On September 13th,my wife had the misfortune of having her car stolen and burnt out. It was reported to the insurance company the same day and a claim form was sent around a week later. The car wasn't worth a fortune (around £600) and as a total loss we claimed for this amount plus a new CD player recently installed. Having heard nothing despite three phone calls to chase them for an update on the claim we finally got a young lady on the phone earlier this week who said that 'in the view of the engineer' they had valued the car at £140. When we said that this was laughable (very low mileage, new MOT etc etc) the girl went away and phoned back a few minutes later to say that the value was indeed incorrect and that they were prepared to offer £450. My wife said that this was getting more like it and the lady said that she would send a form out with an offer. My wife and I discussed this and said that on receipt of the offer we would reject it as the car was certainly worth more.

What actually arrived was a letter stating that further to our conversation, the settlement of £450 was being processed and a cheque for £350 would follow under separate cover - settlement less £100 excess). We had not agreed to this, so I wrote and told them this and again restated that we wanted the full value and why we felt this was justified. I noted their intention to send a cheque but advised that this would only be accepted as a part settlement and I awaited their proposals for payment of a more realistic amount. This morning a cheque has arrived for £350 in full and final settlement.

I will be contacting them again for a response to my letter, but what I want to know is whether we should not return the cheque as well? Thinking about the whole business, we stated the vehicle value, the insurance company gave a quote for cover and payments have been made to obtain that cover. As the cover is paid for monthly I understand that we have to pay the remainder of the year's premiums (year's cover is around £200) and they have deducted £100 excess so all that they have actually paid is £50. I know that the insurance company don't cover the incidental costs, but due to no fault of our own, my wife had to miss a week's work as she was without a car, has lost other items in the fire which were in the car/boot and uninsured (child's seat, a few of my tools, a coat etc), still has to pay the remaining insurance premium, has to find another car and will lose NCD.

Do you think that we have much room to argue?

Ok first off an excess is always deducted from any value given.

Second off any personal items in the car were not included in the valuation of the car and I doubt they would be covered, if they are not damaged you are entitled to get them, if they are damaged look to your household policy (goods temp. removed) so see if they are covered.

Finally what value you put on acar is usually irrelevent, if you said it was worth £600 when asked the value you WERE NOT insuring it for £600, that question is asked to determine if any further questions are needed on the proposal or if it needs a special policy (vehicles over £35,000 etc). If you had said your car was worth £1000 you would have paid the same premium as if you had said it was worth £100.

The value placed on it by the insurer should be enough to enable you to buy a similar car in similar condition, if it is accept it, if not then argue it providing evidence.

Mossy

In addition, you can add another car onto the policy, and so they are not just paying out £50, they are in fact actually paying out £350(your maths went on a wander and you included the excess twice when stating £50)

In addition, you can add another car onto the policy, and so they are not just paying out £50, they are in fact actually paying out £350(your maths went on a wander and you included the excess twice when stating £50)

Maths was never my strong point - I don't quite know where I was going with that one

I know that the other items weren't covered by the insurance - that wasn't the point I was making and I was just expressing anger at the theft itself and the things which we can't claim for - basically having been screwed by the thieves in burning the damn thing we are being short changed by the insurance company over the value of what IS covered.

We know that the car was worth more and have provided evidence of similar cars of a similar age but the insurer is surely going to say that far more of them are for sale for less and therefore their valuation is more accurate. Our claim is basically that although one might see 5 cars for sale for £500 there might be a couple for sale for £600 because they were in particularly good condition. The car was completely destroyed so how can we prove that the bodywork was unmarked, the underneath rust-free and the engine in A1 condition?

You can't. Unless you have recent documents, photos, service history, etc.

Essentially, the Ins Co will provide a general figure of how much they believe the car to be worth. This figure usually be from Glass's guide or similar.

If you dispute this figure, you need to provide evidence. Ideally, a full service history and similar cars from autotrader should do the trick.

Essentially you and the Ins Co are trying to put you in a similar position to the one you were in immediately before the fire.

I'm reminded of a person very much in the same position as the OP.

When taking the claim details, he revealed personal effects to the value of £350. Informed him of the limit (£100) but he still wanted to list the items he had lost in the fire, fully understanding that it would not make any difference to the payout.

I don't know why but something about that grabbed me and highlighted the general lack of knowledge of the way insurance works.

I have always maintained that insurers should be forced to provide a leaflet explaining the general principles of insurance (which can be done quite easily and in short) which would hopefully counteract some of the misleading generalised comments sales staff give out (e.g, if you make a claim and its not your fault you wont lose no claims or pay excess. Well, errr, if there is no traceable liable third party who has admitted liability and you dont have ncd protection then yes, you will). the problem is that insurers will say that customers will believe it is only they that do such a thing.

Incidentally, I always advise that the best evidence is a few examles of similar make / model / age / mileage etc cars from auto trader or classified ads in your area

I'm reminded of a person very much in the same position as the OP.

When taking the claim details, he revealed personal effects to the value of £350. Informed him of the limit (£100) but he still wanted to list the items he had lost in the fire, fully understanding that it would not make any difference to the payout.

 

I don't know why but something about that grabbed me and highlighted the general lack of knowledge of the way insurance works.

 

I have always maintained that insurers should be forced to provide a leaflet explaining the general principles of insurance (which can be done quite easily and in short) which would hopefully counteract some of the misleading generalised comments sales staff give out (e.g, if you make a claim and its not your fault you wont lose no claims or pay excess. Well, errr, if there is no traceable liable third party who has admitted liability and you dont have ncd protection then yes, you will). the problem is that insurers will say that customers will believe it is only they that do such a thing.

It's not a problem with the general principles of insurance or a lack of knowledge of the way insurance works - I did spend a couple of years in general insurance in a former incarnation. I am also not looking for betterment or to cover the value of uninsured items which happened to be in the car at the time - that is just one of those things. We just think that the insurer's settlement is low at £450 which presumably includes the £90 or so which we claimed for the new CD player which was an insured loss. If so they have valued the car at only £360 - models for sale for that amount are generally tatty and/or much higher mileage.

My problem is solely that although I can demonstrate that there are similar models in a similar condition for sale at the value we are claiming, the insurer says that their engineer's opinion is that the claim is only worth £450 - how he can tell this is anybody's guess when the car had been stolen, driven through garden fences, up and down kerbs (chased by the police before they lost it) then completely destroyed by fire. We don't have photographs of the car pre-theft, but can provide a written opinion from our local garage to support our claim.

As stated, we have written to argue the settlement, but the insurer has sent a cheque anyway and we are unsure as to whether we are deemed to have accepted it if we do not return it, or whether our letter saying that this is only acceptable as a part settlement will suffice.

I believe that "improvements" are not classed as part of the valuation.

amongst the more bizarre things I have come across is one person who had a gold plated cover for his gearstick (apparently cost nearly a grand). Tht however does not make the car worth any more. Same if you have refitted super duper enginer made of 24 ct gold. It does not increase the value of the vehicle.

Daft as it sounds, I have had my old underwriter friend justify such things (I wish to god I could remember half the things he taught me - I'd be head of the FOS by now!).

If you post details of the car here, perhaps someone with total loss knowledge would give you a quick valuation?

I'm sure if you ask Mossy nicely enough he could nip through to motor claims and pick up this month's Glass's guide?

(I should point out that Norwich Union have STILL not revoked my access to HPI! Muppets!)

It is (was) a Ford Fiesta Popular Plus 1992, rust-free, dent-free, unmarked upholstery, 57,000 miles, new MOT, 2 new tyres, careful lady owner etc etc.

On 10/11/2008 I was involved in a car accident at M25 near Enfield.While driving on the motorway with a speed around 60mph I was hit at the back from another car .The impact caused my vehicle to spin twice and hit the middle barriers of the carriageway.Fortunately me and my friend came out with minor injuries only.The other drive ran away .The police and ambulance were involved with the case .

Next morning I phoned my insurer to start a claim procedure and during the initial interview realized that my renewal policy has not been updated for a traffic offense for holding or using mobile phone (cu80) from 2007 the previous year.

The insurer is Direct Line and I am listed as a second driver on my wife's policy too and there I do have an update for the conviction which update is made before the renewal of my policy.

Please advice me is my policy invalid and what will be the respond of the insurer to this ?I did not mean to mislead them simply missed to update the fact I did have an traffic offense but meanwhile I did tell them for the offense as second driver on my wife's policy which as date was before my renewal .

Thanks for your help in advance !!!

On 10/11/2008 I was involved in a car accident at M25 near Enfield.While driving on the motorway with a speed around 60mph I was hit at the back from another car .The impact caused my vehicle to spin twice and hit the middle barriers of the carriageway.Fortunately me and my friend came out with minor injuries only.The other drive ran away .The police and ambulance were involved with the case .

Next morning I phoned my insurer to start a claim procedure and during the initial interview realized that my renewal policy has not been updated for a traffic offense for holding or using mobile phone (cu80) from 2007 the previous year.

The insurer is Direct Line and I am listed as a second driver on my wife's policy too and there I do have an update for the conviction which update is made before the renewal of my policy.

Please advice me is my policy invalid and what will be the respond of the insurer to this ?I did not mean to mislead them simply missed to update the fact I did have an traffic offense but meanwhile I did tell them for the offense as second driver on my wife's policy which as date was before my renewal .

Thanks for your help in advance !!!

No,they will just charge and additional premium from ther renewal date for the addition of the CU80

On 10/11/2008 I was involved in a car accident at M25 near Enfield.While driving on the motorway with a speed around 60mph I was hit at the back from another car .The impact caused my vehicle to spin twice and hit the middle barriers of the carriageway.Fortunately me and my friend came out with minor injuries only.The other drive ran away .The police and ambulance were involved with the case .

Next morning I phoned my insurer to start a claim procedure and during the initial interview realized that my renewal policy has not been updated for a traffic offense for holding or using mobile phone (cu80) from 2007 the previous year.

The insurer is Direct Line and I am listed as a second driver on my wife's policy too and there I do have an update for the conviction which update is made before the renewal of my policy.

Please advice me is my policy invalid and what will be the respond of the insurer to this ?I did not mean to mislead them simply missed to update the fact I did have an traffic offense but meanwhile I did tell them for the offense as second driver on my wife's policy which as date was before my renewal .

Thanks for your help in advance !!!

At renewal you are obliged to disclose any convictions that you have received, as you failed to do that the decision now lies with Direct Line.

They have the option of refusing to deal with the claim because of your non disclosure, agreeing to deal with it for an additional premium, or agreeing to deal with it with no extra payment.

It's impossible to say which they will choose since many other fcators influence that decision, not least of which is any other convictions you already have that they do know about.

Worst case scenario is that YOU have to pay for it all and go to Court for having no insurance, best case is that they deal with it for you.

Only way to know for sure is to tell them now, be honest and upfront, it will look better for you.

Mossy

In my experience it is rare for an insurer to cancel a policy for non disclosure. They merely charge the AP. Mistakes do happen and it is for the insurer to prove it was deliberate non disclosure.

It's the level of non-disclosure that is the important thing. For a relatively minor offence such as this they will probably just ask for the additional premium. If you forgot to mention something like a drink drive conviction (assuming they would even cover that, most insurers will cover 1, but not all do) they might be less forgiving.

The reason is that although they want to be fair to the customer for honest mistakes, they do not want to encourage premium-gambling. That is if you knew with 100% certainty that a conviction undosclosed would result in the insurer still covering you, then why disclose it? Why not wait to see if you did have an accident, and then pay the difference then?

This is why it is important to be honest now, because if they think that you were deliberately with-holding information to get a cheaper premium on the off chance you wouldn't be discovered then they will be right bastards about it. However making a mistake (especially at renewal time) can happen to anybody, so I think you should be ok for something like this.

Just to close this thread for my original post.

E mailed details of three similar cars for sale (courtesy E Bay and Friday-Ad) and a written statement from my mechanic. A week later received confirmation that the claim will be paid in full. From £140 offered originally to £600.

Thanks to those who contributed.