Direct Line not validated claim

[n4cop]

Hi my megane cabriolet 2006 55 plat 2.0 auto was stolen in january and found burn out by the police not far from where it was taken. I files the claim with Direct line and completed paperwork and sent them both keys and log book. After a lengthy wait they finally responded to me today to say that they would not validate the claim as the car coul dnot have been stolen without the key unless it had been towed, which was unlikely. They said I can pursue the claim but would have to provide them information as to how the vehiclecould have been stolen without the key - when I suggested that surely they should do this they simply said they had. I asked where could I get this information from and they suggested the police or from the internet. I feel absolutely gutted, it was not bad enough that my car has been taken and I am now having to pay for hire car but now I may not get any money for a replacement car unless I can come up with a case to prove the car was stolen without the key. I would appreciate any helpor advice anyone can give me. thanks

[gyzmo]

So they're up to this trick again/still?

 

Put a complaint in and when they reject it, go to the FOS. They will not agree that a car can never be stolen without a key and will not accept such an excuse to not pay out.

 

It's similar to the "keys left in car / car unattended" scenarios. Even though the policy contains exclusions for thefts under such conditions, the FOS has accepted complaints from insureds.

 

Obviously it depends on the individual circumstances, but I cannot see the insurer getting away with this.

[n4cop]

Thanks Gyzmo for replying. I have spoken to the police this morning and they also tell me that there are still lots of cars stolen without keys are they are not suspicious about my case. m I'll keep you posted. Thanks again.

[INSURANCEGUY]

Hi N4cop,

 

It may be worth asking the police to confirm in writing their comments from your conversation, then simply forward this to DL with a letter simply asking for their comments and how they came to their decision not to deal with your claim.

 

[gyzmo]

Well I used to work for them and all I can say is that the reason was a complete ignorance of insurance law.

 

I have had about 5 or 6 such cases on which I had to scream and shout at team leaders that they were wrong in rejecting the claim, only to be ignored and to watch the complaint go (successfully) to the FOS. "I told you so" obviously has no effect on them at all....

[n4cop]

Hi Gyzmo - any tips on content of letter? am still waiting for the letter from DL to confirm non-validation and what I can do next its been 9 days since they rang me to say the claim was not validated. they really are dragging their heels I've had a loan car for 7 weeks now of they are only paying for three, the third week only because I complained about the length of time it took them to send me the paperwork after the telephone interview!

[gyzmo]

Something simple like this:

 

Sirs,

 

Further to my claim for the theft of my car, please consider this as a complaint.

 

My vehicle was stolen on/between [time/date] and I reported the loss of my car to you on [date]. I stated that no keys were lost or stolen. You have rejected my claim on the basis that it cannot be stolen without the keys or that such a theft is "unlikely".

 

This is not an acceptable basis on which to refuse a claim. You have also requested that I suggest how it could have been stolen. Whilst aware that he onus of proof lies with myself, I am sure you are aware that one cannot prove a negative, and the OFTs code of practice requires that you do not reject claims unreasonably, especially where it is difficult to prove the cause of a loss, as in this case. You are aware that I have reported this matter to the police and they have confirmed that they are not suspicious of the circumstances.

 

As such, I believe I have discharged my responsibilities under the contract of insurance. I have proven the loss of the vehicle which is not due to recklessness on my part. I therefore look forward to your explanation or, preferably, confirmation that you will meet my claim.

 

Yours,,,,,

 

 

Make sure you head the letter "complaint" so they are in no doubt that they cannot class it as a complaint. If they miss any deadline, or as soon as you get a final response, go straight to the FOS (presuming they still refuse to meet the claim). It's messy and time consuming, but these things have to be followed through to ensure you get the right outcome.

 

And remember to NEVER deal with them over the phone. You want to be able to produce everything they say in evidence, and letters are a lot easier than trying to get them to provide a transcript of a call.

[n4cop]

Gyzmo, thanks ever so much for this. my brother in law made a good point this evening, he said why would DL sell me a policy for theft if the car cannot be stolen, surely they must have misold this policy to me! will keep you posted

[n4cop]

THE letter finally arrived! theyb may as well have said we think you did it!!!

I write with reference to the theft of your Renault Megane and confirm that your full

file has been reviewed. On 25 January 2009, you reported the theft of your motor vehicle to the Tele-claims Department. On 28 January 2009, my colleague, Martyn Hemingway, spoke with you to establish "the full circumstances surrounding the theft. During this conversation, the events ofthe loss were disclosed as follows:

On 24 January 2009, your husband, Neil Copperwheat, drove your vehicle to the Old Red Lion, Houghton Regis. The vehicle was parked in the car park and you both entered the restaurant and had a meal together. You left the restaurant area at around 9:30pm and went into the bar area for the rest of the evening. You then received a phone call at approximately l lpm from Bedford Police and also your father. They advised you that your vehicle had been stolen and found.

During the appointment, you confirmed that you were still in possession of both keys that were supplied with the vehicle and you have since sent these to us.

Following the appointment, we arranged for the vehicle to be taken to one of our

salvage agents. They have provided detailed images of the vehicle and they show that there is extensive fire damage to the interior and front end ofthe car.

Following on from this conversation, my colleague made enquiries with Thatcham,

who are the leading industry specialists in vehicle security. They made

Mr Hemingway aware that they have no record of this type of vehicle being driven

without the use of keys and commented this task would be highly improbable as the vehicle is fitted with a transponder immobiliser. They also confirmed that the vehicle is fitted with ultrasonic and microwave alarm sensors and this would cause the alarm to sound if they had not been deactivated first.

Given both sets of keys are accounted for, and also considering the fire-related

damage, we can state that the loss could not have occurred in the manner you have

described. It is improbable that someone has gone to the great effort of towing the car away, only to set fire to it 2 miles away Taking into consideration the above information that has been provided to us, we are not in a position to proceed any further with this claim, as the circumstances provided

to us are not consistent with the type of loss recorded. Moreover, our concerns over the circumstances are mirrored by our expert witnesses, referred to above. Whilst the circumstances of loss remain unproven, we are unable to consider your claim further. In not providing indemnity, you will resultantly be held liable for any recovery and storage costs incurred. As a result of the said claim, we have incurred an outlay to the sum of £331.75 for the recovery and storage of your vehicle. We therefore look to you for reimbursement of the same and, as such, await your full reimbursing cheque within the next 14 days. Also, if we do not hear from you within 14 days, we will make arrangements to dispose of your vehicle.

Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please do not hesitate to contact the

Claims Validation Department on the number stated below.

[gyzmo]

"they have no record of of this type of vehicle being driven without the keys". That is not the same as saying "it's impossible", nor does it exclude that there are various instances of this happening that they have no knowledge of.

 

They also have no addressed the possibility of the keys being copied. And who is to say that the purpose of the theft was to burn it? It could have been stolen to say "I can do it", or by some arsonist. Or someone who had a change of mind after stealing it. I personally do not think they are beyond the realms of possibility.

 

I would still put in the complaint, but you will now need to refute what DL have said. The best way I can imagine is to contact a loss assessor to assist, or get some other expert opinion.

 

Hopefuly someone else will come along who may have a few ideas.