# If you are insured with Setanta Insurance



## Brendan Burgess (17 Apr 2014)

You are no longer covered, and need to take out a new policy immediately.

http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2014/0417/609487-setanta-insurance-liquidation/


----------



## PaddyBloggit (17 Apr 2014)

Rang my broker. They don't know whether I'm covered or not. They told me to hang tough.

Just rang the Central Bank and they read me a statement. I am covered until I get an official cancellation notice from Setanta.


----------



## Sunny (17 Apr 2014)

PaddyBloggit said:


> Rang my broker. They don't know whether I'm covered or not. They told me to hang tough.
> 
> Just rang the Central Bank and they read me a statement. I am covered until I get an official cancellation notice from Setanta.


 
Might not be much good to you if they can't pay their claims.

I see mention being made that this might lead to a claim being made to the Irish Insurance Compensation Fund as well which culd mean yet another levy. Why? They were regulated in Malta and will be liquidated in Malta. I would have thought the fund was only responsible for Irish regulated entities.


----------



## Time (17 Apr 2014)

I can see the MIBI being saddled with any open claims outstanding.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (17 Apr 2014)

I wouldn't hang at all. 

They will not be paying claims.  Or more correctly, there is a big risk that they won't be paying claims. 

You should see about getting replacement cover immediately, especially if you don't have long to go to renewal.

Brendan


----------



## pc7 (17 Apr 2014)

Does anyone know if you have insuremyvan cover was that Setanta? Just received this email, thank heavens for that

[FONT=&quot]I would like to personally *[FONT=&quot]reassure[/FONT]* you that, at *Insuremyvan.ie*, *[FONT=&quot]none of our clients have been or will be affected[/FONT]* by this. We have never placed cover for any of our clients with Setanta Insurances.[/FONT]


----------



## RainyDay (17 Apr 2014)

Seems bizarre that this kind of situation is prevented by regulation.

Is there no regulatory oversight that ensures that customers who have paid for insurance once don't have to pay for it a second time?


----------



## PaddyBloggit (17 Apr 2014)

I have taken out a new policy and cancelled Setanta.

No point in being covered legally if the money ain't there to cover any potential claims.

I made sure that the insurer is regulated by the Central Bank this time!


----------



## Brendan Burgess (17 Apr 2014)

RainyDay said:


> Seems bizarre that this kind of situation is prevented by regulation.
> 
> Is there no regulatory oversight that ensures that customers who have paid for insurance once don't have to pay for it a second time?



Companies go bust all the time.

What is bizarre is that the Irish taxpayer bailed out the policyholders of PMPA, ICI and Quinn.


----------



## imogen (17 Apr 2014)

Obviously I'm just a stupid consumer Brendan, but I thought the point of financial regulators was to stop this kind of thing (insolvent trading of insurers)? 

I am really off to find that I will have to pay twice for insurance that I secured through a broker that is regulated by the professional association. The broker cannot tell me if it is safe to even drive the van. They will not be able to get any quotes until sometime tomorrow.


----------



## Ravima (17 Apr 2014)

Irish taxpayer had to cough up for ICI, PMPA and Quinn. Interestingly, Irish taxpayer also looks after the UK policyholders of Quinn.

When the UK company Independent went bust, the UK authorities did NOT look after the Irish policyholders.

I presume that the Maltese taxpayer will do the honourable thing here and look after us??????????????


----------



## Brendan Burgess (17 Apr 2014)

imogen said:


> Obviously I'm just a stupid consumer Brendan, but I thought the point of financial regulators was to stop this kind of thing (insolvent trading of insurers)?



Understandable view, but the role of the regulators is to regulate and not to guarantee. 

Brendan


----------



## RainyDay (18 Apr 2014)

Brendan Burgess said:


> What is bizarre is that the Irish taxpayer bailed out the policyholders of PMPA, ICI and Quinn.



Did the State bailout the policyholders, or the owners of ICI? Or maybe both. I can't quite recall the detail. 



Brendan Burgess said:


> Understandable view, but the role of the regulators is to regulate and not to guarantee.



I would expect the State/regulator to be able to protect policyholders. 

If your holiday company goes bust while you're abroad, the State/regulator has a bonding system in place to get you home. 

If someone has paid for their insurance for a year in a regulated business, I would expect that there is a facility to ensure that you don't have to pay twice.


----------



## johnwilliams (18 Apr 2014)

is there a list of other insurance companies from  overseas operating here that could end up in  this position leaving us  uninsured ?


----------



## Megan (18 Apr 2014)

johnwilliams said:


> is there a list of other insurance companies from  overseas operating here that could end up in  this position leaving us  uninsured ?



I would like to know this too. I am insured with Setanta through a broker. I wonder now why my broker recommended a company to me that isn't covered by Irish law. Have I any comeback from my broker?


----------



## Time (18 Apr 2014)

No, the broker is covered.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (18 Apr 2014)

RainyDay said:


> Did the State bailout the policyholders, or the owners of ICI? Or maybe both. I can't quite recall the detail.



The policyholders and the people with claims against them were paid in full at the expense of the taxpayer.

It was a  limited liability company which was a subsidiary of AIB.  AIB was happy to let it go into liquidation, but I think it was persuaded to contribute to the cost of bailing out the policyholders. 





> I would expect the State/regulator to be able to protect policyholders.


They try to protect them through regulation. But banks, insurance companies and other businesses do go bust. If the state guarantees every company, we would be in an even bigger mess than we are at present.




> If your holiday company goes bust while you're abroad, the State/regulator has a bonding system in place to get you home.


I don't think so. Each holiday company must be bonded, i.e. they have an insurance policy in place, so that if they go bust, the insurance company pays for the customer to get home.  




> If someone has paid for their insurance for a year in a regulated business, I would expect that there is a facility to ensure that you don't have to pay twice.


I wouldn't.  Some depositors put their money in the Post Office because they did not trust Anglo or Irish Nationwide who were paying much higher rates. Likewise, some people are wary of insurance companies which are not well known.  The likes of Standard Life and Rabo make a big deal of their financial stability.  They would take far more risks if they knew that the state would bail out every failed business.


Don't forget it's not some "external" state. It's the taxpayer. I  am paying enough for the bailout of Anglo's and Irish Nationwide's depositors.  I certainly don't want to be bailing you out for your foreign holidays or for the losses you suffered from your cheap insurance.


----------



## PaddyBloggit (19 Apr 2014)

Not for me ... just as competitive as the rest. I just accepted my broker's advice and went with Setanta.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (19 Apr 2014)

sahd said:


> They probably paid the biggest commission.



Very interesting point.  If so, then I think that the brokers should refund the commission to the client.


----------



## RainyDay (20 Apr 2014)

Brendan Burgess said:


> I don't think so. Each holiday company must be bonded, i.e. they have an insurance policy in place, so that if they go bust, the insurance company pays for the customer to get home.
> 
> 
> I wouldn't.  Some depositors put their money in the Post Office because they did not trust Anglo or Irish Nationwide who were paying much higher rates. Likewise, some people are wary of insurance companies which are not well known.  The likes of Standard Life and Rabo make a big deal of their financial stability.  They would take far more risks if they knew that the state would bail out every failed business.
> ...




I see the point, but I'm not sure it's fair to expect your average car insurance customer to be able to assess the financial strength of a Maltese company. 

Maybe we need some kind of bonding, or insurance of insurers? I know the cost of this will ultimately be borne by the consumers, but perhaps it is an inevitable cost.

Is there a better role around advertising? Is this where the small print of 'Regulated by the Irish Financial Services Authority' or whatever comes into play, with perhaps a more meaningful message for consumers?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (20 Apr 2014)

Hi RainyDay

I had not heard of this company before. I gather that it sold all its insurance via brokers to commercial customers.  

Maybe the brokers should have raised questions about the regulation? 

I don't want to bail out personal depositors or personal insurance customers, but I certainly don't want to bail out the commercial insurance customers of a foreign regulated insurance company.


----------



## RainyDay (20 Apr 2014)

Good point - are brokers required to consider risk as part of their recommendations to their clients? It would also be interesting to hear more about the commissions offered by this crowd, relative to the rest of the market.


----------



## seantheman (20 Apr 2014)

Brendan Burgess said:


> I don't think so. Each holiday company must be bonded, i.e. they have an insurance policy in place, so that if they go bust, the insurance company pays for the customer to get home.


So could we ask through regulation that the insurance Companies be bonded in the same manner?



Brendan Burgess said:


> I gather that it sold all its insurance via brokers to commercial customers.


Not true, My Sister and BIL had both their cars insured with Setanta through a broker


----------



## Brendan Burgess (20 Apr 2014)

Sorry Seán 

I had meant to say 

Sold all its insurance to via brokers 
to mostly commercial companies . 

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess (20 Apr 2014)

Interesting to see from this thread back in 2008 that they were extremely cheap

*Setanta Insurances - Askaboutmoney.com*

From reading this thread anyone who has been with them for a few years has saved a lot of money, so they have probably made up for their lost premium this year.  Of course, if they have an unpaid claim, they will probably be a net loser.


http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showpost.php?p=931403&postcount=6


http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showpost.php?p=1249726&postcount=2


They also seem to have been  less fussy about endorsements on one's license


http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showpost.php?p=799413&postcount=13

And they kept NCBs alive for longer

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showpost.php?p=1227582&postcount=8


----------



## RainyDay (21 Apr 2014)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Of course, if they have an unpaid claim, they will probably be a net loser.


The unpaid claim would be for someone claiming against a driver previously insured with Setanta, right? Rather than the Setanta customer.

Would the MIBI cover such claims?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (21 Apr 2014)

Hi RainyDay

If you crash into me, my claim is against you. Your insurance company indemnifies you.  If your insurance company is gone bust, I will pursue you for damages.  

If you can't or won't pay, the MIBI will pay for personal injuries only, but they will try to recover the money from you. 

If you crash your white van into a wall and you have comprehensive insurance, you may have a claim against Setanta, but if they are gone bust, you will lose out.


----------



## roker (22 Apr 2014)

Many years ago the PMPA insurance went bust, leaving thousands of motorist without insurance. A system was supposed to have been set up so it would never happen again, what went wrong? Could 123 be next because they are very competitive?


----------



## Bronte (22 Apr 2014)

Brendan Burgess said:


> AIB was happy to let it go into liquidation, but I think it was persuaded to contribute to the cost of bailing out the policyholders.
> 
> 
> . They would take far more risks if they knew that the state would bail out every failed business.
> ...


 
AIB paid nothing in their own insurance scandal, and if they did, it was the banks customers who paid.  Banks never pay anything.  

And speaking of risks, most of the Irish banks took hugh risks during the boom, and they all still exist.  So they might operate as a commercial enterprise, but they have the ultimate state guarantee.  And we've yet to see anyone jailed for any of that debacle. 

In relation to Setanta, only some people will have lost a whole years policy, but many more will only be losing a few months, depends when the policy was up for renewal.  Any of those who didn't pay up front should now stop the direct debits etc.  They will be at no loss at all.  

There's been a lot of fuss about this company being based in Malta, but does that actually make any difference?  If they were Irish based so what, they are bust all the same.  Personally after what we've experienced of Irish regulation I'd say the Maltese are a better bet.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (22 Apr 2014)

roker said:


> Could 123 be next because they are very competitive?



123 is a broker but is part of RSA, a very large insurance company worldwide. 

A disaster in Ireland would be met by the parent company.


----------



## peteb (22 Apr 2014)

RainyDay said:


> Good point - are brokers required to consider risk as part of their recommendations to their clients? It would also be interesting to hear more about the commissions offered by this crowd, relative to the rest of the market.



No.  They aren't.  And the commission was no more than any other motor insurer out there.  They just happened to be particularly cheap for certain criteria.  They offered open drive, driving other vans, and other little bits.


----------



## RainyDay (22 Apr 2014)

Brendan Burgess said:


> 123 is a broker but is part of RSA, a very large insurance company worldwide.
> 
> A disaster in Ireland would be met by the parent company.


Or to be more specific, a disaster at 123 has already been met by the parent company;
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/...ing-over-company-s-audited-accounts-1.1604245



peteb said:


> No.  They aren't.


Shame really. That's exactly the kind of thing that consumers would find it effectively impossible to assess, so professional involvement would be very helpful.



peteb said:


> And the commission was no more than any other motor insurer out there.  They just happened to be particularly cheap for certain criteria.  They offered open drive, driving other vans, and other little bits.


Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## peteb (22 Apr 2014)

You always hear a lot of people banging on about "sure why can't I just get insured elsewhere in the world?"  Now they know why!!


----------



## Megan (22 Apr 2014)

Bronte said:


> e jaile
> 
> In relation to Setanta, only some people will have lost a whole years policy, but many more will only be losing a few months, depends when the policy was up for renewal.  Any of those who didn't pay up front should now stop the direct debits etc.  They will be at no loss at all.
> 
> There's been a lot of fuss about this company being based in Malta, but does that actually make any difference?  If they were Irish based so what, they are bust all the same.  Personally after what we've experienced of Irish regulation I'd say the Maltese are a better bet.



I have lost 8 months of insurance by Setanta going bust. The only reason I insured with them was I wanted  to have open driving on my car and this is difficult to get with other companies. I paid €560 for my insurance so not a cheapy in my opinion. I now have a quote from Aviva for approx €50 more for the year. Here is my problem when I read the small print on the Aviva quote it says: Aviva Insurance Limited, trading as Aviva, is authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority in the UK and is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland for conduct of business rules. Registered Branch Office in Ireland No 900175. Registered Branch Address One Park Place, Hatch Street, Dublin 2. Registered in Scotland No 2116. Registered Office Pitheavlis, Perth, PH2 0NH.  Isn't that the same wording as Setanta only with Malta been replaced by the UK? Is it any better to have the UK instead of Malta?


----------



## peteb (22 Apr 2014)

Yes.  The UK and Ireland would have higher solvency requirements.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (22 Apr 2014)

Aviva is a long established, large, company. 

Setanta was founded in 2008 I think. Start ups have a much higher chance of failure.


----------



## Time (22 Apr 2014)

123 is not a broker. It is a tied agent of RSA. It only offers RSA products.


----------



## Sunny (22 Apr 2014)

The issue is that you have companies passporting in insurance products from somewhere like Malta that have lower or more relaxed solvency requirements than other countries so there is increased premium risk to policyholders. There is nothing illegal about it and Malta is perfectly entitled to regulate the way it does. The question is if these companies should be allowed sell into markets using Malta as a base. Solvency II is due to deal with this and create a more level playing field but that won't be until at least 2016.


----------



## peteb (22 Apr 2014)

Time said:


> 123 is not a broker. It is a tied agent of RSA. It only offers RSA products.



Wholely owned subsidiary to be fully correct.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (23 Apr 2014)

Relevant sections of the Central Bank's [broken link removed] 



> *[FONT=&quot]T[/FONT]**[FONT=&quot]h[/FONT]**[FONT=&quot]e Insurance Compensation Fund (the “Fund”)[/FONT]*
> 
> *Introduction*
> 
> ...



So the Irish policy holders of Setanta paid the 2%(?) contribution to the fund. 

Most of the customers are commercial policyholders. If they crashed into a vehicle owned by a company, as distinct from an individual, the company would have no claim on the fund. They would have to claim directly against the insured.


----------



## Bronte (23 Apr 2014)

That's not much good then as most of the policies were commercial? 

But in essence it means for claims currently going though there will be zero pay out, unless the money is owed to an individual claimant, but only in the amount of 65%.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (23 Apr 2014)

Hi Bronte 

If you are an individual and your car has been damaged by a van driven by a Setanta policyholder


1) You can claim against Setanta or the Insurance Fund. 
2) You can claim the balance directly against the insured person or company


----------



## Brendan Burgess (23 Apr 2014)

I hadn't realised that journal.ie had such extensive discussions on business news topics. 

http://businessetc.thejournal.ie/setanta-insurance-1420369-Apr2014/

Many people have responded who have taken out insurance with Setanta.


----------



## hippy1975 (23 Apr 2014)

....I did, naively I suppose, think that the govt wouldn't take the risk of so many uninsured drivers on the road if ppl didnt get another policy, and therefore step in, but looks like that's not happening


----------



## peteb (23 Apr 2014)

Why would the government step in? To pay for peoples premiums? That isn't what the levy is for? It's to cover claims losses for failed insurers primarily.  

When Reid's furniture collapsed, did you think that the government should have stepped in to pay for new sofa's for people? 

A lot of people say "well I paid 500 quid for my policy and that's lost now".  When in fact it hasn't! A lot of people probably renewed that policy in September for example and had cover for 9 months.  So in essence only end up losing €125.  So whilst it's not ideal, it isn't a full loss of an annual premium.


----------



## hippy1975 (23 Apr 2014)

In our case it's a loss of 9 months of premium, renewal date was 20th Jan.
The sofa analogy doesn't give rise to an issue of public concern, I.e. potentially thousands of drivers driving uninsured if people just don't bother getting another policy


----------



## Brendan Burgess (23 Apr 2014)

Hi Hippy

I am concerned about the thousands of drivers who drive without insurance. 

Anyone who is no longer covered by Setanta should take out insurance. If they are found driving without insurance, they should be prosecuted as with any other driver. 

If they have an accident, they will be sued for damages, just like any other driver without insurance. If they can't pay for personal injuries they inflict, the MIB will pay and sue the driver. 

Brendan


----------



## hippy1975 (23 Apr 2014)

I understand that Brendan, but unlike any other driver, Setanta customers are now without insurance through no fault of their own, it shouldnt be exactly the same as someone who just never bothered to buy any.


----------



## peteb (23 Apr 2014)

But they are then making a conscious decision NOT to take insurance out.  Regardless of the reason.  So it becomes the same - they chose not to insure.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (23 Apr 2014)

hippy1975 said:


> Setanta customers are now without insurance through no fault of their own,



Well they chose to insure with a newish company,  regulated in Malta, offering cheap premiums. They must bear some responsibility for this. They could have insured with a longer established company. 

Brendan


----------



## hippy1975 (23 Apr 2014)

In our case the premium wasn't even the cheapest, we just went with the broker as there wasnt much in the difference. I didnt ask where they were regulated or how long they are in business, how many ppl do you reckon make those enquiries? 
 Sheer bad luck.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (23 Apr 2014)

hippy1975 said:


> In our case the premium wasn't even the cheapest, we just went with the broker as there wasnt much in the difference. I didnt ask where they were regulated or how long they are in business, how many ppl do you reckon make those enquiries?
> Sheer bad luck.



Sorry hippy, I can't agree that it was just sheer bad luck. 

I had not heard of Setanta Insurance until it went bust. If my broker had recommended them, I would ask who they were and why he was recommending them.  If there was no difference in the price, I would have gone for a company which I had heard of. 

Why did your broker recommend them? Did they pay higher commission?  Did they have a reputation for settling claims quicker or more generously? 

If I had gone for Setanta, I would presumably have seen the regulatory notices on the bottom of the page saying "Regulated in Malta". I would have made further enquiries.


----------



## Megan (23 Apr 2014)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Well they chose to insure with a newish company,  regulated in Malta, offering cheap premiums. They must bear some responsibility for this. They could have insured with a longer established company.
> 
> Brendan



How many people read the small print on everything they buy? In my case my broker recommended them to me and they providedthe cover I needed at the time.. If I had bought my insurance online I would blame myself but shouldn't brokers point out these things to their customers. I understand brokers were selling Setanta insurance up to  a few weeks ago. Have brokers a case to answer here?
I am now here trying to find new insurance by Friday when my Liberty insurance (put in place by my broker) runs out and not been able to speak to my broker on the phone. I send emails and get a reply 36 hours later. I need my no claims bonus cert and can't get it.


----------



## Megan (23 Apr 2014)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Sorry hippy, I can't agree that it was just sheer bad luck.
> 
> I had not heard of Setanta Insurance until it went bust. If my broker had recommended them, I would ask who they were and why he was recommending them.  If there was no difference in the price, I would have gone for a company which I had heard of.
> 
> ...


Brendan,
The bottom of my cert says:"Setanta Insurance Company is authorised by Malta Financial Services Authority in Malta and is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland for conduct of business rules". Not "Regulated in Malta"?
To the ordinary Joe Soap I think that would mean as been regulated by the central bank. You Brendan probably know a lot more about financials issues then the ordinary Joe Soap.
At this moment it looks like my new insurance will be with Aviva and on their documents it says they are authorised in the UK and regulated by the central bank  for conduct of 
business. Should I be worried about that fact. Ireland, Uk and Malta are all in the EU.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (23 Apr 2014)

> "Setanta Insurance Company is authorised by Malta Financial Services  Authority in Malta and is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland for  conduct of business rules"



Hi Megan

I am not sure if I had seen that, would I have been concerned. It is certainly confusing.  I have a vague idea what "conduct of business rules" means but am not sure. I would have taken some comfort from seeing the Central Bank of Ireland mentioned.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (23 Apr 2014)

Megan said:


> shouldn't brokers point out these things to their customers. I understand brokers were selling Setanta insurance up to  a few weeks ago. Have brokers a case to answer here?




I would think that they do have a case to answer.  

Did they send you a letter explaining why they recommended this insurance from this company?  I think that they should have been wary of a relatively new company authorised outside Ireland where the solvency regime appears less stringent.


----------



## Megan (23 Apr 2014)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Hi Megan
> 
> I am not sure if I had seen that, would I have been concerned. It is certainly confusing.  I have a vague idea what "conduct of business rules" means but am not sure. I would have taken some comfort from seeing the Central Bank of Ireland mentioned.



Thanks Brendan. If your are confused about it - what chance has a Joe Soap like me have? 
Again isn't this where the broker should have warned their customers especially those that sold Setanta insurance up to a few weeks ago.


----------



## peteb (23 Apr 2014)

Megan

No one can get their no claims bonuses presently as they have to come from Setanta.  And unpaid staff are unlikely to be helpful.  

Brokers would not have been selling Setanta up until a few weeks ago as Setanta had confirmed in late January that they were withdrawing from the market and running their book out.


----------



## Megan (23 Apr 2014)

peteb said:


> Megan
> 
> No one can get their no claims bonuses presently as they have to come from Setanta.  And unpaid staff are unlikely to be helpful.
> 
> Brokers would not have been selling Setanta up until a few weeks ago as Setanta had confirmed in late January that they were withdrawing from the market and running their book out.




This from someone on Journel.ie:
"I only took out my policy with them (through a broker) six weeks ago. €550 gone just like that. Broker says I need new insurance immediately but I just can’t come up with another €600 that quickly. Very very upset.

(I realise I’m hardly a big customer for them but it’s a massive blow to me, financially)"

My broker wrote to me on January 30th about Setanta.
What do you mean unpaid staff?. My broker told me last Thursday that she will be able to "pull" my cert from their website. That was Thursday and I am now nearly a week later and can't get through to my broker to get my cert.


----------



## peteb (23 Apr 2014)

I'd take anything that people give approx times of with a pinch of salt.  There isn't one broker than could have sold Setanta as a new policy in March as they werent accepting new business.  

Your broker is able to pull your cert from their website as it is was previously generated and therefore available to download.  However Setanta policies are not technically cancelled until they give the necessary letter confirming cancellation.  Therefore at this point in time your cancellation no claims bonus is unlikely to have already been generated and this therefore unavailable.

Generally a  new insurer following their normal procedure would not accept a no claims bonus dated from your last renewal date as it doesnt state any claims you could have had in the intervening period.

I mean unpaid staff because if a company goes into liquidation its likely their staff havent been paid either.  So they won't be particularly helpful to the barrage of brokers calling them.


----------



## Megan (23 Apr 2014)

peteb said:


> I'd take anything that people give approx times of with a pinch of salt.  There isn't one broker than could have sold Setanta as a new policy in March as they werent accepting new business.
> 
> Your broker is able to pull your cert from their website as it is was previously generated and therefore available to download.  However Setanta policies are not technically cancelled until they give the necessary letter confirming cancellation.  Therefore at this point in time your cancellation no claims bonus is unlikely to have already been generated and this therefore unavailable.
> 
> ...


 
Just a note on this re no claims bonus cert. I have a competitive quote online with another company and they tell me  if I take out my insurance online with them I won't need a cert as it is a paperless transaction and I spoke to them on the phone and all calls are recorded so it sounds like I should be able to go ahead and buy this policy. May be of use to somebody else.


----------



## peteb (23 Apr 2014)

You will need a no claims bonus.  I suspect there is crossed wires here.  No insurer will take you on without evidence of your driving history or no claims bonus - regardless of whether your policy is incepted online.  

They will let you buy the policy and then look for your documentation within a certain time-frame e.g. copy of your drivers licence, NCB.  All things they must have.

Whilst I gather your heart is in the right place, this isn't good advice to be giving if you are not 100% in your facts.


----------



## Megan (23 Apr 2014)

peteb said:


> You will need a no claims bonus.  I suspect there is crossed wires here.  No insurer will take you on without evidence of your driving history or no claims bonus - regardless of whether your policy is incepted online.
> 
> They will let you buy the policy and then look for your documentation within a certain time-frame e.g. copy of your drivers licence, NCB.  All things they must have.
> 
> Whilst I gather your heart is in the right place, this isn't good advice to be giving if you are not 100% in your facts.


I am only passing on the info I was given by this company (Aviva). They have our driver's licence's numbers so that is covered. I told them my problem re my no claims bonus cert from Setanta. The agent check with her supervisor and came back with the info I stated above. I do not wish to mislead anyone as i know how stressful it is to get insurance in place in such a short time frame. I am getting zero help from my broker other then a quote almost 3 times the quote I got online with the same company.


----------



## Meath Lady (27 Apr 2014)

Myself and my son  unfortunately have insurance with Setanta. Son having paid 700 euro in February so obviously very aggrieved. However I paid my insurance with my credit card. I am wondering have I any comeback. 

Insurance Broker also indicated in the terms of business that " in making our recommendations we considered many factors but not limited to the following: Scope of cover provided, The Security of the Insurer, Competitiveness of premiums and claims service provided by the Insurer."

Any help appreciated


----------



## Time (28 Apr 2014)

Your on your own sadly as is everyone else.


----------



## Leo (28 Apr 2014)

Meath Lady said:


> However I paid my insurance with my credit card. I am wondering have I any comeback.



No harm contacting the credit card provider and asking about their cover.


----------



## roland (11 May 2014)

How many of the 100+ brokers who put clients with Setanta noted to their clients about (i) the higher commissions the brokers were being paid to put their business to Setanta, (ii) the strangeness of them being regulated in Malta and the risks that went with that, (iii) the unusually cheap premiums and the risks that went with that?

Are brokers conflicted when one company pays them a higher commission than another.  Are they WHAT?  How many have declared this to their clients?  

As for customers, how many times do they have to learn the hard way that the cheapest price is usually at the cost of something else.


----------

