Episode 10 Rip Off Britain

We asked you to tell us what's left you feeling ripped off,

and you contacted us in your thousands.

You've told us about the companies that you think get it wrong.

And the customer service that simply is not up to scratch.

People should expect more

when they're paying for something these days.

Everything you buy, I just think we're getting ripped off.

You've asked us to track down the scammers who stole your money

and investigate the extra charges you'd say are unfair.

You have to rely on them giving you a fair price for something.

You can't always rely on that.

You don't want more hassle.

You want them to honour their agreement with you.

And when you've lost out but no-one else is to blame,

you've come to us to stop others falling into the same trap.

That is disgusting!

So whether it's a blatant rip-off or a genuine mistake,

we're here to find out why you're out of pocket

and what you can do about it.

Your stories, your money. This is Rip-Off Britain.

Hello, and welcome once again to Rip-Off Britain,

battling on your behalf

to make sure you get the very best customer service every single time.

Which I have to say, judging by our postbag here in the office,

is still not the case when it comes to a topic that remains

one of your absolute biggest bugbears.

Hundreds of you contacted every month about the same subject,

some saying you're paying too much for it,

others telling us about situations where you haven't got

what you thought you'd paid for.

If you haven't guessed yet, we're talking about insurance.

Now, whilst most of the letters that we get on this subject

are probably about claims, that for whatever reason, are turned down,

we also get plenty of queries about how premiums are worked out

in the first place,

not to mention lots of comments from people concerned

that insurers can often seem to be making things rather more complicated

than they need to be, often at the very time

when you might be struggling to get back on your feet.

So today, we'll be revealing the secrets of the insurance trade,

as well as getting to the bottom of some of the frustrations

and stories you've asked us to investigate.

And along the way, you'll get some great tips and advice

to make sure that next time you buy a policy or make a claim,

you'll have the protection you need at a price you can afford.

Coming up, just when we thought we'd heard every possible reason

to turn down a claim, here's one you won't have seen coming...

When you take out holiday insurance,

you don't have to go round all your relatives making sure

that they are fit and healthy before you go.

You know, it is very unreasonable.

Why even when an accident's not your fault

it'll still bump up your premiums.

My original policy of ?359 went up to ?568.

And more problems solved on the spot at our Pop Up Shop.

Next, two little words that we hear so often on Rip-Off Britain

that can fill even the toughest amongst us with absolute dread -

Terms and Conditions.

Now, many of you would agree that when it comes to insurance

they can be long, unwieldy, and very confusing.

Sometimes it seems as if there are more things you cannot claim for

than things you can.

And, of course, you can find the whole policy invalidated

if it turns out that there's some vital detail

that you didn't pass on.

But you may not realise is that you could even have a claim rejected

on the grounds that you hadn't disclosed personal information,

not about yourself, amazingly enough, but about somebody else.

Even if it's information that you didn't know in the first place.

Like well over half of all grandparents,

Nigel and Lorraine Pedder spend a lot of time

looking after their three grandchildren.

The two days I have off in the week is the two days I have the kids,

so I do get to see a lot of them.

I try and hide somewhere and keep away from the chaos.

Twice a year for the past 11 years, they've been escaping that chaos

for a well-earned break in Fuerteventura.

How you doing, Jack?

But the last home-from-home holiday Nigel and Lorraine took

in October, 2013, is one they'd like to forget.

Things started to go wrong a couple of days

before they were due to leave,

when the couple received some worrying news.

Monday we get a phone call. Lorraine's mother is in hospital.

Lorraine's mum, Joan, had to have an emergency operation

to remove a blockage from her intestines.

It was a bit of a shock. The world kind of just falls apart.

You're thinking, "Well, what is going to happen?"

Of course, the couple's first thought

was to cancel their holiday and drive the 150 miles to Surrey

to be with Joan.

But Joan was horrified at that suggestion.

She said she'd be mortified if we gave our holiday up

because of her, and we weren't to do that.

Lorraine and Nigel still weren't convinced

that going away was a good idea, but, you know, Joan was insistent.

So Nigel called the company they had travel insurance with - iGO4.

I asked the question,

"If we don't go because of the health of my mother-in-law,

"are we covered?" Yes.

"If we do go and we need to come back early

"because of the health of my mother-in-law, are we covered?" Yes.

Later that day, Joan came out of surgery and the signs were good.

It was a big operation, but she was recovering well.

We could go and sit by her bedside for two weeks,

but my mum would have got upset with that.

We said, "All right, we will go and we will enjoy ourselves."

So with all seeming positive, they flew to Fuerteventura as planned,

and tried to enjoy their holiday whilst keeping tabs on Joan

with regular messages from Rhia, their daughter.

Rhia contacted us. She said, "Grandma must be getting better

"cos she's moaning the hospital won't let her outside for a fag."

And I thought, "Excellent, Joan's getting better."

I was thinking, "We've made the right decision."

But the next day, Rhia called again.

My daughter wouldn't speak to me.

She just said, "Can I speak to Dad?" And that was it, I knew it was sad.

All I could hear say was, "You've got to get home now." And that was it.

Following her operation,

Joan had developed pneumonia and was critically ill.

Nigel and Lorraine booked seats on the next available flight home,

but unfortunately, Joan had died by the time they got to the hospital.

I couldn't believe it was all happening, really.

It's like living in a dream, you know?

"This is not happening to me," you know?

You never think that your parents are going to die.

They are going to go on forever.

I was just really upset that we weren't there.

Over the next few weeks, there was the funeral to arrange

and sorting out Joan's will and probate.

So it wasn't until a month later

that Nigel remembered the travel insurance company

had said they'd be covered if they had to come home early

because of Joan's ill health.

There is no way Lorraine can be recompensed for the emotional upset.

I just would like to get the money back that it's cost us.

Nigel got in touch with the insurer

and was asked to provide a doctor's note

to confirm what had caused Joan's death.

He sent off all the necessary information,

and put in a claim for ?421 -

the extra they'd spent getting home.

After the advice they'd been given before going away,

they expected it to be straightforward, really.

But two weeks later, the claim was rejected.

We put in what I thought was a reasonable,

a very reasonable claim,

and I was just gobsmacked when it was rejected, really.

Two reasons were given for rejecting the claim.

And the first was a particular shock.

The GP's certificate revealed that over the last year,

Joan had received treatment for cancer.

Now for Lorraine, that was a complete bolt out of the blue.

It turned out her mother hadn't told her that a mole she had removed

from her nose earlier that year had been cancerous.

I never knew it was cancer and it wasn't relevant to why she died.

It definitely wasn't relevant to why she went into hospital.

It shouldn't have even been an issue.

But clearly it was an issue,

although it was completely unrelated to Joan's death,

as was the second reason the claim was rejected.

Following her cancer treatment,

Joan again had to visit the hospital for routine follow ups.

But the couple were told the policy's terms and conditions

clearly state that cover won't apply if a relative,

"upon whose health the trip may depend"

has either "been treated for any type of cancer"

or received hospital treatment

in the 12 months prior to the policy being taken out.

The trouble was Lorraine had no idea

that her mother needed any of this medical attention

because Joan preferred to keep such things private.

My mum was a very private person. She would never tell me anything.

You had to pry things out of her.

And so when I did get the death certificate for my mum,

I found she had type-2 diabetes and she had for number of years,

but nothing was ever said to me about it.

You know, she just kept herself to herself.

After checking the terms and conditions again,

Nigel could see that the rejection letter could be right.

They may not have been covered by their insurance after all.

But they couldn't really have done anything differently.

After all, how could they have declared conditions

they knew absolutely nothing about?

When you take out holiday insurance for yourself or your partner,

you don't have to go round all your relatives,

making sure they're going to be fit and healthy before you go, you know?

It is very unreasonable.

Nigel and Lorraine's insurer isn't unique in having clauses like these

in its policies.

So the question is - are the couple right in considering them unfair?

It wouldn't be fair to expect you to speak to your relatives,

to your mother, your father, particularly if they're elderly,

and ask them to provide you with all the details

of their medical conditions.

It's certainly not something that we do.

We're all very British, nobody likes to talk about these things.

Certainly in the case of Lorraine and Nigel.

Is it reasonable for them to have known

about their mother's cancer treatment?

Probably not under these circumstances,

and we wouldn't expect them to ask that question.

We spoke to Ageas, the company that underwrites

Lorraine and Nigel's insurance policy with iGO4.

It told us that after reviewing the case,

it recognises that that the policy wording was contradictory,

and said the Pedders should have been covered all along.

It says that in future...

..so that the...

And the company also apologised to Nigel and Lorraine,

paying the claim in full,

and waiving the ?100 excess on the policy.

But disputes about insurance

continue to be one of the biggest source of complaints

to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

Please don't be put off - just because a clause

is in your contract, doesn't mean that the insurer should use it,

and it doesn't mean that it's using it fairly.

So if you feel that you've not been treated

within the spirit of the contract, then speak to us.

The Ombudsmen should be able to help you.

It was not a very nice experience at all.

I would hate anyone to go through it.

If, obviously, we had claimed and they had given us the money back,

it would have been so much easier than having to go through it now.

Over the past few years, a new breed of company has transformed

the insurance industry.

GoCompare!

They're designed to do the hard work

so that you don't have to ring around lots of different insurers

to get the best quote.

Simples!

It's a market worth billions,

and it can be hard to escape the catchy ad campaigns.

# GoCompare! GoCompare! #

# Duh-duh-duh-duh-duh. #

Yeah, I use them for almost anything that I can find

that'll compare house insurance, car insurance, travel insurance.

Whether it's car insurance, home insurance, life insurance,

I always make sure that I use one

just to see that I'm getting the right price.

But despite its popularity, the industry is under scrutiny.

In July, 2014, the Financial Conduct Authority published a review

into price comparison sites, and it turns out that in some cases,

they weren't giving consumers all the information they need

to choose the best policy, not just on price,

but on the level of cover, as well.

And comparison sites are also on the radar

of the Competition and Markets Authority,

who are concerned that they may limit insurers

from offering consumers better deals elsewhere.

One third of all motor insurance policies are bought

through price comparison sites,

so we decided to see if they're always on the right track.

We called in financial expert

and general money saving whiz, James Daley, to help.

You might assume that a car insurance policy is a car insurance policy,

but it just isn't the case.

There are good ones and there are bad ones,

and it's important to drill down to look at the individual features

of the product to understand whether or not

you're really getting good value from your insurer.

And that's exactly what we plan to do.

These young go-karters love driving, but they're all under 22 -

a notoriously expensive age for anybody looking to insure their car.

So cost is fairly key when it comes to looking for a policy.

We've asked them to help us compare

the four leading price comparison sites -

CompareTheMarket, GoCompare, MoneySuperMarket and Confused.com

to find out not just how policies compare on price,

but also how easy it is to get the very best cover.

Hello, James. Hi, Ian. Nice to meet you.

First up, it's Ian.

He's 21 and when he's not on the track,

he drives a little VW that's almost as old as he is.

Even so, the cheapest quote he could find

was for more than his car was even worth.

When he and James compared all the quotes, though,

there was one surprise...

On three of them, you've ended up with the same price,

so, that's interesting,

but one of them has ended up being more expensive.

The cheapest policy across all four sites was from the same insurer.

But on one of them, it was over ?30 more than the others.

James thinks he knows what might have caused the difference.

Often these sites have a piece of software that gives them an idea

of what a car, of your age, would be roughly worth.

On the first comparison site, you put in the value yourself.

You put ?500.

On the second one,

it plopped ?750 into the field automatically for you.

But when James and Ian corrected the car's value to ?500,

the second site still showed a more expensive price.

It wasn't until we spoke to the insurer that we find out why.

It turns out that Ian had also entered some other information

slightly differently when he was getting that particular quote.

The insurer told us that their prices are the same

across all the comparison sites they appear on,

provided the correct information is entered.

It just goes to show that these little things

can really make all the difference.

Everybody just wants to get their car insurance quote out the way

as quickly as possible.

But just one tiny little difference in an answer can change the premium.

Next up is 19-year-old Brad,

who says he pays through the roof to insure his 11-year-old motor.

But so far he hasn't looked for a cheaper rate online.

So how come you've never used a comparison site before?

I've been told by friends

that they're a bit steep in price sometimes so... Really?

I've just rang insurance companies up themselves.

I think probably your friends are not right about that. Yeah.

Broadly speaking, you should get a better deal from comparison sites.

Brad's approach of ignoring the comparison sites

probably isn't the best way to do it.

Many of the sites have what's known

as price parity agreements with the insurance companies,

meaning that the insurers cannot sell their products for less

anywhere else.

But it's these arrangements that the Competition and Markets Authority

is concerned about and would like to see scrapped.

If that happens, shopping around and comparing the comparison sites

will become even more important.

The comparison sites will no longer be able to tie insurers

into those kind of handcuffs, and so it may be that you're more likely

to find similar insurers offering better prices

on one comparison site than they are on another.

Finally our third volunteer, Josh.

At 18, he's the youngest of our three go-kart guinea pigs

and he's also got the newest car -

his is a mere nine years old.

When we asked him to try the comparison sites,

Josh soon found a policy that he liked the look of.

But when he looked for the same policy on all four comparison sites,

each of the quotes was different.

The one that came top on one comparison site

came in around ?2,000.

The same insurer was there on another comparison site,

?400 more expensive.

So if he'd just dropped into that comparison site first

and not bothered going anywhere else,

he could have ended up spending an extra ?400.

The insurer whose quote came out so differently for Josh told us this...

..including assumptions made

by the comparison sites over "levels of cover" or "individual risk".

But they reiterated that each comparison site

"has a different set of questions",

which might result in slightly different answers and premiums.

So it really is worth checking each of the comparison sites

against each other so that you can be sure of what you're getting.

Not that it's always that easy to work it out.

The Financial Conduct Authority's investigation

into the comparison site market find that consumers

aren't always given enough information

to help them choose the best product.

And as a result, some people could buy policies

that they simply do not understand.

The cheapest insurer, at the top of the results page,

might have certain levels of cover.

They might include free breakdown cover,

but they might not include that,

and so that cheap price, might be the one that you instinctively

want to go for, especially if they're ?100 cheaper

than the second, but you have to understand what you're getting.

The FCA's investigation also find that comparison sites

didn't always provide consistent information about the policies

on offer, making it difficult to compare them.

We put all that to the four main comparison sites.

Confused.com didn't want to comment,

but the other three big names told us that they welcome

the Financial Conduct Authority's investigation into the industry.

They said they try to provide as much information as possible

so that consumers can make an informed choice on their policy,

but they pointed out the importance of checking all the details

before buying cover,

to make sure the terms and the price are right for you.

So is that advice our go-karters will be following?

Basically, don't just look at one insurer, look at a lot of them.

I think comparison websites offer a broad spectrum of quotes,

but if you need them tailored to your individual needs,

then there's the ability to do that.

Still to come on Rip-Off Britain,

the new breed of insurers who boast about keeping costs down...

But are they doing it at the expense of their customer service?

I felt very let down because I was getting completely ignored

by an insurance company that I'd already paid my money to.

Over one summer weekend, we opened up our Pop Up consumer advice clinic

in a West Midlands shopping centre...

..giving us the chance to meet hundreds of you face-to-face.

I had an incident a couple of years ago,

back in February, 2012, and it's still unresolved.

As well as trying to sort out individual problems,

our team of experts ran workshops full of advice

to keep your finances on track,

like this one explaining the advantages of drawing up a will

and what can happen if you don't.

If you were to die and your husband survived you,

then if your estate was less than ?250,000,

your husband would get everything.

Not if I can help it.

Outside the shop, we also set up our gripes corner,

where plenty of you were letting off steam about insurance.

People just can't afford this astronomical insurance

that we have to pay.

I get really annoyed

when we have a quote for our car insurance

and it's more expensive than a quote

if you go in as a new customer with the same company.

I have no accident and no problem,

but my insurance still gets really expensive.

Paulette Smith came seeking advice from trading standards expert,

Adrian Simpson, when a special present

that she bought for her granddaughter didn't work.

I've really come to complain about a car that we bought.

A car? An electric car for my granddaughter.

Ah. It was a pedal and remote control.

The remote worked but the pedal didn't work,

so I contacted the company and they sent us a little chip sort of thing.

And eventually when I fitted it, it still didn't work.

So, I contacted them again.

They sent another part.

I fitted that, still didn't work.

So in the end, I just said,

"OK, I would just like a refund back

"and can you come and collect the car?"

After numerous failed attempts by both the company and Paulette

to arrange a pick up time, Paulette was left with the car.

She kept calling and e-mailing the company,

but with no satisfactory reply.

Paulette sent a letter recorded delivery asking for a full refund.

To her amazement, instead, another spare part arrived in the post.

All Paulette now wants is her money back,

but it seems the company is not willing to co-operate.

Well, it's very disappointing for her.

Oh, yes. The car's boxed up, waiting for them to come and collect it.

And, you know, they haven't, and she's not really used it.

So what you're after is your money back. Adrian, what do you think?

Well, under the Sale of Goods Act,

your rights to goods that are of satisfactory quality.

There shouldn't be any defects.

You've had it a bit of time.

You can then give them an opportunity to repair or replace,

which you obviously have done. Mm-hm.

If you've given them a few chances to do that

and it still doesn't work,

in this case, you might be able to claim for a partial refund,

which would usually take into account

any successful use you've had of the car.

None. In this case, if you haven't, you might be within your rights,

perhaps, to ask for a full refund

and also to collect it at a time that's convenient to you.

If they're not playing ball with her, what can she do now?

What I suggest... She's already done the first part,

sending a recorded delivery letter to them.

I suggest doing another one, mentioning the Sale of Goods Act

and giving them, say, seven days to come back and collect the vehicle

and give you a full refund.

I understand you paid by credit card. Yes.

OK, if you pay by credit card,

you've actually got additional consumer rights

under the Consumer Credit Act, which means that the credit card company

is equally as liable as the trader.

But ultimately, if you still don't get any joy of that,

you might consider taking action against the company

through the county court system.

So she hasn't had a chance to put her L plates on yet? No. Shame.

Now when it comes to insurance,

you might think there's a pretty simple formula -

if something's your fault, you should claim on your insurance.

If it's someone else's fault, their insurance should cover it.

But, in fact, whoever's to blame,

you'll most likely end up losing out

because as soon as you tell your insurer about any sort of accident,

regardless of whether you're actually making a claim,

most insurance companies will respond by putting up your premium,

even if the damage wasn't your fault or, as in our next case,

you were fast asleep when it happened.

It was January, 2013, and Britain was in the grip

of severe winter weather.

Hundreds of people have spent the night in their cars

because of heavy snow across parts of Scotland,

Northern England and the Midlands.

We could badly do with a spell of settled weather,

but I can't find any sign of that on the charts.

The winds really pick up.

It's going to be a really wet, really windy night.

When Adrian Baugh arrived home that afternoon,

he parked his car in its usual spot on the drive,

and settled in for the night while the storm raged outside.

It was a very stormy night.

Strong winds and driving rain.

The car's back to looking pristine now, but that night,

the storm caused serious damage to the paintwork on the bonnet

and one of the lights was cracked.

Debris from a builder's skip across the road had been thrown

along the street and some of it had blown right into his car.

I got the neighbour to come out to see what had happened

and his builder arrived to start the day's work,

and immediately he saw what had happened.

He accepted full responsibility and apologised profusely

and said that he would sort it out with his insurance.

Safe in the knowledge that the builder would claim for the damage

on his policy, Adrian chalked it down to experience

and thought little more of it.

But, over the next few weeks, the claim dragged on,

so Adrian called his own insurance company

and asked whether they could fix it and claim the money back

when the builder's insurance paid out.

When I spoke to my own insurance, they said,

"Fine, what we'll do now is claim against his insurance

"and when they pay us, we'll sort things out with you."

Everything went to plan.

Adrian's insurance company paid for his local Audi dealer

to do the work and agreed to refund his excess.

He was told that the claim would be logged as a non-fault claim,

confirming that they knew the damage wasn't his fault.

So far as Adrian was concerned,

none of this would end up costing him a penny.

But then a few days later,

he received the renewal premium for his next year's car insurance.

And the price seemed to have jumped by almost 60%.

My original policy of ?359 went up to ?568.

Worse still, despite it being a non-fault claim,

the damage caused by debris from the builder's skip

had been logged by the insurer as Adrian's fault.

Adrian called the company straightaway,

and they promised to amend the quote.

So, he assumed the premium would fall substantially.

But when the new quote arrived it was for ?482,

still more than ?120 higher than he'd previously paid.

Which I thought was a bit exorbitant.

I did explain to them that I wasn't at all happy in no uncertain terms.

His insurance company told Adrian that because he'd made a claim,

even one for something that wasn't his fault,

he was now considered to be at greater risk

of making another claim in the future.

And thanks to that, he'd have to pay more.

They confirmed that it wouldn't affect my no claim bonus.

All of that points in my direction,

and yet the outcome was that they are going to load my premiums

for the next five years.

That really made me angry.

The company did offer to waive the cancellation fee

if he decided to cancel his policy,

but they wouldn't lower the new premium.

When we contacted Adrian's insurers, they explained that, in fact,

most of the price increase was down

to his "first year introductory discount" coming to an end.

But they acknowledged that the rest of it,

what they described as a "loading" of around 3-4%,

was simply down to the non-fault claim.

They told us that in such situations,

not only do they routinely increase premiums,

but that it's "standard practice within the insurance industry."

So just how likely is it that you too could end up paying extra

because of someone else's mistake?

Well, research by the AA shows that most car insurance companies

will bump up your premiums even after an accident

that isn't your fault.

40% of them will do it after just one non-fault claim,

but almost all of them, more than 95%, will do so

if you've made two claims for damage you didn't cause.

And while sometimes, as in Adrian's case,

they'll only hike up prices by a few percent,

most insurers will typically make you pay anything

between ten and a whopping 50% more.

Such price hikes aren't just limited to car insurance.

You've told us about non-fault claims on your home insurance

pushing up premiums, too, making many of you wonder

why you should lose out because of the actions of someone else.

But unfortunately, the industry says if you make any claim,

whoever's to blame, you'll be seen as a higher risk.

Well, there are many different factors doing an insurance quote

that are taken into account for the final premium,

and actually non-fault claims are a consideration

because statistics do show that the more non-fault claims you have,

the more likely you are to have a fault claim.

In other words, even after a non-fault claim,

you're still classed as being a higher risk,

so your premiums will go up.

You might be forgiven for thinking that in situations

where the person who is to blame has already agreed to pay out,

there may be no need for you to tell your insurer about it at all.

But that wouldn't be a good idea.

If you don't tell your insurer about an accident,

even if it wasn't your fault, it could invalidate your whole policy.

So the best advice is to try and find out your insurer's line on this

before you sign up,

because there are still some that won't charge you extra

for making a non-fault claim.

It does pay to look around at your options

and see what other quotes there are out there.

Vote with your feet, go somewhere else.

Go to your insurance broker or insurance company.

There are so many other options out there.

You shouldn't need to put up with any increase if you feel it's unfair.

Unfair is certainly how Adrian would describe what happened to him.

He just can't understand why drivers should be hit with higher charges

after a claim for which they're not to blame.

Being a no-fault claim, one wonders why there was a problem.

If it was a no-fault claim,

you'd think the whole thing would be scrubbed.

As we saw earlier in the programme, price comparison sites

have transformed the world of insurance,

encouraging many of us to turn our backs on brokers

and search for the best deals ourselves.

Now that's led to the rise

of a whole new breed of insurance company.

They're leaner, more efficient,

and able to cut costs and prices as a result.

Well, it's an approach that certainly seems to be working

for one of those companies, an outfit whose website boasts

that it's one of the fastest growing online businesses in the UK.

But some of the people who've contributed to that success

by buying policies from them have been left wondering

if perhaps one of the things that's been cut back to make it leaner

is customer service.

I've always had an enthusiasm for cars.

I even presented a programme about them.

One you may well have heard of...

Well, I don't pretend to be an expert driver

or even a particularly good one,

but I do spend an awful lot of my time driving.

But once you add together the price of petrol,

servicing and repairs, not to mention road tax and insurance,

keeping a car on the road is an expensive business.

Last year, it cost British drivers on average

almost ?3,500 to run their vehicles,

making Britain the most expensive country in the world to run a car.

And with the average cost of comprehensive car insurance cover

now standing at ?504 a year,

it's no surprise that we like to shop around for the cheapest quote.

Which is exactly what Gordon Cruickshank did

when he found a company offering insurance for much less

than his renewal quote - just ?236 for the year.

I found eCar online.

So I thought, "I'll go with them."

They were the cheapest at the time

by about ?100, so I went, "Oh, that's a good deal."

eCar, which is part of Brightside Insurance Services Ltd,

is one of a handful of car insurers who operate

as an online only company,

meaning that customers are encouraged to contact them

not by phone, but via the internet.

They say not having an expensive call centre

means they can keep their costs and your premiums down.

The website looked professional and certainly well organised,

and they made it an easy process

to actually get an insurance policy with them.

Gordon paid ?82.36 up front and the rest would be taken

in monthly instalments throughout the year by direct debit.

His premium was based on the fact

he had built up a year of no claims discount with his previous insurer.

So next he needed to send eCar the proof of that.

He forwarded it on from his previous insurer,

then went away with work for a week.

But by the time he got home,

there was a surprise from eCar waiting in his inbox.

I found an e-mail that was dated seven days previous

that if I didn't send another no claims,

because they weren't accepting the one I'd sent,

that my policy would be cancelled.

eCar had rejected Gordon's proof of no claims discount

because it was in the wrong format,

which they said meant it could have been edited by someone

other than his previous insurer.

Unfortunately for Gordon,

he only read this e-mail on the day after a response was due.

I went onto their website and I couldn't find a contact number at all

for them and what I did was respond to the e-mail they'd sent me, saying,

"Look, my previous company is quite happy for you to call them

"and they'll confirm it over the phone to you."

The company does provide a phone number for queries,

but it's a premium rate one, charging ?1.02 a minute for calls.

So he sent an e-mail instead,

hoping the situation would be swiftly resolved.

And he very quickly did get a response.

But not the one he wanted to hear.

Within half an hour of having sent that e-mail,

I got an actual letter through the post from eCar,

saying my policy was cancelled on that day.

As they hadn't had a response to the e-mail they'd sent a week ago,

eCar had already cancelled Gordon's policy.

And on top of that,

they were charging him a fee of ?75 for doing it.

I never cancelled the policy. I provided the information they wanted.

They had let me down badly, so I wasn't prepared

to pay a cancellation fee on top of what I had already paid.

But feeling the charge was unreasonable,

particularly as he'd paid almost a third of the policy cost upfront

for cover he was no longer getting, Gordon ignored the letter.

And he heard no more from eCar for several weeks...

Until they called him,

chasing the cancellation fee they insisted they were owed.

They contacted me by telephone and requested this ?75,

which I refused to pay and told them

that I was expecting money back from them,

to which he responded that he'd speak to his line supervisor

and get back to me.

But when eCar didn't call back,

Gordon felt that the matter was closed.

It wasn't until almost nine months later that Gordon received an e-mail

from eCar demanding that he pay what they described

as the "outstanding balance" on the policy

they'd told him was cancelled.

They wanted ?156.54,

and if he didn't pay up, they'd call in the debt collectors,

which is exactly what they did.

A debt collection company started contacting me

and chasing me up for the final payment, that money from eCar.

And it wasn't just, like, one call, it was calling every day and e-mails

sent to me continually and pretty much...pretty strong harassment.

Gordon tried calling both eCar and the debt collection agency,

but with no success.

He's exasperated that the initial problem

had spiralled into something much more serious.

They just wanted the money and that was it.

There was no interest in what was going on or how it happened.

The figure's increased now, I believe it's about ?190

or somewhere about there, and it's quite concerning

because it could affect my credit rating for purchasing maybe a house,

a mortgage. It's not a lot of money, I'm not saying it's a lot of money,

I could just pay it and it'd be wiped clean, but it's the principle.

We've heard other complaints about eCar and its sister company, eBike.

Like Gordon, Scott Gantley also had a problem with a no claims bonus.

But in Scott's case,

it was when he was trying to end his policy with eBike.

So he needed them to send him the proof that he needed

to get the discount with his new insurer.

I tried to get in contact with eBike Insurance for my no claims.

I sent a couple of e-mails and got an automated response.

I tried to do what it said on the e-mail.

I went onto the eBike Insurance website,

put in my policy number, and nothing came up.

So I was e-mailing back and they was still sending me

the same automated response which was getting me angrier,

because I'd already told them that it didn't work.

Scott's new insurer had given him a two-week deadline

to send them what they needed.

So in that time, Scott says he sent eBike a total of 21 e-mails -

more than one a day.

But even after all that, he still wasn't able to get a response.

I felt very let down because I was getting completely ignored

by an insurance company that I'd already paid my money to.

If I was left without insurance on my bike,

I wouldn't be able to get to work,

so I wouldn't be able to pay the bills,

and I wouldn't be able to reinsure it again to go to work.

When eBike failed to send Scott the proof of his no claims,

his new insurer cancelled his policy.

Livid that all this was because of eBike's lack of response,

Scott left a comment on the company's Facebook page

in the hope it would prompt action.

I got a response within two hours

because I'd put it on the official page.

I believe the only reason they replied to me

is because it was on a public profile.

Other than that, I still don't think they'd have replied to me now.

After Scott's very public dressing down,

eBike apologised for the inconvenience,

gave him ?25 compensation,

and did finally send the proof of his no claims discount.

But it was too late,

and Scott was forced to shop around for a new policy again.

I was very angry at their final response that I actually got,

because they said that they had a technical issue.

I thought it was going to be easier to do it through the internet,

but it turns out that it's not.

When we contacted the company behind eCar and eBike,

Brightside Insurance Services Limited,

it reiterated that while Scott should have been able to request

the proof of no claims through the website,

it was "experiencing some temporary difficulties" at the time he tried.

But the company is satisfied his complaint has been fully resolved.

As for what happened with Gordon,

eCar prides itself on

"ensuring that the details customers provide...are accurate,"

and says it's "by delivering a robust fraud process"

that it can ensure that prices are kept low.

As such, it's made clear on their website

what documents can and can't be accepted,

and Gordon sent his proof of no claims

in a form that wasn't acceptable.

The company says it isn't their normal practice

to simply cancel policies in these situations,

preferring instead to adjust premiums.

But, as "a gesture of goodwill"

it has apologised to Gordon for any upset caused,

written off the amount he'd been told he owed,

and, additionally, sent him a payment of ?25.

And although that's good news, Gordon still doesn't understand

why his communications with the company

weren't able to resolve things much sooner.

My advice to anyone if you're going to get an online insurance,

make sure you check out the reviews of the company first

before you hand over your money because once they've got it,

they're going to keep and you're going to have a job getting it back.

Here at Rip-Off Britain,

we're always ready to investigate more of your stories on any subject.

Are you confused over your bills

or just trying to wade through never-ending small print?

It's very frustrating because it makes what should be

a quite simple job a lot more complicated

and I think some people just give up and so they don't get the best deal.

Maybe you are unsure what to do when you discover you've lost out

and that so-called "great deal" has ended up costing you money.

People are buying into this, I did,

and will they be as awkward with them as they were with me?

You might have a cautionary tale of your own

and want to share the mistakes you made with us.

It upsets me an awful lot because I'm

retired and I begrudge having to pay that kind of money out.

You can write to us at...

Or send us an e-mail to...

Remember that he Rip-Off team is ready and waiting to investigate your stories.

You know, I guess it's all too easy to form the impression

that insurers will deliberately make things difficult

so they can avoid paying out.

And it's certainly the case that making a claim is not a job

that any of us really relish doing.

For a start, it means that something in our lives

has gone seriously wrong.

But also because regardless of who was at fault,

we just know that afterwards, chances are we're going to end up

paying even more money for exactly the same cover.

True. Well, all the more reason then to shop around

when it comes to choosing who to go with,

and that when you've decided on the policy that seems right for you,

you understand everything that you're getting into,

and what it does and doesn't cover.

It really can pay to read the small print

and ask lots of questions before you sign on the dotted line.

But that's where we have to leave it with all that advice.

I hope you'll keep your letters coming

and indeed your stories, so that we, and the rest of the team here,

can crack on with investigating as many of them as we can.

So until next time on Rip-Off Britain, from all of us...

Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye.