Whilst I can understand why you would not want to use this company again, many others use the same procedure (which is in my opinion wrong) - see Unsolicited Goods Act which[i nearly[/i covers it. But as stated above - they instantly rectified the problem and waived their charges. I would think that this was a good reason to use them again. Other companies might not be so obliging.

All very interesting, but entirely off the point. In the example under discussion, the fact that the burglar WILL bring the goods back is a Rumsfeldesque "known known", otherwise if you didn't already know that, then obviously, you couldn't pick him. You need to read the case notes more carefully.

I'm with Ajw on this one. A bona fides burglary can take place and post crime circumstances could alter the offenders mindset in such a way that the property could be returned without negating the original intent to permanently deprive. An example of which could be where the offender is known to keep the goods secreted away say in a nearby wheelie bin for collection at a later date. If two separate burglars used that MO and it was known that, if arrested, one would own up to the crime and divulge the whereabouts of the property but the other would deny everything and allow the bin men to dispose of the property, then, again if I was obliged to be burgled, I would chose the former miscreant over the latter.

The case notes actually state " [iSo if you got burgled and the thieves, once caught, offered to return your property, you'd be entirely OK with that "[/i With the emphasis on [ionce caught[/i. In real time that is a future variable outcome which is usually unknown and therefore by definition not a "known known".

See those trees? That's a wood, that is. The last example was not on the original point, it was a subsequent (and different) hypothesis. You've now come up with a third hypothesis, which is attractive for being so barking, but is equally irrelevant. The only issue so far my post was concerned is the issue to which I was directly replying. Which said I'd pick the one who would return my property over the one who wouldn't.'"

Ignoring the completely pointless argument about burglars and going back to the original point, it is correct that most (if not all) insurers use the same auto-renewal procedure if you do not contact them. Therefore, the same situation would have happened with the other insurers. I don't feel this is a valid reason to not use the company again.

What gets me is that many of the companies use renewal time and auto-renewal to bump up your premium in the hope of you not bothering to shop around and them making more money out of you. Invariably, if you call to say you do not wish to renew the policy for another year they offer to find a better deal. Sorry, but you had that chance when you sent the renewal through!

But, these scammers use computer models to make sure they maximise their revenue. It's exactly the same as gas and elec suppliers. They offer great deals to NEW customers and shiit deals to existing customers, because they already know pretty accurately what numbers will stay, what numbers will swop and what the net result will be. So they don't care if you don't renew, so long as their numbers stack up.

Motor insurers use similar models when making compensation settlement offers. They deliberately undervalue, because enough will accept rather than fight for fair compensation, and so they don't care about being landed with the legal bills for those that will not accept an undervalue, as in the overall scheme of things, it doesn't matter.