Asta la vista Endsleigh!

After reading Olivia Buck’s blog entry about Endsleigh mis-selling her Payment Protection Insurance, and hearing that Churchill Insurance have had their knuckles rapped by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) for misleading claims, I wonder how many other insurance companies are out to trick us into paying for services we don’t need, tempt us with enticing offers that don’t exist, or plain and simply, how many just don’t do what it says on their tins?

Churchill Insurance is the latest culprit to join a long list, with one of their ads actually being banned by the ASA after a customer complained that it was misleading.

The ad, which stars the infamous talking dog, asks game show contestants to challenge Churchill on his insurance claims, with one man asking “is it possible to make a claim without filling in any forms?”

“Ooooohhhhh yesssss,” came Churchill’s response. That notoriously annoying catchphrase mimicked by many a middle-aged man thinking he’s even slightly funny…

However, one viewer really did challenge Churchill, pointing out that the ad was misleading because a form was sent out after he’d made an insurance claim.

Defending itself, Churchill Insurance said it does try to sort claims over the telephone “wherever possible,” but added that a fifth of cases required a declaration form or statement to be completed by the claimant.

So, is it possible to make a claim without filling in any forms? “Ooooohhhhh nnoooooo” doesn’t quite have the same ring.

The company apologised and said the claim was used “in error” and that it wouldn’t be repeated in future TV ads.

This isn’t the first time Churchill’s dog has made headlines though. Earlier in the summer the company were criticised, when it was reported that their canine front-dog said a rather offensive swear word immediately after his catchphrase. Of course, a Churchill spokesman denied the swearing.

Churchill isn’t the only bad egg in a battery farm of insurance companies though. Staff at Carphone Warehouse were caught by undercover researchers from BBC One’s Watchdog last autumn, after misleading customers about insurance for the Apple iPhone. The BBC researchers found Carphone staff made false claims about what would happen if a phone was stolen and hadn’t been insured.  According to the BBC, these false claims were made in the hope that “customers would take out the store’s own insurance”.

And back in January last year, a number of firms were slammed by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) for misleading customers, and told that they must stop using savings claims in their advertising that could be deemed misleading.

So are any other insurance companies misleading us? Is anyone safe? Have you fallen foul to a deceptive advertising claim or discovered that your insurance policy wasn’t all you thought it was? Have your say in our forum.

And the moral of the story: Don’t believe everything your told. Especially if it comes from the mouth of a talking dog…

Gambling on a rate rise…

The current mortgage market is not great. These are troubled times and no-one seems to know what will happen next. Fear… uncertainty… doubt…

What a perfect time for a new insurance product to jump onto the market!

Let me introduce MarketGuard. Launched last week, this new insurance is specifically for those with variable and tracker mortgages and in exchange for a hefty payment promises to protect you from interest rate rises. It has been praised as “revolutionary”, it is a “glimmer of hope” for us terrified consumers and oh shouldn’t we all jump at the chance of avoiding rate rises and relax in the glow of financial protection.

Well actually, getting this protection is incredibly costly and taking out a policy means gambling on very high increases indeed.

Let’s say you have a mortgage of £150,000 with 20 years left to run. Your current interest is 7% and your monthly repayments are £787. If you choose to take out MarketGuard insurance with 1% excess, this will cost you £58 per month for two years, a total of £1392.

Unless both the Bank of England Base Rate and your mortgage rate rise by over 1% then this is money completely wasted as you are liable to pay for the first four quarter point increases. Even if, at the end of the first year, both rates increase by a massive 2% (i.e. EIGHT quarter point increases) you would not have saved money by taking out the policy.

At this point you would be paying 9% on your mortgage - without MarketGuard your monthly repayments would be £913 and with its cover they would be reduced to £849. So MarketGuard would be saving you a total of £64 for twelve months. This adds up to a total of £768 which is a huge £624 less than you paid for the protection.

Basically, you are adding an extra 0.5% to your mortgage to insure against a 1.25% rise and the rates would have to rise by over 2.5% in this second year to make the policy actually worthwhile. I don’t know about you, but the odds don’t sound too great to me.

There are some further unsavoury elements to this policy. Firstly, although the payments are quoted as monthly, you will actually have to stump up the lump sum at the start of your policy – for the example above this is a mighty £1392. If you choose to cancel within 14 days MarketGuard will retain 30% (in this case £417) in fees and if you cancel after 14 days, they will keep the lot.

Secondly and crucially, is that this policy only lasts for two years. If you want to renew after this you can, but the interest rate will be ‘reset’ at the point of renewal. Basically, you will only be protected from rises if they increase further on the rate you are already paying, even if this has increased while you have had a MarketGuard policy.

Unless the cost of MarketGuard drops dramatically, those with fixed-rate and tracker mortgages should be very wary of it. If you are tempted by the security, ensure you weigh up carefully the costs involved and the odds of the policy paying out more than you pay to have it.

The best way to protect yourself rate increases is still to choose a fixed-rate mortgage, so if at all possible, you should opt for one of these.

 Think cake, think insurance….

Now, I love my food. I’m creative with my recipes and while most of my concoctions taste just as good with own-brand ingredients, I do guiltily splash out on the occasional treat.

Every now and then a girl just needs her “Finest” Parma ham and “Extra Special” goat’s cheese - I swear you really can “Taste the Difference” in those vine ripened tomatoes. However, I should add that I’m also addicted to “Value” chocolate mousse.

“But what’s this got to do with insurance?” I hear you ask.

On June 22 Tesco is launching three new home insurance offers, which are being presented in the style of its food ranges – Value, Standard and Finest.

Jim Bruce, head of Tesco Home Insurance explains the move:

“Customers have told us they understand Value, Standard and Finest, and in the current economic climate, we want to do everything we can to help them get exactly what they want to pay for. We’ve brought this range to the home insurance market to offer even greater choice, clarity and value”

Well, that makes things nice and simple doesn’t it? Those who pride themselves on shopping only from the Finest range will now be able to boast of their Finest policy whilst those who enjoy munching on Value custard creams will be able to save themselves some pennies with the Value insurance. Genius! No?

Well, no. The thing is… insurance isn’t that simple. The best insurance policy for you depends very much on your individual circumstances and the actual “value for money” you get depends on exactly what your policy offers that will benefit you.

While I can live on 19p noodles, this does not mean I can do without potentially vital cover, but similarly, just because I enjoy the occasional glass of Finest orange juice does not mean I want to pay a ridiculously high premium for services I will probably never use!

While the re-branding of their insurance policies is a great marketing ploy, it does not provide immediate “clarity and value”, rather it oversimplifies a choice which really should take more thought.

It really is essential when looking for an insurance policy that you focus on how it suits your individual needs. Otherwise, you could end up with a policy which is about as much use as a Value cheesecake.

Mmm… cheesecake.

What would you rebrand, if you had the chance?

 Hey son, check out my iPot…

It’s the latest disposition sweeping the nation, a social and cultural disease mightier than the credit crunch, fuel poverty and negative equity combined.

No, I’m not talking about Claire from the Apprentice, this is…..’Cool Dad Syndrome’.

Got a cool Dad? Does he know his Kooks from his Killers? His Puma States from his Vans Half Cabs? His iPod shuffle from his iPod nano?

If the answer to all the above is ‘yes’, then you must have had one heck of an expensive Father’s Day this weekend huh?

Luckily for me, my Dad is the consummate square; a square’s square if you will. I’d like to think some of this has rubbed off on me (see the Genesis comments in this gem of a post).

He doesn’t download music (the latest Neil Diamond CD picked up alongside the fortnightly shop will suffice), he certainly doesn’t skateboard, and aside from his prized digital weathervane (which has now usurped the long-range AM/FM radio in the obsession stakes), he can see straight through the futility of modern gadgets and finds them totally dispensable.

In essence, I didn’t have to re-mortgage the flat in order to finance Father’s Day this year, which is why I laughed out loud (usually reserved exclusively for QI and Mariella Frostrup’s Agony Aunt column in the Observer Magazine, the insensitive soul that I am) when I read the following in a press release from Friends Provident, a UK pension provider:

“Some fathers feel that their children pile pressure on them to be their very own ‘Daddy Cool’, with 34% of dads revealing that they have bought the latest gadgets and fashionable clothes for themselves due to direct pressure from their children”

I beg your pardon? The hilarity continues…..

“Dads say they are spending out nearly £800 a year buying the latest gadgets and fashions for themselves and their children. Yet just over one in three say they feel that they have made enough insurance provision to ensure their children would be well provided for should anything happen to them.”

Amazing!

So if their child says “Dad, I really like Theo Walcott, I want you to look like him, act like him, and generally be him”, over a third of UK Dads would presumably get botox, liposuction, a haircut, a whole new wardrobe, a full Arsenal strip, training strip, maybe a cap, fancy earrings, a 20 year old WAG and return flights on Emirates airlines to anywhere?

But if the kid falls over, breaks his leg and needs specialist treatment, that same Dad won’t be able to pay for this treatment having spent nearly all his disposable cash on a pair of diamond encrusted tweezers?

Whatever happened to the days where Dads dismissed such requests with a firm but fair ‘stop being utterly ridiculous Daniel’, and proceeded to set a sterling example to their children, rather than this role-reversal nonsense?

I’m always wary of mums and daughters who describe the nature of their relationship as being more akin to ‘best friends’ than mother/daughter. The parents should wear the trousers in that particular alliance, end of story.

Am I right, or completely out of touch?

Is being out of touch cool?

Ask a 9 year old.