Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

> "Tim" wrote:
> > Are you trying to say that there are
> > two different types of "cancellation"?
>
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
> Yes, I think he is, and in a way he's right.
>
> Rather, there's only one "type" of cancellation, ...

Aha!

"Ronald Raygun" wrote
> ... but in one case it is achieved by amicable means, ...

Surely *both* cases are just as "amicable"?

In the one case, it is done under the
contract term "write in and we'll cancel"
and in the other case it is done under the
contract term "stop paying and we'll cancel".

"Ronald Raygun" wrote
> ... and indeed it is the insure*d* who does the cancelling.
> In the other, it is the insure*r* who does the cancelling ...

Nah - in *both* cases, it is the insure*r* who
does the cancelling; it is just that in the former
case it is the insure*d* who requests it (in
writing), and in the latter it is the insure*d*
(again) who requests it (by stopping payment).

"Ronald Raygun" wrote
> ... as a penalty, as it were ...

It's hardly a penalty when that is what
the policyholder **actually wants** !


> "Tim" wrote:
> > If, according to the contract, the insurer *will*
> > cancel the insurance on non-payment of
> > premium, then why shouldn't the policyholder
> > avail him/herself of that contract provision?
>

"Ronald Raygun" wrote
> To avoid being seen to be in breach of the agreement.
> It's an honour thing. It's just not, erm, British.

How can it be a "breach" when it is
specifically allowed for within the contract?

Both sides know that, according to the contract, if the
policyholder stops paying then the insurance is terminated.

Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

"Tim" wrote
> Both sides know that, according to the contract, if the
> policyholder stops paying then the insurance is terminated.

.... and this holds just as much as:-
"if the policyholder continues paying then the insurance continues..."

Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Tim wrote:

> "Tim" wrote
>> Both sides know that, according to the contract, if the
>> policyholder stops paying then the insurance is terminated.
>
> ... and this holds just as much as:-
> "if the policyholder continues paying then the insurance continues..."

But the latter isn't true. There will exist other circumstances
under which the insurer may decline to continue cover.

Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Tim wrote:

> "Ronald Raygun" wrote
>>
>> Rather, there's only one "type" of cancellation, ...
>> ... but in one case it is achieved by amicable means, ...
>
> Surely *both* cases are just as "amicable"?
>
> In the one case, it is done under the
> contract term "write in and we'll cancel"
> and in the other case it is done under the
> contract term "stop paying and we'll cancel".

No, the second "contract term" doesn't exist as such,
there will be a term which *obliges* the insured to keep
paying, and it provides the insurer with a remedy of
withdrawing cover (by cancelling the contract) in the
event of the insured vilating that term.

> "Ronald Raygun" wrote
>> ... and indeed it is the insure*d* who does the cancelling.
>> In the other, it is the insure*r* who does the cancelling ...
>
> Nah - in *both* cases, it is the insure*r* who
> does the cancelling; it is just that in the former
> case it is the insure*d* who requests it (in
> writing), and in the latter it is the insure*d*
> (again) who requests it (by stopping payment).

In both cases the insurer will withdraw cover, but the two cases
differ in which party cancels the agreement.

> "Ronald Raygun" wrote
>> ... as a penalty, as it were ...
>
> It's hardly a penalty when that is what
> the policyholder **actually wants** !

Yes it is. It is an abnormal termination. You might as
well say it isn't a penalty if you get sent to prison if
that's what you want (free room and board, TV, etc, and
otherwise no means to pay for them, so you go in for a bit
of petty crime and make sure you get caught, etc).

>> "Tim" wrote:
>> > If, according to the contract, the insurer *will*
>> > cancel the insurance on non-payment of
>> > premium, then why shouldn't the policyholder
>> > avail him/herself of that contract provision?
>
> "Ronald Raygun" wrote
>> To avoid being seen to be in breach of the agreement.
>> It's an honour thing. It's just not, erm, British.
>
> How can it be a "breach" when it is
> specifically allowed for within the contract?

It is not uncommon for contracts to expressly say that you
most not do such-and-such, but if you do it anyway, then
I get to do so-and-so which I wouldn't normally be allowed
to do. They're generally knows as penalty clauses.

> Both sides know that, according to the contract, if the
> policyholder stops paying then the insurance is terminated.

The effect may be the same, but the technical process is different.

Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

> > "Ronald Raygun" wrote
> >> Rather, there's only one "type" of cancellation, ...
> >> ... but in one case it is achieved by amicable means, ...
> >
> "Tim" wrote:
> > Surely *both* cases are just as "amicable"?
> >
> > In the one case, it is done under the
> > contract term "write in and we'll cancel"
> > and in the other case it is done under the
> > contract term "stop paying and we'll cancel".
>
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
> No, the second "contract term" doesn't exist as such,
> there will be a term which *obliges* the insured
> to keep paying, and it provides the insurer with a
> remedy of withdrawing cover (by cancelling the
> contract) in the event of the insured vilating that term.

But the term *obliges* the insurer to cancel, when
premiums are stopped! They have no discretion...


> > "Ronald Raygun" wrote
> >> ... and indeed it is the insure*d* who does the cancelling.
> >> In the other, it is the insure*r* who does the cancelling ...
> >
> "Tim" wrote:
> > Nah - in *both* cases, it is the insure*r* who
> > does the cancelling; it is just that in the former
> > case it is the insure*d* who requests it (in
> > writing), and in the latter it is the insure*d*
> > (again) who requests it (by stopping payment).
>
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
> In both cases the insurer will withdraw cover, but the
> two cases differ in which party cancels the agreement.

That's arguable.

In both cases, it is the insure*d* who initiates the
cancellation - by either writing in, or stopping payment.

In both cases, it is the insure*r* who actually
completes the cancellation (in response to either
the written letter or the premiums being stopped).


> "Tim" wrote:
> > Both sides know that, according to the contract, if the
> > policyholder stops paying then the insurance is terminated.
>
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
> The effect may be the same, but the technical process is different.

The OP wasn't bothered by the technical
process; he's only interested in the "effect"!

Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

In message <> writes
>Nah - in *both* cases, it is the insure*r* who
>does the cancelling;


> it is just that in the former
>case it is the insure*d* who requests it (in
>writing),
No the cancellation is on the part of the insured. The insurer then
ceases to provide cover and ceases to collect the DD.
>and in the latter it is the insure*d*
>(again) who requests it (by stopping payment).

No, in this case the insurer cancels the policy and also ceases the
cover.

>
>"Ronald Raygun" wrote
>> ... as a penalty, as it were ...
>
>It's hardly a penalty when that is what
>the policyholder **actually wants** !

How does the insurer know that? It could be a mistake, it could be just
that the insured wants to change bank accounts.
>> To avoid being seen to be in breach of the agreement.
>> It's an honour thing. It's just not, erm, British.
>
>How can it be a "breach" when it is
>specifically allowed for within the contract?

Quote?
>
>Both sides know that, according to the contract, if the
>policyholder stops paying then the insurance is terminated.

How is cancelling a DD 'stops paying'? If you look at the contract you
will see that merely cancelling a DD is not 'not paying'.
--
John Boyle

Re: Cancelling DDs & insurane (was:Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed)

Alan Frame wrote:

> Ronald Raygun <> wrote:
>>
>> If he stops payment, this does not send an unambiguous signal
>> to the insurer, who sill not know whether the stoppage was
>> accidental or deliberate.
>
> That's why I phoned them.
>
>> That why it's expected, in the latter
>> case, that the intention be communicated explicitly. And of
>> course it ought to be in writing, to forestall the "cancellation"
>> being initiated by some prankster.
>
> True, but I did give 'em the policy number, and they said they were
> recording the call...

Just what is your problem with writing? It's cheaper than phoning,
but I'll concede, if you're into that sort of thing, less entertaining
than speaking to a call centre.

And my hypothetical prankster could have easily discovered the policy
number.

>> > The OP wasn't bothered by the technical
>> > process; he's only interested in the "effect"!
>>
>> That's because he's obviously a bounder and a cad who isn't bothered
>> by the nicety, or rather lack thereof, of dishonouring an agreement.
>
> OI! Do you think InsCos care about niceties and never dishonour
> agreements? :-/

InsCos always act in utmost good faith. :-)

> Anyway, it was curtesey

what, like in front of the Queen?

> call to 'em as I was moving to a CAM (& checking
> c/a DDs) and didn't need the 6-quid a month term cover any more.
>
> It's almost as amusing as vehicle InsCos that have *no* grace period,
> and fail to come up with a competative renewal - I had one call-centre
> droid claim that it would be illegal of me to fail to send back their
> /unsolicited/ cover note if I didn't renew with them.

He may well turn out to have been right, and it probably says in the
T&Cs that they will send you this, in which case you couldn't really
it was unsolicited.

Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

> > "Tim" wrote
> >> Both sides know that, according to the contract, if the
> >> policyholder stops paying then the insurance is terminated.
> >
> "Tim" wrote:
> > ... and this holds just as much as:-
> > "if the policyholder continues paying then the insurance continues..."
>
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
> But the latter isn't true. There will exist other circumstances
> under which the insurer may decline to continue cover.

They will be listed as exceptions where I placed "..." above!

Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

"Ronald Raygun" wrote
> If he stops payment, this does not send an unambiguous
> signal to the insurer, who sill not know whether the stoppage
> was accidental or deliberate. That why it's expected, in the
> latter case, that the intention be communicated explicitly...

Which is why he telephoned the insurer...

"Ronald Raygun" wrote
> ... And of course it ought to be in writing, to forestall
> the "cancellation" being initiated by some prankster.

How would a prankster manage to get the Direct Debit cancelled?

> "Tim" wrote:
> > In both cases, it is the insure*r* who actually
> > completes the cancellation (in response to either
> > the written letter or the premiums being stopped).
>
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
> Well, that depends on what you mean by cancellation...

Exactly!

Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Tim wrote:

> "Ronald Raygun" wrote
>> If he stops payment, this does not send an unambiguous
>> signal to the insurer, who sill not know whether the stoppage
>> was accidental or deliberate. That why it's expected, in the
>> latter case, that the intention be communicated explicitly...
>
> Which is why he telephoned the insurer...
>
> "Ronald Raygun" wrote
>> ... And of course it ought to be in writing, to forestall
>> the "cancellation" being initiated by some prankster.
>
> How would a prankster manage to get the Direct Debit cancelled?

By doing so over the phone and pretending to be the insured.

Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

> > "Ronald Raygun" wrote
> >> ... And of course it ought to be in writing, to forestall
> >> the "cancellation" being initiated by some prankster.
> >
> "Tim" wrote:
> > How would a prankster manage to get the Direct Debit cancelled?
>
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
> By doing so over the phone and pretending to be the insured.

How would he obtain the insured's banking security
info, in order to authenticate himself to the bank?

Re: Barclaycard....Advice needed

Tim wrote:

>> > "Ronald Raygun" wrote
>> >> ... And of course it ought to be in writing, to forestall
>> >> the "cancellation" being initiated by some prankster.
>> >
>> "Tim" wrote:
>> > How would a prankster manage to get the Direct Debit cancelled?
>>
> "Ronald Raygun" wrote
>> By doing so over the phone and pretending to be the insured.
>
> How would he obtain the insured's banking security
> info, in order to authenticate himself to the bank?

The secret number is the wife's birth date. Everyone knows that.
And of course the wife is in on the prank and knows where to
find the husband's account numbers and the details of all his DDs.