Please note, the examples provided below are taken from a review of motor insurance quotes, but the lessons learnt from our review apply to general insurance aggregators more generally.

1. Use of warnings and prompts

Examples of good practice

A number of sites give consumers key information about the products and services available from the site before providing consumers with the full list of quotes.

We view this as a positive step as we are aware that consumers are price-sensitive and therefore price will be a key factor in the purchasing decision. By alerting consumers to the fact that they need to consider other information, consumers are more likely to be able to make a judgement on whether the price is acceptable.. In particular, we view the following warnings and prompts as useful, especially when in advance of quote information:

  • A prompt to check quote details on the broker's or insurer's website.
  • Notification that assumptions have been used to generate quotes, coupled with a link to the assumptions used.
  • A warning that additional excesses may apply to young and inexperienced drivers.

Examples of poor practice

  • Notification that assumptions have been used to generate quotes, but no indication of what those assumptions are.
  • Use of legal disclaimers that are not clear and may be misleading.

Back to topBack to top

2. The comparability and clarity of the product features listed on the site

In our view, providing the ability to compare products is at the heart of what insurance comparison sites are trying to achieve. However, our review highlights the fact that sites are achieving this with varying levels of success.

Examples of good practice

  • Providing a broad basis of product comparison, which includes excess levels, legal cover, courtesy car, breakdown cover, protected NCB etc.
  • Allowing consumers to compare features of different policies against each other on one webpage.
  • Providing policy summary information which provides a clear overview of what is included within the policy.

Examples of poor practice

  • Using price as the sole basis for "comparison", but not advising consumers that they should consider other factors, and that the difference in price is likely to reflect the different levels of protection offered by the policies.
  • Inconsistent listing of key product features, for example listing features such as legal assistance and breakdown cover for some policies but not others.
  • Not listing all benefits provided by the policy, and not providing information on the basis for listing the benefits nor advising consumers that policies may have other benefits not listed.
  • Not making it clear that the policies listed did not all contain the provisions or benefits specifically requested by the consumer. For example, some sites ask consumers to set the level of voluntary excess required, or whether the consumer wishes to protect their existing no claims bonus, but when listing the policies, only some of the policies listed have the benefits specifically requested. Our concern lies with those sites which do not make it immediately clear which policies contain the features requested. On all websites reviewed, we requested a voluntary excess of £250, but on one site it was only apparent that the voluntary excesses were different from the amount requested by opening each separate page (21 in total) to identify which policies had the correct voluntary excess, and which did not.

Back to topBack to top

3. Clarity around the level of excess to be applied

Examples of good practice

The level of excess is likely to be a key factor in determining whether a quoted price is acceptable. We see the following as examples of good practice:

  • Providing an explanation of the difference between voluntary and compulsory excess.
  • Breaking down the excess into different components, including voluntary and compulsory excess, as well as the excess applicable to specific policy features such as windscreen and personal belongings.

Examples of poor practice

  • Providing a figure for the "total excess", when in fact this is only the voluntary excess and a further compulsory excess will need to be applied. In one case, a further compulsory excess of £320 was applicable.
  • The compulsory excess figures quoted on the site were provided as the actual level of excess to be applied, but were shown to be incorrect when compared to the broker's or insurer's website. In one case a figure of £100 was given for the compulsory excess, but in fact the actual compulsory excess applicable was £475.

Back to topBack to top

4. Consistency of the information provided by the insurance comparison site and the broker or insurer

Examples of good practice

  • There is no difference between the quote details provided by the comparison site and those provided by the broker or insurer. In particular, key features such as price and features included within the policy are correctly listed by the comparison site.

Examples of poor practice

  • The quote given on the comparison site differs from the quote given on the brokers or insurers website, but no information has been changed and no additional questions asked to warrant a change in price.
  • The quote given by the comparison site excludes certain features (for example legal assistance and breakdown cover), but these features are then automatically added to the final quote price when proceeding through to payment on the broker's or insurer's website.
  • Figures given for the cost of optional extras are incorrect. In the majority of cases seen where the cost was incorrect, the comparison site underestimated the cost of the optional extras.
  • The information provided by the consumer to the comparison site is incorrectly passed to the broker or insurer.

Back to topBack to top