Are you a sitting duck for insurers?

The usual position from Which? is silence. For the record, everything I say is supported with direct evidence. I would further add that John Lewis’ Chairman, Charles Mayfield, gave a personal assurance that I would receive comprehensive responses to each point of complaint within 21 days. When that didn’t happen Mr Mayfield refused to respond further. I subsequently made subject access requests. Had Mr Mayfield honoured his promise, information would have come to light far sooner.

I worked with a Which? researcher who saw the evidence and wrote the story for publication. When John Lewis responded with carefully crafted corporate spin that avoided dealing with the core issues, the researcher said he would return to John Lewis with further questions. It was at this point that everything changed suddenly: the researcher left; the story was dropped; and Which? began to behave just like those corporate interests it claims it exists to make us as powerful as.

I have tried very hard to ask Which? to investigate these matters privately without success. As one of the 7,000 Ordinary member ‘shareholders’ in Consumers’ Association Ltd, I wrote to the trustees outlining my concerns about the conduct of Which? Ltd. Regrettably, my letter was not sent to them. Perhaps ironic, given the Which? campaign to improve complaint handling in public services.

[This comment has been tweaked to align with our community guidelines. Thanks, mods.]

Patrick, I felt my comments aligned with the general theme of insurance practice and transparency raised by the CEO, as this is also at the root of the unresolved issues with John Lewis insurance about which he is aware. That’s how conversations tend to work. Do you also intend to enforce the guidelines in respect of other contributions to this conversation that do not specifically mention motor insurance?

For the record, the nature of your tweaks might suggest to others that I have made statements which are wrong. While they may be inconvenient, they are correct and, as Which? knows, are supported with direct evidence. Your edits therefore amount to censorship.

I note you don’t refute my summary of events; it is the case that once your researcher became suddenly ‘confused’ and left, Which? worked at some length to avoid questioning John Lewis about why my claim was declined. As Which? knows, the FOS considers that is a matter for those involved to explain. I wonder why this particular Which? recommended provider prefers silence and why Which? considers that situation to be acceptable especially when it is clear this is a far more widespread consumer issue.

It’s the concepts of ethics and integrity that are frustrated. If one cannot trust that a Which? recommended provider will behave honestly then what is the point of the icon scheme beyond generating income? And what are the potential consequences for the standing of Which? in failing to act?

All that said, I shall of course respect the rules you choose to enforce in regard to my postings in this thread. Perhaps my concerns can instead be moved to begin a new conversation in relation to the WRP scheme and governance?

[This comment has been tweaked to align with our community guidelines. Thanks, mods.]

Thanks Patrick, the stark issue is that a serious consumer matter has been overlooked – one that is not only limited to me – involving an organisation that Which? Ltd endorses and receives income from. It’s also the case that I had responded to a call for help from Which? because Legal Expenses insurance was a matter of concern to members.

My statements are correct and fully supported by direct evidence already known to Which? and John Lewis. As I am concerned that your edits might suggest otherwise, I would like to understand your reasoning. Perhaps we can continue that conversation offline?

I know the management consider Which? to be a £100m business, but ultimately it is a charity with specific objectives along with a duty to maintain public trust and confidence.  It is to Consumers’ Association Ltd that I address my concerns; as a member of the company I understand that its work requires financing, but I would fail in my duty if I did not raise concerns regarding reputational and governance issues about which I have personal experience and hold a stack of direct evidence.  The only reason I do so publically is because it’s been made impossible for me to do so privately. I hope readers will understand that my motives are to protect an organisation I have supported without question for 37 years and to help prevent others from suffering the utter despair of being a sitting duck for the deliberate refusal of a valid insurance claim at the point of greatest need. If sneaky insurance fees are worthy of conversation it is difficult to conceive of any reasons why sneaky insurance claim irregularities should pass without proper scrutiny and comment.

I’ll head over to the member area; anyone who may be interested is most welcome to test the veracity of my assertions and to judge the evidence for themselves.

malcolm -Admiral =came 26 th out of Which,s list . Well they got that bang on the money Admiral has just been exposed “up to no good” elsewhere on the web I wont go into it as some might not be happy ,the customers complaining certainly arent !

I’ve been with Nationwide (LV) for a while and they perform well. One car is through a broker who, for a small fee, shop around each year and advise which company they recommend. Works for me.

I used to have a friend who was an insurance broker and he did not charge a penny. Sadly he moved out of insurance. It’s just the last few years I have encountered companies pushing up prices.

I assume, unless your friend did you a favour, he would have received undisclosed commission. He had to make a living.

I know of two other mutual friends who benefitted in the same way. It was offered, not asked for.

DT “Given that Which? has entered into the mortgage market perhaps the insurance broking industry is next .
This is splendid work for a charity”

It is a commercial operation that aims to increase Which?’s income (and, no doubt, bonuses); at least that is my understanding of the way Which mortgage advisers works. it seems also to be currently losing £4.2 M (last financial year) if I read the accounts correctly. I don’t know where the money comes from but I’d rather they put it into product testing. Why cannot they simply assess “trusted mortgage advisers” as they do “trusted traders” and their “recommended providers” of financial products?

Patrick, thanks for the reply. I have not a problem with Which? entering into sound, low risk, commercial ventures to add to its profits. However I personally believe they should not duplicate equivalent operations in a commercial market unless those operations are inadequate or not acting in consumers’ interests. So for mortgages I would have thought Which? could identify sufficient brokers under a “trusted advisers” scheme rather than set up a parallel operation that at present is costing Which? £4.2 M a year (£5.8 M 2013-14). India cost £1.7M that year with other subsidiaries losing £15M.

So I suppose I am questioning Which?’s ability in these areas, resulting in considerable loss to its core business of protecting UK consumers.

As long as the income generated from trusted schemes etc. has no dependency upon any relationship with Which? and is not used to determine incentives – either could give rise to a conflict of interest – then they do work for the benefit of consumers, I totally agree.

I do hope I have not misunderstood the accounts but please tell me where I have. Perhaps I am not adept at modern business but I would have thought a growing income from members’ subscriptions – currently £94.6M – could fund Which?’s activities adequately without taking on the very clear risks of some commercial operations.

Patrick, I really think comments on this might be better aired on the Which? Community forum – except it seems so very underused. If you would prefer they were not aired here I am quite happy for them to be edited or removed.

Thanks Patrick. On car insurance, my policy with Nationwide lists clearly the following charges: cancelled policy £40 (refund for unused period), change of driver or vehicle £15, correcting information that has been supplied incorrectly £10. My other policy is through a broker and they charge£10 each for arranging a new policy, renewal, mid-term adjustments, replacement or duplicate certificates; mid-term cancellation £15 and any refund is made less commission. These seem not unreasonable, and are not hidden.

Renewal was easy and straightforward – NW premium was little different to last year and my broker automatically shopped around and again got a premium from a reputable company that is a little more than last year but quite acceptable.

Patrick – Just to clarify and expand you answer Which? is 100% owned bythe Consumers’ Association Ltd which is a registered charity. Most of the adverts for staff at Which? mention it is a charity.

The funding of the organisation is primarily 80% +? from the traditional subscriptions to the magazines. These have grown from one to four and it is expensive now if you wish to keep abreast of news by buying all four. However it is the very profitable part of the business as acknowledged by our CEO Peter Vicary-Smith.

Other sources of income are money from pricerunner.com and from companies that pay to exhibit the Best Buy logo however the total of these sources is not shown in the Accounts. and at the recent AGM these details were not provided in response to a direct question.

The income from magazines have funded these new commercial ventures including the failed publishing venture in India where over £14m was lost . This venture was closed last year.

I trust this clarifies the legal status for the readers. The organisation is not perfect in what it does and in it’s governance but it is currently the best thing we have.

I have made proposals for CAWiki where subjects such as this are information for “like a Wikipedia article” where the very useful and pertinent bits of good information can be plucked out and stored in a curated article.

And like the genuine Wikipedia easy to navigate with robust links.

Currently Which? is rather like the Compuserve of old where it tried to maintin a walled garden and rarely credits useful outside resources. It also seems to operate at a middling level with no links to detailed analysis nor an extremely simple explanation of car insurance and how it works. So it seems to aim to miss both ends of the market by not offering the ability to read an article at a level comfortable to readers.