1 reviews | Active since Sept 2015
Cancellation by counteroffer
I got a quote from King Price (KP) requiring a tracker but I got another quote from a competitor with no tracker required & cheaper than that of KP.I then accepted the cheaper quote and reversed the premium debited by KP and called them to cancel the policy & informed them that I reversed the premium deducted. They offered to retain me and Steven Seane from their Retentions requested the quote from the competitor for their Actuaries to make comparison and using his words \ to compare apple with Apple thereby by reading every single word from the competitor quote". He assured me that the Actuaries are very accurate in terms of their comparison. He revised the premium and during our recorded conversation I asked him about the impact in the premium if I were to put a tracker and he said \"" honestly and genuinely speaking it will have no impact on the premium\"". He did not inform me that tracker was compulsory under KP regardless of the competitor's policy not requiring it which make theirs uncompetitive. I was hijacked in July 2015 and KP rejected my claim based on first quote & I argued that that counteroffer kills original quote. KP what is counteroffer & impact on the original offer"""
Thank you for your comments and allowing us the opportunity to respond. We note that as per your complaint you refer to a quote which is in fact a policy that you accepted cover on. At point of sale you were advised that your theft and hijack cover was conditional upon a tracking device being installed which you accepted. This requirement was noted on your schedule. At a later stage after acceptance of your policy and its terms you called to advise that you had obtained a cheaper quote, we then assisted you by revising your premium, this however in no way changed the terms of the policy in place. After the reduction in premium you were sent an updated schedule which also reiterated the tracking devise as a requirement.
We trust the above will bring clarity.
Royal regards
The kings court
Thank you for your comments and allowing us the opportunity to respond. We note that as per your complaint you refer to a quote which is in fact a policy that you accepted cover on. At point of sale you were advised that your theft and hijack cover was conditional upon a tracking device being installed which you accepted. This requirement was noted on your schedule. At a later stage after acceptance of your policy and its terms you called to advise that you had obtained a cheaper quote, we then assisted you by revising your premium, this however in no way changed the terms of the policy in place. After the reduction in premium you were sent an updated schedule which also reiterated the tracking devise as a requirement.
We trust the above will bring clarity.
Royal regards
The kings court