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

[Mossycat]

Originally Posted by callumsgran

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

NOT ALL Companies do that.

You do not have information (nobody on this forum does) to state that they are trying to wriggle out of it, since it has not been determined exactly why they have refuted this claim.

Mossy

[hachette]

DVLA allowes themselves 6 weeks to produce registaration document.

Would insurers or would they not meet her claim if any accident happened the next day? That is my big question.Was she insured as they made her think she was by issuing her with cover note or not. Who cons who here I wonder???

[hachette]

There is not much really to add to the circumstances of taking up the insurance by my friend as a prime driver on her son's car. That is it.

There are reasons why she had to hire a car and all can be supported by evidence issued by her's and her young son's doctors.

She was not sure for months if they will settle her claim as only in July they requested for her to take an interview digitally recordered to see if she is telling the truth. She did agree, interview took place but by then we have taken legal proceedings and they decided not to do second digitally recordered interview. So it seems to me that seven moths later the date of the transfer was not an issue. What was who knows.

[patdavies]

Originally Posted by hachette

DVLA allowes themselves 6 weeks to produce registaration document.

Would insurers or would they not meet her claim if any accident happened the next day? That is my big question.Was she insured as they made her think she was by issuing her with cover note or not. Who cons who here I wonder???

The time taken by DVLA to issue the V5 is totally irrelevant. The RK changes at the time that both old and new keepers sign and date the V5 - not even as long as the date when it arrives at DVLA. That date refers to the date of registration of change of keepership and not the change of keepership itself.

[callumsgran]

Originally Posted by Mossycat

NOT ALL Companies do that.

You do not have information (nobody on this forum does) to state that they are trying to wriggle out of it, since it has not been determined exactly why they have refuted this claim.

Mossy

Oh purlease dont yank my chain.............you cannot be serious!!

[hachette]

Why there is a big difference between day 1 and 30 days. Either I am insured form day one or not at all.

[hachette]

Pat I read your post three times and still do not understand. Sorry. I am trying to learn fast about all these policies,rules and laws but get stuck ever so often.

[hachette]

At the end of the day we are talking here about single mother of 4 and young 23 year old boy who did not have much dealings in such matters. He has simply telephoned the brokers to change his policy to his mum name (insures requirement) as his mother was driving his car all the time and trusted that the "experts" will advice him. The fact that he send off the transfer later it does not mean that he wanted to con the insurers. He was just being 23 year old boy. If you have kids of that age you know what I mean ( ei I will do it mum I promise I will) . In fact if he posted it late and put an earlier date on it that would be dishonest. Young and naive. Does she (and her kids) have to pay such price for it.

[Mossycat]

Originally Posted by hachette

At the end of the day we are talking here about single mother of 4 and young 23 year old boy who did not have much dealings in such matters. He has simply telephoned the brokers to change his policy to his mum name (insures requirement) as his mother was driving his car all the time and trusted that the "experts" will advice him. The fact that he send off the transfer later it does not mean that he wanted to con the insurers. He was just being 23 year old boy. If you have kids of that age you know what I mean ( ei I will do it mum I promise I will) . In fact if he posted it late and put an earlier date on it that would be dishonest. Young and naive. Does she (and her kids) have to pay such price for it.

Facts are facts and as such are not influenced by whether it involves a single mother of 4 or a multi-millionaire.

If he posted it late he could still (and did have a duty) to ensure the facts as stated were correct, if he stated the date of change of keeper was 20/12/07 then that in the eyes of the fact. I see no reason why he couldn't have entered the date 17/11/07 when he did fill in the form.

Mossy

[daviet1976]

I agree with Mossy on this.

However, there IS a possible solution.

Ask for the vehicle back. Afterall, it IS the property of your friend.

[Mossycat]

Originally Posted by hachette

Would insurers or would they not meet her claim if any accident happened the next day? That is my big question.Was she insured as they made her think she was by issuing her with cover note or not. Who cons who here I wonder???

You asked that eariler and I answered it by saying it is impossible to answer.

IF the policy has been voided because she was not the registered keeper (but remember we do not know that is the reason), then at the time the cover note was issued it was the correct thing to do.

IF it was a condition of the policy that the registerd keeper is the policyholder, and she wasn't then it's clear that SHE was conning the insurance company.

Mossy

[Mossycat]

Originally Posted by hachette

He has simply telephoned the brokers to change his policy to his mum name (insures requirement)

That is totally impossible and YOU NEED TO FIND OUT EXACTLY WHAT WAS SAID AND DONE.

A policy in the name of the son CANNOT be changed to any other name. The only thing the son could do was cancel his policy and let the mother arrange a policy of her own for that car.

An insurance policy is not like a car where you change ownership.

Mossy

[callumsgran]

Originally Posted by Mossycat

You asked that eariler and I answered it by saying it is impossible to answer.

IF the policy has been voided because she was not the registered keeper (but remember we do not know that is the reason), then at the time the cover note was issued it was the correct thing to do.

IF it was a condition of the policy that the registerd keeper is the policyholder, and she wasn't then it's clear that SHE was conning the insurance company.

Mossy

I think that is a bit harsh Mossy, why would she deliberately want to con the insurance company?
What would she gain?

[Mossycat]

OK look we are going around in circles.

I honestly feel that from the information you have given based on what you know (or think you know), that there are some facts missing, and without those it would be pointless to carry on.

I suggest the follwoing.

Go back to the Broker and ask exactly what was said and done at the time, specifically ask if the son cancelled his policy and exactly who arranged a policy in the name of the mother. Ask how the proposal was completed and also ask about conditions imposed by the Insurer concerned regarding registered keeper and policyholder (must they be the same). Ask if you can have a copy of the proposal and also ask for a copy of the terms and conditions that Chaucer insist on.

If you issued proceedings against the insurer they must have entered a defence, what was the basis of their defence?

Finally go back to your solicitor/barrister and ask them to explain exactly why the claim would not succeed, if they again tell you it's because of the dates ask them exactly why that is important and tell them you don't understand the significance.

When you have the answers to these post back, until then I am withdrawing from posting further to this thread.

Mossy

[Mossycat]

Originally Posted by callumsgran

I think that is a bit harsh Mossy, why would she deliberately want to con the insurance company?
What would she gain?

I was asked a question I answered it.

Do not let your emotions or personal feelings influence your answer.

IF the policyholder confirmed that she was the registered keepr and she wasn't then that is incorrect/ a mistake/ an oversight / a lie/ a con / a genuine error / a falsehood.

Pick whatever sits happier with you if that makes you feel better, but it does not change the fact that the policyholder was not 100% truthful IN THE EYES OF THE LAW.

I think you misunderstood the question and answer about who is conning who.

Based on what I have read I stated a fact. I was NOT saying this claim is a con NOR am I saying the mother had anything to gain.

OK consider this

I go out I meet a girl I think is attractive. I ask her age she states 16. We agree to sex. That's legal yes?

OK two days later I get a knock at the door, turns out she is only 15 and 364 days old.

I acted in good faith (she looked 16, she told me she was 16, and YES at some future date (the day after she wsa indeed 16).

Who conned who ?

Who gets arested for sex with a minor ?

Who gets put on the sex register ?

Mossy

PS Just to clarify the above, at my age I don't go chasing 16 year olds!!!!

[daviet1976]

The bottom line, we are assuming, it that the policy was issued with conditions.

As those conditions were not met, the policy was avoided.

[callumsgran]

Originally Posted by Mossycat

I was asked a question I answered it.

Do not let your emotions or personal feelings influence your answer.

IF the policyholder confirmed that she was the registered keepr and she wasn't then that is incorrect/ a mistake/ an oversight / a lie/ a con / a genuine error / a falsehood.

Pick whatever sits happier with you if that makes you feel better, but it does not change the fact that the policyholder was not 100% truthful IN THE EYES OF THE LAW.

I think you misunderstood the question and answer about who is conning who.

Based on what I have read I stated a fact. I was NOT saying this claim is a con NOR am I saying the mother had anything to gain.

OK consider this

I go out I meet a girl I think is attractive. I ask her age she states 16. We agree to sex. That's legal yes?

OK two days later I get a knock at the door, turns out she is only 15 and 364 days old.

I acted in good faith (she looked 16, she told me she was 16, and YES at some future date (the day after she wsa indeed 16).

Who conned who ?

Who gets arested for sex with a minor ?

Who gets put on the sex register ?

Mossy

PS Just to clarify the above, at my age I don't go chasing 16 year olds!!!!

I should hope not!!!! lol unless you are 18 of course!?

[Mossycat]

Hopefully this will clarify the position a bit IF it transpires that the Insurers ARE saying the policy was void at inception.

IF that is so then they are relying on Contract Law.

An insurance agreement is a contract between the Insurance Company and the policyholder.

The contract will be entered into and based on negotiations (ie questions asked, questions answered, quotations given, quotations accepted, consideration must be present (that is the price that each other pays for the promise of each other), the maxim of utmost good faith and a few other things as well.

If the contract is breached then whoever suffers the breach has the right to decide which remedy they would like.

The most common remedies are as follows

They agree to carry on and let the contract stand (for example if the policyholder was asked about convictions and replied that they had a speeding conviction on 10/10/07 it was for SP30, they got three points and a £60 fine, but the insurer later discovers the actual date was 11/10/07 but everything else was correct then they would probably (but do not have to) let the contract continue)

They agree to carry on but ask for additional money (take the above example but it turns out the speeding fine was actually £200 and 6 points had been added to the licence)

They declare the contract Void Ab Initio (ie it would not have been entered into had they known what they now know, it is declared void at inception, in the eyes of the law it never existed). For example the policyholder states they have no convictions, later it comes to light the policyholder had convictions for drink driving, had been banned, didn't actually hold a licence, had convictions for arson and fraud.

Obviously I have cited examples that make it easy to understand why a particular remedy might be applied (so don't come back and say the mother didn't have convictions etc).

The Law is clear, the party who suffered the breach is the one who decides the remedy.

It's a bit like if you buy something from a shop and it goes faulty, it is YOU who decides if you want a replacement or your money back because you suffered the breach.

It is fair to say that depending on which side of the fence you are on will influence what you feel is fair.

If you are the Insurance Company, you are in business to make money, you might have share holders to consider, so what is fair to them? Is it fair to expect them to pay out in excess of £10,000 if they do not have to?

If you are the mother of 4, you have lost your car and have a big bill for a hire car. so what is fair to them? Is it fair to her that she is out of pocket for the cost of hiring a car and has lost her own car as well?

I doubt that the two answers will be the same, hence why I sit on the fence, I do not take sides and I do not judge or comment on rights or wrongs. I am not on the side of anyone, I simply give my opinion based on what I believe to be correct and true.

What I feel is fair is not relevent, it will not influence the outcome, and therefore isn't worth writing about.

Hope that clarifies it

Mossy

	Fight a Motoring Ticket kit Follow this link to read the review of the "Fight a motoring ticket" kit by Lawpack. Everything you need to challenge your motoring ticket. Most motoring tickets go unchallenged. Most which are challenged are challenged successfully.

[daviet1976]

Yup.

Ins co's need to fade out the grey areas that existed when I was at NUI.

It needs to be more black and white.

We MUST look at this from the company's viewpoint to understand why they've done this.

It's not simply a case of thinking "...but it seems so unfair. After-all, the son was being a typical 23 year old".

The Insurer is COMPLETELY within it's RIGHTS to avoid this policy (based on the info we have been given). They are not "getting away with it", or "conning" anyone, or being "typical".

The conditions were not met. They policy was avoided.

I feel for the mother and her kids. I really do. But I don't think the Insurer can do much more.

If they did, it would be hefty ex-gratia...

[Mossycat]

Hachette

If you are still reading this thread I really do think the best course of action for you is to do what was suggested in post #74.

Until then it's going to be emotional comments and 'what-if' questions which will only confuse and cloud the issue.

Mossy

PS The reason I am advocating this is because you are adamant that the son took the policy out on behalf of the mother, or changed his policy into her name.

Neither of the above should have happened, if it turns out that this the case, then we are completely on the wrong track as to why the policy was voided.

(This could be really important to you)