NUD cancelled policy cos of paying by cheque!!

[Son of Shoestring]

There was an article about this in The Observer today. Not many insurers in the UK actually use it, but of those that do, they all say that they don't rely soley on the results of the voice risk analysis program when deciding whether to reject a claim. They only use it to determine whether they need to question the claimant further.

 

Yes, of course CVSA is used in conjunction with other technology and techniques. The same might very well be said for the US torturers at Gitmo who use CVSA as part of their overall interrogation armoury.

 

The important point to make here is that no one can be subjected to a lie detector test (polygraph) without their consent. Voice Stress Analysis claims to do the same thing and yet the Insurance industry use it without gaining specific consent from (or even informing) their customer. This arguably contravenes people's human rights.

 

You also keep saying that the insurance-related opinions of insurance workers on this forum are biased. The same could be said of you, as you have had a claim rejected and you are angry about it.

 

This is, of course, an assumption on your part and thus demonstrates the lack of accuracy that you appear to adhere to. In the case of the other thread I posted in, the claim in question, is not mine but someone who I am helping.

 

The reason I'm on this forum is because I do care about consumer rights, and I try to give people advice when I'm able to do so. I am also against the mis-selling of policies and any other bad practices that go on in our industry. I won't defend the industry for bad things, but if you've heard any lies about it, I'm going to explain you the truth.

 

The reason I am on the forum amounts to the same rationale as yours -- although somewhat broader in scope, because I post on other subjects besides insurance. Bad practises, of which there are a huge amount, need to be pointed out and, indeed, stamped out -- but that won't happpen in reality (there is no effective regulation except on those occasions when their is a large public outcry and the need for a PR campaign arises where heads must fall as a result [usually junior heads]).

 

The "truth" is not quite so straightforward and prosaic as you believe it to be. In fact, it has many deeper levels than you are aware of. Let's say that such "understandings" that occur behind closed doors, are beyond your "pay grade".

 

Shoestring

[Son of Shoestring]

I’ve now had the time to read the Observer article on CVSA in more detail. I found it to be mildly biased to the extent that it subtly emphasises the effectiveness of CVSA used in the “claimant Dave” example used at the beginning of the article. The effectiveness of this technology is a very long way from the infallibility proponents claim.

 

If Observer journo’s haunt these forums scavenging for material to fill their work quota, they could at least do a decent job of objective investigation other than making a couple of phone calls to the friendly bods at the IFB.

 

The article focuses on the technology used by a firm named Digilog that was developed by the Israeli security forces. While that may be correct, it should be pointed out that the technology was pioneered by Dektor Counterintelligence and Security Inc., a private US security company that was founded by Allan J Bell Jr., a former Lt. Colonel in the US Army’s Counterinteligence Division (CID) and former cold warrior with the CID stationed in Berlin back in the days when that German city was “spook central” of the cold war. Colonel Bell was also later involved in the subsequent investigation (some argue the “cover-up”) assassination of US President John F Kennedy.

 

Today, arguments flow back and forth concerning the exact nature of the technology with opponents calling it an unreliable “lie detector”, while supporters and developers claim it is a “truth verification” package.

 

These ridiculous “hair splitting” arguments apart, the technology is deployed on individuals without their express consent or knowledge, a fact that must make it a candidate for contravening human rights.

 

It is said of the technology that there are “no known countermeasures to it” although the simple expedient of routing telephone calls through a home computer using an electronic voice modulating software package might be a cheap and effective countermeasure.

 

The TUC, which vehemently oppose the use of CVSA by the Department of Work and Pensions on welfare claimants, consider the technology to be particularly open to countermeasures and list several techniques in their article on their website (Trades Union Congress - TUC - Trades Union Congress - Error.

[mfpa]

The FSA states that each and every insurance sale must be clear, fair, and not misleading.

 

I have yet to do business with an insurer or broker who uses language that is clear and not misleading.

[mfpa]

Also, I have a friend who used to be insured with a company that specialises in breakdown services. He found he could not find a current insurance certificate when he had to produce one, so he phoned the insurer. They informed him they had not renewed his insurance policy when it expired and assured him the payments they had since direct debited from his bank account would be returned. He got no fine but still got points on his licence because it is apparently the driver's responsibility every moment that he drives to ensure he is still covered.

[LemonTwist]

Also, I have a friend who used to be insured with a company that specialises in breakdown services. He found he could not find a current insurance certificate when he had to produce one, so he phoned the insurer. They informed him they had not renewed his insurance policy when it expired and assured him the payments they had since direct debited from his bank account would be returned. He got no fine but still got points on his licence because it is apparently the driver's responsibility every moment that he drives to ensure he is still covered.

 

It is true that it is the driver's repsonsibility to ensure they are covered. However, it sounds like really bad service from the insurer (whichever one it was) that they forgot to renew the policy. Was your friend offered any kind of compensation, other than the premium being refunded?

I think that if your friend had had an accident at the time, the insurer woud've been required to pay out the claim anyway, since he had paid the premium so contract law would have required it.

[BADGER 69]

I think that you're right LemonTwist. Furthure more I think that as they had taken the money a contract did exist. The friend had fulfilled their part. Consideration ( payment) had been given and intention was there. It was just a failure of the insurance company to issue the certificate. The lack of a certificate does not mean that there is no contract. They in effect were trying to void the contract but they had accepted the consideration.

 

I think it was wrong for him to be found guilty and be awared penalty points. He had insurance. I think that if it had ended up in court about whether he did or did not have insurance it would have be held that infact he did have insurance.

[mfpa]

No compensation, just the refund.

 

The magistrate was sympathetic: imposed no fine and the minimum number of points he could for the offence. IIRC the issue wasn't whether or not he was insured, just failure to produce a valid insurance certificate when required to do so.

[sb2675]

This topic was closed on 09 March 2019.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group