has anyone - who is a part time car trader (sales only) had the car policy cancelled by any insurance company because they didn't buy or sell a car in a 3 month window?

Sounds a bit weird. Can't you tell us the whole story?

I am an accountant and have been buying the odd car here and there for some 8 years without any issues.

I changed insurer early this year to policy plan

- £400 cheaper

- and informed them that I only buy a few a year (6-10) and took the policy out

they wrote to me this month to say they have cancelled the policy because there was no activity on the MID register over a 3 month period.

Was not aware that insurance companies dictated when one need to work?

no amount of conversation has changed their mind.

I guess I need to think if a county court claim for breach of contract?

I really don't understand.

You pay for one year's insurance. You don't sell many cars so effectively you're not using the insurance which means that there is a minimal risk to the insurer and because the insurance company is essentially making pure profit because there is no risk of paying anything out, they cancel your insurance. Is this right?

yep....so now am contemplating a county court claim for contract breech

Well this is an amazing story. I can't imagine why they might have that kind of policy. What does MID stand for? Are you sure there's no trace of any reference to this kind of thing or any obligation on your part in their terms and conditions?

If you are going to sue them then much better then breach of contract would be to sue them for unfair treatment of you under ICOBS. This is a brilliant and powerful piece of regulation made by the FCA under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 – and unfortunately, so far no one has used it. I have no idea why because insurers inflict all sorts of unfair treatment on their customers and yet no one seems to have the bottle to want to get up and challenge it. A breach of contract action would certainly be possible but I can guarantee you that the possibility of a judgement under ICOBS and then a reference by you to the FCA would have a far more dramatic effect.

There is an equivalent regulation in respect of banks which is known as BCOBS. We have had two BCOBS actions which have been started in the County Court on this forum and the effects on the banks concerned – Santander and NatWest have been remarkable in terms of the money that they have offered to prevent the action going to court. Once again, BCOBS is hugely powerful but very underused by aggrieved customers and yet it is the most effective thing in the consumer armoury when dealing with unfair treatment by banks. Same with insurers – ICOBS. Same with mortgage lenders – MCOBS

Icobs

MCOBS

its a motor trade policy, maybe a 'part time' one atm, with motor trade benefits re insurance.

they require the MID (motor ins database) to be updated re cars sold etc

maybe their (the ins co) terms say if no particular activity, then it may not be qualifying for trade insurance?

Ah yes, that makes sense. If trade insurance is particularly cheap then possibly their objective is to make sure that people don't purchase a trade policy and then use it for their own day-to-day vehicle. That would have some logic to it.

Have they returned pro-rata premium? if so what would be the monetary loss you would seek to recover in a county court claim?

My guess, as an ex-motor insurance underwriter (long ago!), is that they issue the policy in reliance that your part-time occupation is motor trader. But if they see no evidence of motor trading they conclude that it is no longer your business. Or possibly that you are trading but aren't declaring to them how many vehicles are passing through your hands if policy is on a declaration basis of some sort). Look for any express conditions. If none that seem relevant the ICOBS route suggested by BF is likely to be more helpful to you than county court.

Ah yes, that makes sense. If trade insurance is particularly cheap then possibly their objective is to make sure that people don't purchase a trade policy and then use it for their own day-to-day vehicle. That would have some logic to it.

Precisely.

It was a concern for e.g. for a group of young drivers to take out trade insurance, covering a number of vehicles that would be prohibitively expensive as a group, then being insured for “trade” and in fact driven for SDP (+/- commuting / business), with the result of the Drivers appearing to be insured but underpaying premiums massively.

Hence the requirement (and not an unfair one!) for evidence of ‘trade’

OP: if you aren’t trading, can you see why they might feel a trade policy isn’t appropriate.

Was your driving during that 3 months purely for trade activities?.

As for breach of contract : is there a term regarding this in the policy documentation?.

As for ‘fairness’ : the insurers are still obliged to treat you fairly, but since this is a business contract, they get a lot more latitude over what is “fair” (if it is in the terms .....)

lets do this I have nothing to lose except a few quid on the court fees

nothing ventured and all that

ill make an online claim Wednesday......

as you are going to make claim then, do you have a copy of their terms. ooi, what do they say

lets do this I have nothing to lose except a few quid on the court fees

nothing ventured and all that

ill make an online claim Wednesday......

You didn't answer my earlier question so I'll ask again. What is the monetary loss you are claiming for?

sorry had to pop out to PO.

ok, so the new policy is £320 more expensive - so that's what I would try and claim for

ok, so the new policy is £320 more expensive - so that's what I would try and claim for

new policy with a different insurer. would they end up doing the same if no deemed 'activity'.

so, what are the terms then re current trade insurer re that '3 months'.

I suggest that you check the T & C's very carefully. Make sure that you are a winner.

Secondly, decide whether you want to sue on the basis of ICOBS or breach of contract.

Finally, please read up about the new pre-action protocol which came into force first of October

 

Finally, please read up about the new pre-action protocol which came into force first of October

if you mean the new debt protocol; that only relates to businesses v an individual, and not the other way nor business to business.

.... If none that seem relevant the ICOBS route suggested by BF is likely to be more helpful to you than county court.

an ICOBS claim would also be brought in the County Court

if you mean the new debt protocol; that only relates to businesses v an individual, and not the other way nor business to business.

I hadn't understood that. I thought it was a general protocol which applied to anybody contemplating litigation.

I hadn't understood that. I thought it was a general protocol which applied to anybody contemplating litigation.

see para 1.1 in the linked pdf link

… And in fact I've just gone back and checked it and there you are in the first paragraph it makes it clear that it does not apply to individuals.

I think that I've given incorrect advice on two or three threads somewhere in the last week but I can't find them to correct them. If you happen to see them in your travels, maybe you could post up a correction or else link to this thread.

Ta

fedupconsumer

what are the policy terms then re that '3 months' and cancellation, or whatever else terms may be relevant re?

It does apply to Business to Sole Trader...

http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/articles/how-to-follow-the-new-pre-action-protocol-for-business-debt.650/

http://smallbusiness.co.uk/pre-action-protocol-small-businesses-need-know-2541552/

has anyone - who is a part time car trader (sales only) had the car policy cancelled by any insurance company because they didn't buy or sell a car in a 3 month window?

The terms of that policy will state that it is for someone actively trading in cars. The Insurers will note that there is not an active business as no cars bought or sold in a 3 month period and the policy is then not suited to the risk. It is a traders policy, not to cover someone with a number of cars sitting on a driveway.

Before any complaints or court actions are pursued, the OP needs to go back to the policy terms that they were sold when they took out the Insurance. It should have been made very clear that the Insurers had a right to cancel, if no cars bought or sold in any 3 month period.

Probably not sitting on a driveway but being road tested every day going back and forth to his office.

Dont forget, OP, you are not an individual in this matter but a business so unfair contracts and consumer rights dont count.