Consumer NZ is warning individuals to be careful for the onerous promote of add-on insurances when shopping for a car.
Between 2018 and 2020, New Zealanders paid out about $442 million in premiums for add-on insurance at car yards. Only $128 million was paid out in claims.
Add-on insurance contains mechanical breakdown insurance (MBI), assured asset safety (GAP), credit score contract indemnity (CCI) and fee safety insurance (PPI). These insurances are bought as safety in case the buyer is unable to repay the mortgage, or if the car breaks down.
“There are so many exclusions and conditions on these insurance products, it’s incredibly easy for a consumer to get hoodwinked into paying for a policy that provides very little protection,” stated Consumer NZ Chief Executive Jon Duffy.
“Often MBI insurance policies don’t present rather more cowl than the Consumer Guarantees Act [CGA], so we’d advocate consumers actually think about whether or not they want it.
“Under the CGA, if you buy a vehicle which isn’t of acceptable quality, the dealer is required to sort it out. Investing in a pre-purchase inspection and regular car servicing could be a better investment.”
CCI and PPI are designed to cowl funds which may’t be made due to illness, hospitalisation, accident, redundancy, chapter or demise. However, these insurance policies include an extended checklist of exclusions, together with however not restricted to anxiousness, stress and getting caught in a pure catastrophe.
In the case of redundancy cowl, three out of 4 suppliers will solely pay after 28 to 30 consecutive calendar days of redundancy.
If you want to declare due to an accident, the quilt usually kicks in after 5 or seven days in hospital. However, the typical keep in hospital for acute accidents is simply 2.62 days.
“A lot of New Zealanders have sick leave, and if you can’t work because of an accident, ACC covers 80% of your income,” Duffy stated.
“Before taking on a CCI or PPI policy, we encourage consumers to weigh up the benefits versus the costs. You may find you don’t need any add-on insurance cover at all.”
During 2020, car sellers earned on common between $304 and $636 in fee from every add-on insurance sale, in accordance to the Commerce Commission’s Motor Vehicle Financing and Add-ons Review (2021).
In most circumstances, car sellers set the retail worth and fee for these add-on products.
“We think add-on insurance is a nice little earner for car dealers and insurers, but a total rip-off for consumers,” Duffy stated.
In its overview, the Commission discovered some sellers had been falling quick when it got here to serving to their clients make knowledgeable selections. Thirteen out of 62 clients didn’t perceive the product that they had purchased. Eight weren’t conscious that they had bought an add-on, or solely found it as soon as the contract was signed. Fourteen thought the add-on was a obligatory situation of getting car finance.
Under the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act (CCCFA), any lender should make certain a client understands their rights and obligations. The Fair Trading Act (FTA) prohibits sellers and lenders from making false or deceptive claims. Also, the car yard or finance firm should make certain the insurance covers cheap dangers and doesn’t double up on current insurance cowl, is appropriate and inexpensive, and won’t trigger substantial hardship.
Financial Services Complaints Ltd, a not-for-revenue dispute decision service, can examine complaints if a client thinks they’ve been mis-bought an add-on product, for instance, a coverage which isn’t match for function.
If a car yard is promoting an insurer’s product, the insurer wants to examine the seller is assembly its CCCFA obligations.
“In Australia, a Royal Commission into add-on insurance found many issues,” Duffy stated. “Sales were driven by commission, not demand. More than $130m in premiums have been refunded to consumers who should not have been sold add-on insurance, and now salespeople must wait four days after a car is purchased to sell add-on insurance. We’d like to see similar action taken in New Zealand.”
—
