Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by dacouc

  1. I've seen a similar(ish) case recently where the Ombudsman decided the Insurer acted badly and is looking to award between £150 and £250. Try making an "Official Complaint" (Keep it polite, outline the issue and your ideal resolution). If you're not happy with RAC's answer / offer you can then take it to the Ombudsman
  2. It is incredibly difficult for an Insurer to cancel the policy from inception (For obvious reasons), to be able to do this the Insurer needs to prove serious intent to defraud them. The policy would then be voided "Ab Initio" Voiding a policy in such a way was very very rare in the past, it is even more rare now as thanks to the Insurance Derrgulation Act voiding the policy in such a way (Still) leaves the Insurer potentially liable for claims. The common way since the recent introduction of the Act is to cancel the policy giving seven days notice in writing. This is a complex area and their is a High Court Case setting precident where a Taxi driver appealed against a no insurance conviction by claiming his private use policy provided cover under the RTA even though he did not have taxi cover. The court ruled against him. I can never find this case, but if someone wants to spend time searching the web it is there, the drivers name was Ahmed or along those lines The EU have been trying to ensure that third parties are covered either by the RTA or the MIB eg section 75 Insurer by trying to fill in any gaps. There are fairly recent (European) court cases where the court have ruled that "Any use" makes the Insurer liable under MIB (When not an RTA liability). The court was not ruling on use as in the topic but on another matter but they are trying their best to eleminate any situations where a case may not be covered by the RTA or the MIB.
  3. Further to Supervillain's post, if it was not the third parties garage it would have been your broker who arranged the repairs and the credit hire and it was presented to you (Loosely enough) that you thought they were calling from the other Insurer
  4. This will alarm some people... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/21/arron-banks-insurance-personal-data-leave-eu?CMP=share_btn_tw
  5. If you do not cancel your previous Insurance, when your new company asks you to provide proof of your no claims bonus you will not be able to provide it
  6. You may find this helpful... http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/25/25-disclosure-of-spent-motoring-convictions.htm I foresee a nice juicy cheque as an apology coming your way from the bank
  7. Do you have the same Insurer for your car Insurance and home Insurance? Did you have an accident at the same time as the drink drive conviction? What is the exact wording of the question your Insurer asked you about "convictions" on your renewal?
  8. 143/4 and 143/5 Are also worth reading for other relevant rulings http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/144/144-insurance-pricing.html
  9. http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/144/144.html 144/3 – Mr A complains that his home insurance is too expensive Mr A, in his eighties, had been living with dementia for a few years. He didn’t use a computer, and his wife, who’d always taken care of the home expenses, had died about seven years before. So after this he’d asked the insurer to send things to him by post. Mr A’s nephew got in touch with us when helping his uncle out with his household finances. He’d noticed the home insurance for his uncle’s two-bedroom terraced home was £1,400. He’d found similar policies online for as little as £150. Indeed his existing insurer was quoting £300 for more comprehensive cover. He’d been with the same insurer for 15 years, originally taking out the policy for £200. The policy had automatically renewed every year and Mr A had never made a claim. Mr A’s nephew complained on his uncle’s behalf that the price of the policy wasn’t fair. He told us his uncle was very upset to think his insurer had taken advantage of his loyalty. In response to Mr A’s complaint, the insurer said the price was correct and that the quotes on their website were lower because of “online discounts”. Mr A’s nephew asked for our help to sort things out. how we helped When considering whether Mr A was treated fairly, we looked at whether he’d been given clear information when his insurance was due to be renewed. He needed to have been able to make an informed decision about accepting the price and cover offered. Mr A’s renewal documents were sent to him by post. And for the first four years the price had increased very little. In the fifth year, it went up by 15% and by similar amounts after that. The insurer’s renewal letters told Mr A that as a valued customer he’d received a number of discounts for making no claims and staying with them. But we thought the difference in price between Mr A’s policy and the online policies couldn’t be explained by the online discounts alone. The renewal letters also referred to other policies being available, but said that unless his circumstances had changed, Mr A didn’t need to do anything. Overall, we thought that the information he’d had at renewal could have been misleading. From what Mr A’s nephew told us about his personal circumstances and his lack of direct engagement, we thought it should have been clear to the insurer that Mr A might need additional help in making an informed choice about whether to renew his policy. We didn’t think the insurer had done enough to let him know there were other, potentially cheaper, options available. Increasing his price each year without taking into account Mr A’s needs had left him potentially susceptible to detriment. We thought that his vulnerability should have been apparent from the fifth policy year onwards. That was also when the price of his policy had begun to increase significantly, the original new customer discount having been recouped by then too. We told the insurer to refund the difference in premiums, with interest, for each year between the price paid after five years and the subsequent renewal offers. The insurer also accepted our recommendation to pay £150 for the upset they caused Mr A.
  10. Bear in mind that if they had obtained judgement against your husband, then it would have added further costs to the claim for you to pay. It is standard practice for Insurers to pay claims without going through courts where the claim circumstances and / or value are undisputed. Also bear in mind that it would be surprising if Admiral had medical evidence a couple of months after the accident to support the injuries. Generally the third party would visit their GP or Hospital (Although this is not essential) and evidence of this may not have been available a few months after the accident. Normal practice for an injury would be for the medical expert to perform their report a long time after the accident to allow time for the injuries to settle and / or recover. This enables a proper assement and for the Insurer to calculate the compensation. Admiral may have by passed a solicitor for the third party to reduce costs. In such a claim an Insurer would (Should) expect their paperwork to be very comprehensive so that if and when it's disputed by you that everything stands up to scrutiny and there can be no disputes over the payments made. It's worth noting that Admiral are very efficient at pursuing such payments.
  11. This struck me when I read the OP. The communications would normally be through the Insurers of the vehicle and the fact that the MID are writing to the registered keeper would indicate there is a problem somewhere along the line
  12. Stupid question, but how did Hyperperformance explain the All Sections excess? Did they just tell you it applies to all sections or did they tell you that it is paid if you claim or did they properly explain how it works?
  13. The Ombudsman may disagree that XS Directs cancellation charges are acceptable as the FOS would not normally accept that level of charges for a cancellation unless the Insurer can justify it. The Insurer may argue that due to the profile of the type of drivers they attract they need high charges to cover the costs of drivers taking cover out and then cancelling or defaulting part way through the policy http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/54/insurance.htm
  14. It is not a problem that you asked to cancel the claim if you speak to CG, their interview technique should highlight that your reason for wanting to cancel was genuinely to avoid the hassle and not because you had been found out. Just tell the truth and you will be fine. Be aware they may have googled you and also checked your social media, so they may mention these if they feel they are relevant. They will send their report to your Insurers for their decision, they in effect gather evidence and submit it to the Insurers P.S The interview may take 30 minutes to 45 minutes
  15. The Cotswold Group (GF) will have been appointed because of a combination of the current claim which is also similar to your previous claim and also the non disclosed claim. Not disclosing an Accidental Damage claim and then making another fraudulent AD claim is generally not what a fraudster would do, which they will be aware of and will be wanting to ensure the current claim is a valid claim. They are also likely to be tasked with looking into whether the non disclosure of the claim was intentional or was innocent. They will have been asked to validate your claim due to your non disclosure and the two claim ticking a number of boxes which results in CG being involved. You asking to withdraw the claim would set off alarm bells at the Insurer as generally a customer with a valid claim wants to their claim paid and would not withdraw the claim They are likely to perform a "Cognitive Interview" (Google it) on you which is similar to how police interview witnesses and suspects and is designed to indicate whether the truth is being told or not. It will basically be them asking you to tell them what happened with the dropped speaker and also when you applied for the Insurance. They will then ask you to repeat certain parts of the story (Possibly in a random order) in addition they will ask seemingly random / unconnected questions for instance what sort of music was your daughter listening to when she dropped the speaker. The purpose of the interview is that someone who has made up a story will have thought of a basic story and invented a story to answer what questions they are expecting, the random questions they ask are the type of question someone who is telling the truth would know the answer to but someone who is not telling the truth would not know. In addition someone telling the truth may not know the answer and will tell the interviewer they do not remember or know the answer but someone lying may not answer or may invent an answer. The interviewers are very highly trained and can detect the tell tell signs of someone lying and they are also trained to spot the signs of a truthful story. You may find the interview process stressful in that they seem to ask the same question a number of times but worded differently, this is not because they do not believe you, but because it is one of their techniques to see if you change your story. Do not be afraid of the interview, if you are telling the truth you have nothing to worry about, if you make a mistake in your answer do not worry as they expect this as it is natural, they will pick up the lies. Be aware that they are very likely to ask you why you forgot to disclose a claim that only occurred last June, just be truthful about the reason. I strongly recommend you stick to the truth throughout the conversation and then you have nothing to worry about. I notice they use RSA as one of their Insurers, RSA are well known in the industry for wanting to apply terms to the renewals or to new customers who have had an Accidental Damage claim, so it may be that if they are happy with your claim & non disclosure that they increase the policy excess to what they would have done had you declared the claim. It is also a possibility that they do not accept new customers who have made a previous Accidental Damage claim in the last two years. If this is the case they are within their rights to void your policy and not pay your claim.
  16. If the OP is with an Insurer such as Direct Line with an Uninsured Driver promise, they will not need to worry
  17. If you have comprehensive cover you cannot claim for your damages from the MIB, you should claim from your own policy
  18. Did you do a SAR data request on the broker and did they actually offer the alternative quote of £5k? In my experience it would be fairly unusual for an alternative quote to be offered in your circumstances
  19. I agree, it is well worth the OP trying the Ombudsman, anyone who keeps abreast of the Ombudsman knows that some of their decisions do not make sense to people in the industry but would make sense to a consumer rights champion. A yes or no from the Ombudsman will help the many other people in the OP's situation and whicvever way the decision goes I have a feeling it will focus XS and any of their agents in the way they sell the product to make sure there is no doubt that a "Reasonable" consumer would understand what they are buying
  20. Page 20 https://www.onecalldirect.co.uk/existingCustomers/website-documents/getDocument.php?doc_name=1488541941Motor-XSD-Insurance-Policy-Wording.pdf
  21. The sales call would be interesting to see the transcript to. An "Official Complaint" and then a complaint to the FOS is worth considering, I do not believe the XS Direct sales via brokers / comparison sites has been tested yet and the complaint process and FOS is free for you to use. The FOS may well levy a charge of circa £500 to the agent which is non refundable eg they pay it whether you win or lose the case. There is a small chance that XS Direct and / or the agent will not want to risk an FOS case as it then becomes public record for others in your position to see and although it does not always set a precident they tend to be very influence other Ombudsman adjudicators when dealing with similar cases. So the chance of a registered FOS complaint might mean they come up with a solution that you find acceptable before it gets to the Ombudsman stage. This is a fairly long shot. Also bear in mind that the Insurance regulators and the Ombudsman regard the consumer as being uninformed about financial products so require Insurers to make very clear to the consumer what they are buying so they can make an informed decision. I have seen a number of similar cases on various other forums and in each case contributers who work in the industry do not realise what an "All Sections Excess" actually is, so if insurance professionals do not understand it applies to third party claims then it is understandable that a consumer would not realise if they just see the legend "All Sections" next to the excess unless it is made clear it also applies to third party claims. I suspect there is other paper work that we have not seen that explains that the excess applies to third party claims, it would be helpful if you have any such paperwork that you post it up so we get the full picture. I am not saying you have a case, but if the policy has genunely been miss sold then you would have a reasonable chance of suceeding with a complaint to the FOS. If you could post up all the paperwork you have been given, it is mainly the pre purchase paperwork that is important and what they told you on the phone.
  22. Just to make it clear to you, if you have been miss sold the policy and you complain to the Ombudsman, if the Ombudsman (FOS) agree then they will force the broker / agent to put you in the same financial position you would have been if you had not been if the policy had not been miss sold. This is likely to mean that the £3000 excess applying to claims against you from third parties would not be applied. It is therefore worth you looking into the matter. I have seen a lot of people on various forums in a similar position to you, a decision by the Ombudsman on this matter could be very helpful to so many people. I am of the opinion that this type of policy should not be sold via a comparison site where people in effect are only concerned at purchasing the cheapest policy of which one with a £3k excess for third party claims is frequently going to be the cheapest. It is incredibly important that such sales make it very very clear to a consumer what their excess is and in what circumstances they will pay it
  • Create New...