Car Insurance co "robs" mother of 4 of her car

[callumsgran]

Originally Posted by hachette

Why then insurance brokers insured her with a full knowledge that her name was not on registration document. Surely they know it takes up to 6 weeks to receive your V5. They made her falsely belive that she was holding a policy on that car from the date phone call was made. If that is the case they should tell her son to get his V5 in her name first and then change the policy to her name in which case they would look for an insurance that can insure her without having registration doc in her name.

Did she make any payments on the insurance?

[Mossycat]

Originally Posted by hachette

Why then insurance brokers insured her with a full knowledge that her name was not on registration document. Surely they know it takes up to 6 weeks to receive your V5. They made her falsely belive that she was holding a policy on that car from the date phone call was made. If that is the case they should tell her son to get his V5 in her name first and then change the policy to her name in which case they would look for an insurance that can insure her without having registration doc in her name.

I cannot comment on what the brokers may or may not have said but I would answer that by saying when I go to buy a car I arrange insurance to allow me to drive it away from the garage.

At the exact moment I pick up my car and for some weeks after I am not the registered keeper (because the garage will not notify the DVLA until I pay for the car and because the DVLA have backlogs etc).

Yet despite that I am perfectly entitled to drive the car, in reality that must be the case otherwise everyone would have to wait 6 weeks (or however long it takes the DVLA) before they can arrange insurance.

The son was advised to put the car in the name of the mother, you have stated that several times, he failed to do that, you have confirmed that.

Most likely (this is guessing) Broker advises that the car must be in the name of the policyholder, Broker is told this will happen, Broker proceeds in good faith on the understanding that this will happen. It is NOT the fault of the Broker that something they were led to believe would happen didn't happen.

To go back to my personal example, I go to a Broker, I ask them for a quote, they go through the proposal, I accept the quote, I buy the car and the car is registered in my name. If the case you state happened because of a mistake by the garage then I would be suing the garage for my loss because their actions had invalidated my insurance.

Mossy

[Mossycat]

Originally Posted by callumsgran

Did she make any payments on the insurance?

That's totally irrelevent

Any payments made have no meaning if contract was Void at inception, the insurer will state (quite correctly) that they accepted payments based on the contract. Since the contract was breached it matters not one iota about payments made or accepted.

Technically the Insurer may have to refund some or all of the premium, but they can also claim compensation for the time and administration they have put into this.

Mossy

[JonCris]

Mossy am I correct in thinking you do or have worked for insurers??

[Mossycat]

Originally Posted by JonCris

Mossy am I correct in thinking you do or have worked for insurers??

Yes

Mossy

[JonCris]

Originally Posted by Mossycat

Yes

Mossy

Thought so. It's obvious from your advice

[Mossycat]

Originally Posted by JonCris

Thought so. It's obvious from your advice

I'm not sure how to take that.

Are you suggesting that I am siding with the Insurer and defending their right to void the policy?

Mossy

[hachette]

I am very confused now. The insurance broker agrees to insure his mum on the basis that at some point (as soon as he can which not neccessary means on that day) he will register the car in his mum name. So lets say she has an accident the next day what happens then. Was she or wasn't she insured.It seems to me they did everything in order to keep a customer. If 20/12/07 was the earliest time he managed to send transfer should not be an issue unless they specified the time his V5 should have been back from DVLA and registered in her name. Also who can possibly guarantee that required document will arrive within a specific time. The fact is they should have never put the policy in her name if the insurers requirments specified she had to be a registered keeper at the time.

I will look forward to hear tape recording made on that date as according to the brokers all the conversations are recorded for legal purposes.

[Mossycat]

I think the V5 states that it is the responsibility of the registered keeper to notify any changes IMMEDIATELY.

Like I said earlier I am not in a position to comment on what may or may not have been said by the Broker, I was not party to the conversation, nor have I seen record of it.

I strongly doubt that any Broker would say 'at some point'.

I keep saying IF it's a condition of the policy that the registered keeper is the policyholder because I don't know if that's the reason for denial (I can only strongly feel it is), then ask yourself that question and you will have the answer.

Furthermore NOBODY ever specifies that V5 should have been back from the DVLA and in her name at the time, that's not practical and it would never work in reality. If that was the case buying and selling cars would be a nightmare.

I cannot understand why the son's first opportunity to notify the DVLA was almost 30 days later.

I cannot comment on why the son put the date of 20/12/07 on the V5 as the date of transfer nor can I comment on why he confirmed that everything stated on that form was true to the best of his knowledge and belief.

Mossy

[hachette]

Also her claim was not refused from day one. They even made an offer of £7400 that had been agreed. However nothing was coming in the way of cheque and subsequently they started to ask for a copy of V5. As the transfer was forwarded to DVLA on 20/12/07 by 4/1/08 it did not come back. After 4/1/08 insurers who are now aware that registration document had been applied for by her son to be registered in his mum name informed them that Mrs Gonta is no longer in possession of this car therefore DVLA refuses to issue it. After all accident happened on 4/1/08 ( after the V5 transfer was made)

[JonCris]

Hatchete I suggest you consult another solicitor.

Views between lawyers often differ (that's why we have courts) & because one barrister say's one thing doesn't mean you don't have a case for compensation

[Mossycat]

Originally Posted by hachette

Also her claim was not refused from day one. They even made an offer of £7400 that had been agreed. However nothing was coming in the way of cheque and subsequently they started to ask for a copy of V5. As the transfer was forwarded to DVLA on 20/12/07 by 4/1/08 it did not come back. After 4/1/08 insurers who are now aware that registration document had been applied for by her son to be registered in his mum name informed them that Mrs Gonta is no longer in possession of this car therefore DVLA refuses to issue it. After all accident happened on 4/1/08 ( after the V5 transfer was made)

That's fairly standard.

The insurer and the polichholder want a fire claim dealing with asap. The offer was made to speed things up but was conditional on sight of the documents. In a normal case the policyholder would write in accepting the offer at the same time as sending the documents.

No payment is ever made on a total loss without sight of the documents, hence why no cheque was forthcoming.

The Insurer was not aware on day 1 that there was a problem, so of course they proceeded to deal with as normal.

Mossy

[Mossycat]

Hachette

What you have to remember is that this is a forum for people to post ideas/opinions and or advice.

Nobody on this forum (not even you) are aware of the full facts.

Whatever anybody feels about this case and the rights and wrongs of it are both irrelevent and meaningless.

The person who has lost the car now has two choices, either accept that the insurance people will not pay out and get on with sorting the mess out, OR seek further legal advice from someone qualified and WILLING to take this case on.

Personally I am not going to comment on rights or wrongs, my opinions and comments were based on my understanding of Insurance Law, Contract Law, the Road Traffic Act and my experience in motor claims handling.

Mossy

[hachette]

I fully understand that Mossycat. But can you tell me as a person who knows a lot about car insurnace. What would have happened if she had an accident day after the brokers put her policy in place? (knowing she was not registered owner)

[hachette]

Jon, thank you for your support. We will get further legal advice. Shame I did not know about Ombudsman service before we took proceedings but will call them tomorow to get their advice. There is always talk about how members of public try to con insurance companies. How about looking into insurance companies trying to con honest members of public.

	The Financial Ombudsman Service For the most part, don't bother. The Ombudsman is an industry arranged service which is under-resourced, takes too long, lacks clear transparency. You have no idea what evidence the FOS has received from the bank or how your complain has really been handled. The FOS is the preferred complaints route for the banking industry. The county court is to be preferred by consumers for its speed, openness, the quality of its awards and also because it will award 8% interest on top of any damages won by you. The Ombudsman should normally be used to solving little technical difficulties or customer service problems which you have expereinced with your bank.

[callumsgran]

Originally Posted by hachette

I fully understand that Mossycat. But can you tell me as a person who knows a lot about car insurnace. What would have happened if she had an accident day after the brokers put her policy in place? (knowing she was not registered owner)

IMO they would've still tried wriggling out of it, that's what insurance companies do
They will only pay out if there are no loopholes to use to get out of it

[hachette]

Mossycat, I talk to my friend every day. She told me everything she and her son remebered in this case all that time ago to the best of their knowledge. Nobody could have antisipated the events that took place therefore no notes were made.

[hachette]

I can not believe they can be allowed to destroy person's life like this. I got involved in this case as she did not know what to do next. She is a totally inocent party in this. I believe in truth and honesty and I know my friend. I intend to write to newspapers,TV, MP etc. Hope Chaucer insurance ( or their brokers) will get "good" advert for their services they give.

[Mossycat]

Originally Posted by hachette

I fully understand that Mossycat. But can you tell me as a person who knows a lot about car insurnace. What would have happened if she had an accident day after the brokers put her policy in place? (knowing she was not registered owner)

That's impossible to answer. They would have asked for the documents though that is for sure.

Why it's impossible to answer is because.....

Nobody knows what the son would have done, ie would he have sent them to the DVLA or would he have sent them to the insurer

Nobody knows what date would he have put on the V5 as effective transfer date if that had happened

Also there is a big difference between 1 day and 30 days, the insurer may well have accepted that in such a short space of time it wasn't reasonable to get send off the DVLA.

I stress again, the brokers don't appear to have done wnything wrong, they will always arrange insurance for cars about to be bought knowing that the V5 isn't yet in the name of the policyholder, but 30 days is an unreasonable time.

Mossy

[Mossycat]

Originally Posted by hachette

Mossycat, I talk to my friend every day. She told me everything she and her son remebered in this case all that time ago to the best of their knowledge. Nobody could have antisipated the events that took place therefore no notes were made.

I wasn't having a go when I said nobody on this forum (not even you) is aware of the full facts.

By your own admission you agree they have told you 'all they remember'

You were not present at the time the policy was taken out so you do not know what exactly was said by the brokers

Therefore I stand by what I said.

Mossy