a counter-offer … or then end the call.

If you think about it, there’s nothing to prevent you chatting with your insurer over the `phone & then banging-off your own T&C’s in the mail claiming your insurer will be bound by them.

sduffield: do you have knowledge of case law on this?

.

sduffield said:

T&C's don't mean diddly squat in the eyes of the law. All T&C's are the product of the company's internal workings (in effect the conditions of the contract) and comes under several Acts of law, including Contract Law and the Unfair Terms Act. A T&C can not superceed (or cancel) an act of Parliament.

Any company can add whatever they want in their T&C's but it doesn't mean that they will hold up in court. Indeed, a T&C could state that every Wednesday the person has to stand on one leg and run their heads whilst drinking a pint of beer, but that doesn't mean it would be a legal requirement in a court of law.

Accepting a company's T&C's isn't a be-all-and-end all situation. A civil court can overrule a company's T&C status.

Click to expand...

You seem to forget that if you break a company's T&C's they have the right to void any contract or policy you hold with them (so you will foot the whole bill) regardless how silly they are, because it is your responsibility to read them, not their responsibilty to make sure they are within their rights. As it states on every T&C form, you have to agree before continuing the process.

Surley if you sign them in any form without reading, even if they have stupid things in them, that makes you an idiot and you deserve everything you get tbh