In September 2017 the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) started proceedings against PZU. It was initiated after notification from the Financial Ombudsman. UOKiK questioned actions of adverse effect to drivers.
MTPL insurance is concluded for one year. If the consumer does not cancel the contract at least one day before its end, it is automatically renewed for the next year. An automatically renewed contract may be cancelled if the driver, at the same time, has a MTPL policy at another insurance company. In this way, they can avoid having double MTPL insurance.
Drivers, whose MTPL insurance policy at PZU had nearly expired, received letters specifying the insurance terms for the next period. When they contacted the PZU helpline, agent or branch, the insurer assumed a new contract was being concluded. However, if a consumer had not cancelled the existing contract, the insurer should have considered it automatically prolonged. It had certain consequences as PZU claimed that drivers could not cancel such contracts even though they had a MTPL insurance policy at another company. Therefore, consumers had to pay premiums for two policies.
UOKiK decided that PZU’s practice may limit the consumer’s right to cancel an automatically renewed contract. PZU avoided a fine as it committed itself to change the questioned practice. This means that PZU:
- will acknowledge cancellation of contracts by consumers up to three years back, if consumers still want to cancel the contracts,
- will repay a proportional part of the premium charged when the consumer had a double MTPL insurance. To take advantage of this option, a letter specifying a bank account number for the transfer should be sent to PZU,
- will allow consumers to cancel contracts that have been automatically renewed if, at the same time, they have an MTPL policy at another insurer.
PZU will also publish information on these solutions on its website and in the press.
