Name: MORE TH>N
Rating: 4.15

“I would strongly urge anyone considering taking out a vehicle insurance policy with More Than / RSA to go elsewhere. I was a named driver on a company policy where the limited company was the owner, registered keeper and policyholder. The vehicle was stolen from the company's registered business address overnight, and all I did , was report the theft on behalf of the limited company. Everything appeared fine until I tried to renew my personal insurance, where I found that RSA had put me on the CUE check list as the "driver" of the limited company vehicle, and that I had an "at fault" claim. On complaining to RSA, they said that the last driver should have been asked for, and that on theft they log the last driver as the named driver responsible. I clearly explained that the last driver was unknown, had not been asked for, and there was no legal text anywhere in the Terms and Conditions to state the last driver would be held responsible on theft. I escalated my complaint with RSA, and even involved the CEO, Mr Stephen Hester, but their final response denied my complaint, stating that it "appeared" I was the last person in charge of the company vehicle, and that policy wording would not specifically state the last driver will be logged as the named driver on theft. They then go on to state the personal information posted about me on the CUE system is factually correct. My understanding of contract law is everything must be in the Terms and Conditions at the inception of business, not something that can be altered or made up by one party as the contract goes along to suit their ends. When the last driver or driver in charge is not specifically given or asked for, and although RSA may want it to "appear" that they have determined who that individual may have been to suit their "procedures", it most certainly cannot be deemed to be "factual". RSA have effectively made two entities financially responsible for one incident, which only the policyholder should be held liable for. The ramifications of this are horrendous for every last driver / in charge individual of a vehicle insured by RSA on theft, where the vehicle is owned, registered and the policyholder is another person or company. I will be checking every vehicle I drive in the future that it is not insured by RSA, and will never do business of any kind with them again, as their "procedures" are created to cause as much financial damage as possible to their customers. My complaint is now with the Financial Ombudsman.”

Helpful Report

Posted 4 years ago

“I would strongly urge anyone considering taking out a vehicle insurance policy with More Than / RSA to go elsewhere. I was a named driver on a company policy where the limited company was the owner, registered keeper and policyholder. The vehicle was stolen from the company's registered business address overnight, and all I did , was report the theft on behalf of the limited company. Everything appeared fine until I tried to renew my personal insurance, where I found that RSA had put me on the CUE check list as the "driver" of the limited company vehicle, and that I had an "at fault" claim. On complaining to RSA, they said that the last driver should have been asked for, and that on theft they log the last driver as the named driver responsible. I clearly explained that the last driver was unknown, had not been asked for, and there was no legal text anywhere in the Terms and Conditions to state the last driver would be held responsible on theft. I escalated my complaint with RSA, and even involved the CEO, Mr Stephen Hester, but their final response denied my complaint, stating that it "appeared" I was the last person in charge of the company vehicle, and that policy wording would not specifically state the last driver will be logged as the named driver on theft. They then go on to state the personal information posted about me on the CUE system is factually correct. My understanding of contract law is everything must be in the Terms and Conditions at the inception of business, not something that can be altered or made up by one party as the contract goes along to suit their ends. When the last driver or driver in charge is not specifically given or asked for, and although RSA may want it to "appear" that they have determined who that individual may have been to suit their "procedures", it most certainly cannot be deemed to be "factual". RSA have effectively made two entities financially responsible for one incident, which only the policyholder should be held liable for. The ramifications of this are horrendous for every last driver / in charge individual of a vehicle insured by RSA on theft, where the vehicle is owned, registered and the policyholder is another person or company. I will be checking every vehicle I drive in the future that it is not insured by RSA, and will never do business of any kind with them again, as their "procedures" are created to cause as much financial damage as possible to their customers. My complaint is now with the Financial Ombudsman.”

Helpful Report

Posted 4 years ago

“Saved me money”

Helpful Report

Posted 4 years ago

“Terrible service I would never use again. A claim against our policy is still outstanding from 1 months ago and they have cancelled our policy leaving us with an outstanding amount to pay.”

Helpful Report

Posted 4 years ago

“Morethan are a scam company that tried to over double my renewal price to £3000. They take advantage of young drivers and their customer service is useless. Its like speaking to a brick wall. They also scammed me of my no claims bonus and paid out someone on a claim where i was not at fault. Save your self the hassle and avoid this company for insurance.”

Helpful Report

Posted 4 years ago

“Take money with out asking”

Helpful Report

Posted 5 years ago

“Renewed my insurance without advising me and i cannot even log on to view my policy”

Helpful Report

Posted 5 years ago

“Can’t wait to use again”

Helpful Report

Posted 5 years ago

“Good to deal with”

Helpful Report

Posted 5 years ago

“Additional letter to state a second address is authorised on the policy was not received. This was after 4 telephone conversations stating this would happen.”

Helpful Report

Posted 5 years ago

“Very good price and services.thanks”

Helpful Report

Posted 5 years ago

“good value”

Helpful Report

Posted 5 years ago

“I purchased this through a cash back website, I am still waiting for the amount to be paid”

Helpful Report

Posted 5 years ago

“Great service and polite.”

Helpful Report

Posted 5 years ago

“Good np probs”

Helpful Report

Posted 6 years ago

“Thanks for good service”

Helpful Report

Posted 6 years ago

“Good service”

Helpful Report

Posted 6 years ago

“Information on site is very good and easy to navigate and understand. Very pleased with experience of this site”

Helpful Report

Posted 6 years ago

“Good service, good price,”

Helpful Report

Posted 6 years ago

“Very good in all aspects excellent”

Helpful Report

Posted 6 years ago

Shipping & Delivery
Delivery Methods	Postal Service
On-time Delivery	Greater than 72%
Customer Service
Communication Channels	Telephone, Email, Live Chat
Queries Resolved In	Under An Hour
Customer Service	4 out of 5

MORE TH>N Reviews