WHEN Glasgow marketing consultant George Paterson decided to review his house and car insurance, he ended up saving #367 - but not without effort.
When he spotted adverts for Saga insurance, he decided to see how competitive it was on home insurance.
Paterson runs his own business, Million Management, and as he is in his late sixties is part of Saga's target audience.
''My house and contents insurance was up, and it came up with a price of #341, which was an incredibly good price as I was paying #577. They sent me the papers, and I checked through them very thoroughly, which was just as well.''
Saga had quoted by phone for a three-bedroom house, not Paterson's four-bedroom, and he had not been asked how many bedrooms the house had.
When he queried the quote by phone, Saga said the extra bedroom ''would not affect the premiums''.
But when the new documents arrived, complete with standard letter from managing director Kevin Coyne, the total premium had jumped to #506, plus a further #67 for belongings away from home.
''I phoned up and said I wanted to know why for one extra bedroom it should jump by over #150.
''Nobody could give me an answer.''
''A call to Kevin Coyne, the managing director, resulted in me being diverted to a customer services assistant, who assured me that she had full 'decision-making powers'.
''Having worked for a company where customer care existed, Marks & Spencer, I felt I was given the brush-off when they had made a mistake.''
Undaunted, Paterson shopped around thoroughly and obtained a quote from General Accident for #510. ''Some insurers I tried were as high as #800.''
He then decided to see whether he could improve on Saga's #137 quote for cover on his belongings away from home.
''I got a quote from Travellers insurance for #90 which I thought was good.''
Finally, impressed with the results so far, he reviewed his motor insurance.
''My car had been done by a broker for years. I tried everybody and eventually, for the price of a few telephone calls, I saved #300 with Kwik-Fit.''
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article