Jump to content


Old Insurance Claim


DragonFly1967
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2559 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

More for BankFodder and unclebulgaria67 I reckon, but any opinions welcome.

 

 

I've just been reading through this thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?472019-MCE-Insurance-cancelled-policy-on-a-technicality-Conviction-quashed-ICOBS

 

And I've read it with some interest. For a start, it's the first I've ever heard about ICOBS.

 

Anyway, long story short, going back to the start of August 2015 I had an accident in my car in the early hours of the morning on the way to work. Swerved to avoid a deer that had run in to the road, turned the car over and killed it! (The car, not the deer).

 

I was at the time with Co-Op insurance (no fear to name and shame here), the vehicle was recovered by them (their agent), the claim commenced, loss adjuster attended and inspected the vehicle and an offer to settle was made by the LA over the phone £700 (it was a get me to work car).

 

A week or so later (20th August), I got a letter from Co-Op telling me that they would be refusing the claim as the vehicle was fitted with a "K&N induction kit" and I had not told them when I took out the policy.

 

To be perfectly honest, I didn't even know what a "K&N Induction kit" was until I got their letter and Googled it.

 

I replied via email, stating the above, and they seemed to accept that I was a numpty when it comes to how cars work (no real argument there) and they reinstated the claim (or so I thought).

 

On 8th September, I got another letter from Co-Op refusing the claim as the vehicle was registered in my partners name and not mine, and when I'd filled out the form online to start the policy, I'd ticked the box to say that the vehicle was owned by and registered to me.

 

Now, Co-Op's own website (certainly at the time, if not still), in the Q&A section says...

 

Q: Does the policyholder have to be the registered keeper?

A: No, the registered keeper can be the policyholder or the policyholder's spouse/civil partner.

 

I have a screenshot of that just in case they've since changed it

 

I really can't see how who the vehicle is registered to increases the risk. So, the question is, did Co-Op have the grounds, based on the fact that the vehicle was registered to she who must be obeyed, to refuse the claim?

 

Or can I go after them in some way using ICOBS to get the £700 that I was offered?

 

 

 

Thoughts...

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

moved to the motoring insurance forum

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say that the induction kit could certainly have affected the risk – and I expect the you know this. I think that you are very lucky that they were prepared to overlook that.

 

On the other hand, I would have thought that the question of to whom is it registered is neither here nor there and doesn't affect the risk. On that basis I would say that you could challenge them.

 

Furthermore, you could renegotiate the £700 if you feel that it wasn't a true replacement figure. Although they offered £700 at the time, the fact that they then withdrew the offer means that the whole question of the value of the vehicle is at large.

 

I would be very careful as to how you proceed with this. You can be certain that the insurers will howl. Preparation is everything. Don't start prodding them with any sticks until you are ready. Begin with an SAR. Get lots of information as to the full replacement value of the vehicle at the date that it was written off. I would certainly be interested to hear what UB has to say about registration in your partners name

 

I hit a zebra once – but that's another story.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly I know now.

 

But in all honesty at the time, I had absolutely no idea what a K&N kit was, what it did or that it was fitted on the car. I can look under a bonnet to check oil & water etc, but beyond that, it might as well be double dutch. Which is what I said to Co-Op.

 

Not quite sure how to declare something that I didn't know existed. They asked if the vehicle was standard, and as far as I knew, it was.

 

 

 

Intrigued by the Zebra :-)

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Go back stating that you believe using the oversight of the car being registered to your partner is not treating you fairly. If all of the other information is correct, then they would not have declined to accept the risk. Explain to them how long you and your partner have lived together , the car was your joint property, just a cheap runaround.

 

You have been careless with your insurance arrangements, rather than any attempt to deliberately mislead the Insurers or recklessly deceive the Insurers to obtain Insurance. That cancelling the Insurance to avoid the claim is nof treating you fairly.

 

I think you would have a good chance of success if you took it to the FOS and you should suggest to Coop that they should reconsider the matter, to avoid a complaint taking up the time of the FOS.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing I would say about UB's advice is that if the Co-op turns you down, and if you want a more rapid result then I would begin an ICOBS action. Here's a warning to you – I'm very anxious to get some ICOBS claims started on this issue of unlawful cancellation insurance because I think that we need to make a serious point and also we need to show other people on this forum that it can be done.

 

Having said that, the FOS could find in your favour – but it would take a long time and of course the way they operate, you won't know what is said to them by the insurer. Also, the result could simply be a recommendation from the FOS to honour the £700 offer. This may not be in your best interests. You said you had to negotiate the settlement. What was your true view of the replacement value? If you sued in ICOBS then there is a good chance that you would get that figure. Of course, there is a risk that you would lose – but in my view a very small risk. Also you would have to pay the claim fee to begin with but you would get this back if you won.

 

Although we have no evidence at the moment, I suspect that any insurer faced with an ICOBS action would quickly put their hands up rather than risk the judgement. We seem to have been finding this in relation to banks who are faced with BCOBS actions.

 

So there we are, both I and UB think that you have been treated badly and that you can succeed on this. UB suggests the FOS. I suggest ICOBS – partly because it is in our interests that you use ICOBS, but also because I think eventually it will produce advantages for you.

 

You have to make the choice, but of course contact the Co-op first. Incidentally, when you tell them that you believe you have been treated unfairly, I would cite the ICOBS regulations immediately so that they know what they're dealing with. There is a specific regulation in ICOBS which deal precisely with the peremptory cancellation of insurance policies on the basis of a technicality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The difficulty with ever looking to threaten court action using ICOBS, is the following law that would apply.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/6/contents/enacted

 

Not only has a modification not been declared, which the Insurers have accepted was not known by the Policyholder, but they also stated they were the registered keeper, when it was their partners car. The Insurers start to think what other information might not be correct. Using the above act, the Insurers could say it was more than careless, but if the Policyholder admits to being a little careless in not being 100% accurate because they did not think it was relevant with a car jointly owned with a partner. Hence why using the fairness angle, where Insurers have been seeking to avoid claim and having to argue over a long period.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to you all. Invaluable advice as always.

 

I suppose now that I have to weigh up whether or not a claim for £700 (give or take) is worth my NCD. As it stands at the moment, I've retained my NCD as no claim was processed.

 

If I now force them in to paying the claim, I'd imagine that bang goes my NCD, which could over 5 years, cost me a bit more than £700ish :| Which I think is really where they win.

 

 

Decisions, decisions. :roll:

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Question is, what has happened to the policy since last September ? Has it been cancelled ?

 

Given they rejected the claim, i would have thought that they would have cancelled it.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, they cancelled it.

 

Luckily, I already had a second policy with another company for my other vehicle, otherwise I could have been right in it.

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One reason to pursue this is the problem of a cancelled policy on record. Coop may have recorded this cancelled policy due to underwriting problems and it may cause you a problem at some point in regard to other car Insurances.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

You do not need to use ICOBS or any other arguement, you have the weight of Statute Law on your side, the Consumer Insurance Act requires an Insurer to pay for a claim if you unintentionally miss lead them when they would have offered cover had you declared the correct information.

 

Just refer CIS to the Consumer Insurance Act and that at the time you took Insurance out they have an FAQ stating registered in spouse's name is acceptable.

 

Myncni's approach of a polite letter referring them that their own FAQ says they accept and mentioning Consumer Insurance Act would normally be the quickest route

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, ICOBS is statute law

Link to post
Share on other sites

ICOBS are the underpinning rules through FCA regulation, but the Consumer Insurance Act to me is a two way street, where it could be argued either way. Was the Policyholder sufficiently careless to avoid a claim and cancel the policy ?

 

Coop have obviously been looking for reasons to decline the claim. They reluctantly agreed to mods on an old car not being known to Policyholder and then the ownership issue seemed an obvious way out, but unfortunately they have not realised what they tell customers about jointly owned cars between partners. My experience is that claims handlers don't always have a full grasp of underwriting issues, as they don't know sales and customer services guidelines/ways of working. A referral has then been made and a wrong decision has been made.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 8th September, I got another letter from Co-Op refusing the claim as the vehicle was registered in my partners name and not mine, and when I'd filled out the form online to start the policy, I'd ticked the box to say that the vehicle was owned by and registered to me.

 

Now, Co-Op's own website (certainly at the time, if not still), in the Q&A section says...

 

Q: Does the policyholder have to be the registered keeper?

A: No, the registered keeper can be the policyholder or the policyholder's spouse/civil partner.

 

.

 

The insurer has asked you who owns the vehicle (who would suffer the financial loss if the vehicle was written off) and a 2nd question who is the registered keeper. The owner could be a person or company or finance company (think PCP etc...). The registered keeper is the one that receives the fines from DVLA and is responsible for taxing a vehicle etc.

 

You have said that you were however they have received the v5 presumably following the write off and it is your 'partners' on the policy.

There is a difference between Spouse/civil partner and partner. Spouse etc have said vows and have signed some paper that give them the rights to more or less marriage. This is important as the insurer will see spouse and civil partner as sharing the insurable interest as the question states. You in your name say my partner which suggests it is not a civil partnership but a common law arrangement which the insurer would not view in the same light as spouse. If the insurer was able to prove through its underwriting criteria that they would not offer cover until that point then they can refuse the claim. They should refund your premium however if they believe it to be an innocent mistake.

 

HTH

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...