Unfortunately, nothing can be done with the banking insurance business. In vain, you try to give maximum ethical advice, they will not necessarily be eternal in your everyday life. Because a change of leadership can easily mean that a particular company starts playing with words and tries to guide its customers. I’ll give you a few examples now, which is very disturbing to me…
The insurer and the index letter
In the case of insurance contracts, indexing has always been a special institution where you can “cast” out of your pocket money from inattentive clients. For example, in the case of savings contracts, the following less pronounced problem has lasted for years:
as long as there were initial and savings units, a repurchase table and an initial cost spread over 10-15 years, typically indexing meant that the “a couple of hundred forints” would have started again. Whatever your year, your initial costs have been reduced to the indexed amount! Today, this practice does not exist thanks to the provision of the ABC. Yet, he has been talking about indexing for these contracts for years, because it was a cheaper or better solution to make an ad hoc payment.
There is not enough reading comprehension for the posted indexing letter
It would be worthwhile to look at the evolution of these letters as the insurer wanted to force customers to raise their fees unconsciously with increasingly sophisticated methods. For many contracts, indexing is an optional option and not a mandatory item.
Regardless, for years, mail has been sent to customers, hiding – hidden in complicated text – that if the answer is not returned 30 days before the anniversary, the contract will be automatically indexed!
However, the contract never contained mandatory automatic indexing! So who knew late did raise the prize beyond his will.
Csaba got a letter now
Despite the fact that Csaba already has a product under the new regulation, where indexing is otherwise obligatory (but there is no extra cost deduction. However, an extra bonus is already available), yet he managed to get a letter from the insurer that I think is exhausting the concept of guiding the consumer and does not refer to the right business!
Misleading Value Tracking Versions
If you look at it, then the insurance company will offer Csaba two value tracking versions in this case. First reading even I thought logical that the contract is “programmed” mandatory indexation (5%) is the default name. After all, the “base” is precisely the base that is not extra. Unfortunately, inattentive clients (about 90% of those who do not understand it) are “accepting” the basic value tracking along this logic.
The only problem with this is that fund-raising in this case means a 10% fee increase, compared to [mandatory 5% indexing]. But where is the 5% indexing? Well, it’s under the “base”, which is called “next year’s prize”. They did not name the indexing option here, continuing the psychological battle.
Interestingly, the statement refers to the “relevant contract terms” which legitimize value tracking. This is indeed true and not. In fact, the terms of the contract do not mean that a 10% value-added automatically applies. A separate point in the contract is that if the customer does not make a statement, the indexation is automatically applied (which is interesting because the 5% indexing is a mandatory element in the contract).
What did this insurer do? He caught himself and swapped the packages, clung to the words and continued unethical operation without batting. Indeed, indexing is really automatic if the customer does not respond. However, “non-reaction” would obviously be a 5% indexation. Instead, the insurer plays with words and puts the 10% indexing (which is otherwise optional) in the center and wrote the bulletin to respond to the client.
On this basis, the insurer would be able to increase the fee by up to 50%. It would also be a “legitimate fee increase” if the customer does not respond in time to the basic 50% fee increase …
Debt or not?
At first glance, this is a very tough, intimidating letter that makes us immediately settle our debt. A better letter could not be sent by a collecting company. It is a tiny flaw that otherwise the insurer bombards us with our own savings on a voluntary basis.
On the one hand, you cannot decide in the subject field that this is now a payment request or a reminder? There is a huge difference between the two in the legal sense. The former represents a lawfully recoverable item that is a debt, while the latter reminds us of the lack of our own savings based on volunteering.
Ultimately, this is a payment request that wants to remind and not threaten. – I did not think of a better wording because it is incomprehensible to me in this context.
In the text, the balance is awkwardly taken care of: intimidating legally
In these contracts, the concept of volunteering is very important. There are not too many tools for the insurer, because if you do not want to pay, you cannot take your money. That is why he writes [non-payment] and no debt. I’d be back to you again
- we are reminded of the backlog
- we ask for a fee
In other words, they are called here in fact that we do not belong, but they feel like us, they remind us, but they want to be punished.
They are guided by contract terms
For many customers, “contract terms” are an inconspicuous, frightening legal mass. It is this fear that companies use when expressing aggressively against such a particularly misleading letter. But what does the terms of the contract actually say?
- There is no need to settle the overdue payment within 8 days as the Insurance Act and the contract terms specified by the Insurer require a completely different schedule
- the insurer “demands” the payment of the total debt in one amount (25,000 HUF per month, but only 4 months later – later on), even though the contract term provides the opportunity to scroll down or pay in installments. So the contract works even with 1-2-3 monthly payments. However, nothing is written about this
- “Terminated under the terms of the contract” – interestingly, under the terms of the contract, the contract will not be terminated if the customer fails to pay the full amount requested. On the other hand, does it continue to operate under the same conditions, if you pay at least one monthly fee – why is it not obligatory to inform the customer in such a threatening letter?
- and then the most tireless thing! This insurance company has undergone a change of management for two to three years and has since moved in a completely different direction. In fact, the 125,000 HUF demanded in this letter is a 4 x 25,000 fortune + 25,000 forints current monthly fee. So the insurer already claims the amount to be paid in the given month, or even paid, but has not been booked
The voluntary pension fund is no better
Person showed me the email he received from his cashier. It happened that at this moment you don’t want to deposit money on your account because you have completely different goals. We have known that it is not obligatory to pay into the Voluntary Pension Fund, but we only give a promise that is psychological, but in no way a legal obligation.
We will again receive a deadline (28.08.2018), which is in fact not justified by any rule conditions that actually affect the contract. Namely, we examine the Voluntary Pension Fund accounts in calendar years, as the tax credit is also for a calendar year.
Why do we “commit” to an irrelevant deadline that does not affect our tax credit, which does not affect us, only the cashier? Of course, the letter is a “payment reminder” that can also be understood as an unsolicited sales letter!
Not at all objectively warns us of something that affects our contract, but tries to raise our fee by listing $ 5,000 to $ 15,000 or sales arguments.