Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • yes sorry i was confused that you had managed to get anything out of the administrators. we've not seen that and was surprised by it read that way.   your credit file is clear Conexus Recovery and Field Services Ltd - can be totally ignored. 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..
    • An online news and information service for the UK’s commercial and consumer credit industry. View the full article
    • They are very nonsensical aren’t they? As far as I can tell they have no proof of ownership of debt whatsoever - it feels like they’re just hoping I cave in 🙈   I’ll get onto the CRA’s now - thank you 😊 
    • Thanks ...okay well as you are already aware you will get more sense out of your bin than talking to Arrow...so I would now escalate it by informing the Credit Reference agencies and submit a Notice of Correction ( each CRA has its own instruction's on how  to submit) and they will contact Arrow asking for details of the debt....if that fails you can contact the ICO (information Commissioner's Office) and raise a complaint re false data reporting.     See how you get on.
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Broker didnt disclose conviction to insurer - claimed - help


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3956 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Long story short:

 

Had car stolen, everything reported, documents sent to insurers directly as advised by broker.

Had finance approved for a new car, a lovely new car, on condition of the outstanding finance for the stolen car be settled.

Insurance have today told me my claim is on hold due to non disclosure of motoring conviction. I enquired what this meant so that I could be doubly clear.

 

"When you sent us the paper part of your licence, there are two convictions. An SP60 and an IN10. We knew about the SP60, we didnt know about the IN10."

 

I explained about purchasing via a broker, who wouldnt let me input the IN10. I also explained I called the broker to enquire as to why this was and what I should do, and explained I was advised that everything would be fine and I should continue to purchase the policy online anyway.

 

Two years down the line from purchasing the policy and now the broker is denying ever being informed of the IN10, and therefore the claim could, and probably will be invalid.

 

I called my insurance back, who said this wasnt true, and that my claim was on hold for investigation and an investigator would be in touch very shortly.

 

Here is my issue:

I informed the broker of my IN10 when I wasnt allowed to declare it on the website. They told me it was fine and I could purchase my policy online.

 

The broker declared the SP60 but not the IN10. If the insurers declare the claim invalid, I am left with a £7500 bill for the stolen car, I wont be able to afford another car, thus breaching my contract of employment which states I need a car and driving licence, and in turn could cost me my employment.

 

Surely the broker must take some liability and help me out with this, other than simply advising me to "seek legal advice?"

 

Please help/advise.

Me v Barlcays Bank - Claim Stayed

Me v Jaguar Cars 1 - Won £1650

Me v Jaguar Cars 2 - Winning

Me v London Borough of Newham - Won, Warrant of Execution live

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Davey,

 

unfortunately, the insurer need to be aware of all convictions, which in this case, they weren't.

 

some insurer's will accept IN10's, some deem them unacceptable, and therefore dont offer a quote on quoting systems once this has been input- so had the website allowed you to enter the conviction, the insurer that you have chosen either wouldnt have offered a quote or would have offered a higher priced quote.

 

Who are the insurer?

 

It may be that there is an 'additional premium' payable, which would be the difference between the current premium and the amended one, but only if they accept this conviction.

 

I would suggest writing to both the broker's complaints department, and the insurer's, explaining the situation in full, and explaining that you took all reasonable steps to ensure that all info was provided.

 

I am unsure as to what the FOS view of this would be, the question is could you reasonably have avoided this- in my view, and only my view, when you receive the policy documents, you are required to check the details as shown, in which case, the information could have been updated.

Insurance Guy

If I can offer any help I will....

I have experience in Fault, Non-Fault & Disputed Liability Motor Claims for vehicle damage and hire, and some experience in Personal Injury Claims

 

 

If I've helped- please click my scales :D

 

ANY ASSISTANCE IS GIVEN ENTIRELY WITHOUT PREJUDICE- YOU SHOULD SEEK INDEPENDANT LEGAL ADVICE TO CONFIRM ANY ADVICE GIVEN

FEEL FREE TO PM ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD IF YOU WOULD LIKE ADVICE 8-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Davey,

 

unfortunately, the insurer need to be aware of all convictions, which in this case, they weren't.

 

some insurer's will accept IN10's, some deem them unacceptable, and therefore dont offer a quote on quoting systems once this has been input- so had the website allowed you to enter the conviction, the insurer that you have chosen either wouldnt have offered a quote or would have offered a higher priced quote.

 

Who are the insurer?

 

It may be that there is an 'additional premium' payable, which would be the difference between the current premium and the amended one, but only if they accept this conviction.

 

I would suggest writing to both the broker's complaints department, and the insurer's, explaining the situation in full, and explaining that you took all reasonable steps to ensure that all info was provided.

 

I am unsure as to what the FOS view of this would be, the question is could you reasonably have avoided this- in my view, and only my view, when you receive the policy documents, you are required to check the details as shown, in which case, the information could have been updated.

 

Firstly thank you for your response.

 

The website let me input the SP60, and not the IN10. I called the broker to ask them why it wouldnt let me input the IN10 and asked whether I could still have the policy. I was informed I could - so I did.

 

The insurer is Zurich and the broker is Lloyd Latchford - try their website for yourselves www.yourcarmotorinsurance.co.uk and you will see you cant put the conviction in there.

 

Finally, the only documents I received was a standard handbook explaining all the benefits, what to do to make a claim, breakdown cover, no claims bonus protection, theft etc etc, the key facts of the policy, and the certificate of insurance. I later received the payment terms from Premium Credit. AT NO POINT ON ANY DOCUMENT RECEIVED FROM LLOYD LATCHFORD OR ZURICH WERE ANY CONVICTIONS STATED.

Me v Barlcays Bank - Claim Stayed

Me v Jaguar Cars 1 - Won £1650

Me v Jaguar Cars 2 - Winning

Me v London Borough of Newham - Won, Warrant of Execution live

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok, in which case I would argue that the website did not and still does not allow that conviction code to be entered, and that a call was made to the broker to clarify this, and at no point have you rcvd documents to check. I think FOS would go in your favour if they were to void the policy.

 

As above, write to broker and insurer, and see what response you get.

Insurance Guy

If I can offer any help I will....

I have experience in Fault, Non-Fault & Disputed Liability Motor Claims for vehicle damage and hire, and some experience in Personal Injury Claims

 

 

If I've helped- please click my scales :D

 

ANY ASSISTANCE IS GIVEN ENTIRELY WITHOUT PREJUDICE- YOU SHOULD SEEK INDEPENDANT LEGAL ADVICE TO CONFIRM ANY ADVICE GIVEN

FEEL FREE TO PM ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD IF YOU WOULD LIKE ADVICE 8-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
was the call recorded ?

 

"We do record all of our calls, as standard procedure, but as your call was made about 2 years ago we would have to go back and listen to EVERY conversation from 2 weeks either side of the date of your policy starting. We simply couldnt do this as it would take far too long."

 

So apparently yes they do.

 

Thanks for your responses. Surely the broker HAS to take liability for this? Ill wait to see what Zurich say first, then decide whether to send a letter.

 

It has been 3 weeks now, it still does not help me in terms of a car. I have one on a forecourt waiting to be collected. I cant get it until this is sorted, and the dealer is only holding it until Saturday.

Me v Barlcays Bank - Claim Stayed

Me v Jaguar Cars 1 - Won £1650

Me v Jaguar Cars 2 - Winning

Me v London Borough of Newham - Won, Warrant of Execution live

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest janensteve

they don't have to listen to every call. If you applied online and then rang them up because you clould input IN10, surely that was between teh time of your online quote request and the cover being proposed.

 

its a flimsy cop out to say 2 weeks either side, also, can you not check with your tel company as the police can trace all calls going back years for criminal cases.

 

as they have admitted that they do record all calls, you are entitled to demand discovery of the recording under CPR i it went to court.

 

The FOS once having recognised that the calls are indeed recorded would expect thm to produce the recording as they have the ability to dis-prove the facts that you assert.

 

it still does not get around the policy statement of information whoich asks you to check the answers and warns you of the consequences of non-disclosure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
they don't have to listen to every call. If you

it still does not get around the policy statement of information whoich asks you to check the answers and warns you of the consequences of non-disclosure.

 

I didnt receive one of these. It rings no bells whatsoever. They didnt ask me to prove my NCB nor did they ask for a copy of my licence or anything to confirm who I was and my convictions etc.

Me v Barlcays Bank - Claim Stayed

Me v Jaguar Cars 1 - Won £1650

Me v Jaguar Cars 2 - Winning

Me v London Borough of Newham - Won, Warrant of Execution live

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest janensteve

they don't have to ask for a copy of your licence, it is you who make the statement of utmost good faith that enables them to insure the risk.

 

did you receive a document confirming the other conviction that was disclosed ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
they don't have to ask for a copy of your licence, it is you who make the statement of utmost good faith that enables them to insure the risk.

 

did you receive a document confirming the other conviction that was disclosed ?

 

Nope, nothing. I received the Zurich booklet and key facts. I received a covering letter from Lloyd Latchford and a Certificate of Insurance from Zurich. None of which have anything about any of my convictions. The cert simply has the basic stuff about driving other cars if Im over 25 with owners permission, and not using my car as a rally car or for profit etc.

Me v Barlcays Bank - Claim Stayed

Me v Jaguar Cars 1 - Won £1650

Me v Jaguar Cars 2 - Winning

Me v London Borough of Newham - Won, Warrant of Execution live

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest janensteve

so where was the opportunity for you to check that the information provided via a distance sale was correct ?

 

if the infor was not provided, you could not check, so you get to rely on the volice recording.

 

if they cannot prove that you were provided with the statement of facts and personal details and they have a recorded conversation that they seem loathed to trace, i would say, you have solid grounds for a valid complaint.

 

unfortunately the wheels won't trun as quickly as you require.

 

i suggest that if you have not done so already taht you submit a claomplaint to the broker who arranged the policy and a letter to the insurer for copies of all correspondnce issued by them at inception of the policy and up to 60 days therafter

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I will do this. I cant believe this to be honest with you. Added to the fact that the baby's pram and car seat were in the car, along with my fooball boots (also used in my job), we cant take the baby anywhere.

And this lovely car is going to get away from me. Im fuming.

Me v Barlcays Bank - Claim Stayed

Me v Jaguar Cars 1 - Won £1650

Me v Jaguar Cars 2 - Winning

Me v London Borough of Newham - Won, Warrant of Execution live

Link to post
Share on other sites
"We do record all of our calls, as standard procedure, but as your call was made about 2 years ago we would have to go back and listen to EVERY conversation from 2 weeks either side of the date of your policy starting. We simply couldnt do this as it would take far too long."

 

 

time it takes them is irrelevent.

 

If it's personal data involving you and they still retain it, then hit them with a SAR (Subject Access Request) for all files/documents they have relating to you - this includes recordings. I used it to fight my tax credits overpayment, and you can imagine how many calls HMRC get...

 

It'll cost you £10, but compared to what your insurance might cost you...

Link to post
Share on other sites

"When you sent us the paper part of your licence, there are two convictions. An SP60 and an IN10. We knew about the SP60, we didnt know about the IN10."

 

 

SP60 is not a valid endorsement code.

 

IN10 is having no insurance and many insurance companies won't touch this with a bargepole

Link to post
Share on other sites

SP60 is an "Undefined speeding offence" basically I was caught by a snide camera doing 54 on a 40 on the M6 during "roadworks" (basically there were a few cones out, no workmen though, at 11.00pm!

I sent my driving licence through, it was after I had appealed and lost, so they used this code as they probably couldnt remember what it was for.

 

My IN10 was when I was driving my sisters car, on a fully comp policy, 2 months before my 25th birthday thinking I had to be 21 to drive other cars. Policeman was harsh as it goes. But he earned his commission.

 

Still doesnt excuse the broker not disclosing it to Zurich after me disclosing it to the broker does it.

Me v Barlcays Bank - Claim Stayed

Me v Jaguar Cars 1 - Won £1650

Me v Jaguar Cars 2 - Winning

Me v London Borough of Newham - Won, Warrant of Execution live

Link to post
Share on other sites
SP60 is an "Undefined speeding offence" basically I was caught by a snide camera doing 54 on a 40 on the M6 during "roadworks" (basically there were a few cones out, no workmen though, at 11.00pm!

I sent my driving licence through, it was after I had appealed and lost, so they used this code as they probably couldnt remember what it was for.

 

 

It used to be, but it was removed some time back. The correct code would have been SP50 - speeding on a motorway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It used to be, but it was removed some time back. The correct code would have been SP50 - speeding on a motorway.

 

Was it removed before April 2007? It clearly states SP60 on my driving licence.

 

Just a side note. Should my insurer rule the claim be invalid based on the non disclosure of the IN10, surely I could sue the broker for:

a) failing to provide correct information to an insurer, and therefore;

b) selling me a false/fraudulant insurance policy?

Me v Barlcays Bank - Claim Stayed

Me v Jaguar Cars 1 - Won £1650

Me v Jaguar Cars 2 - Winning

Me v London Borough of Newham - Won, Warrant of Execution live

Link to post
Share on other sites
Was it removed before April 2007? It clearly states SP60 on my driving licence.

 

Just a side note. Should my insurer rule the claim be invalid based on the non disclosure of the IN10, surely I could sue the broker for:

a) failing to provide correct information to an insurer, and therefore;

b) selling me a false/fraudulant insurance policy?

 

a) only if you can prove it - you will need to get that recording

 

b) no, AIUI, they didn't sell you a policy; you bought on-line after calling them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
b) no, AIUI, they didn't sell you a policy; you bought on-line after calling them.

 

Yeah, but it was after calling them to confirm the IN10 was ok.

Me v Barlcays Bank - Claim Stayed

Me v Jaguar Cars 1 - Won £1650

Me v Jaguar Cars 2 - Winning

Me v London Borough of Newham - Won, Warrant of Execution live

Link to post
Share on other sites
Was it removed before April 2007? It clearly states SP60 on my driving licence.

 

Yes, it was. 1st January 2006.

 

Yeah, but it was after calling them to confirm the IN10 was ok.

 

Nevertheless they did not sell you a policy - fraudulently or otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it was. 1st January 2006.

 

Does this make the conviction on my licence invalid?? If so can I request it be removed??

 

Nevertheless they did not sell you a policy - fraudulently or otherwise.

 

I bought, they sold?

Me v Barlcays Bank - Claim Stayed

Me v Jaguar Cars 1 - Won £1650

Me v Jaguar Cars 2 - Winning

Me v London Borough of Newham - Won, Warrant of Execution live

Link to post
Share on other sites
Does this make the conviction on my licence invalid?? If so can I request it be removed??
You can request the DVLA to substitute an SP50

 

 

 

I bought, they sold?

 

My understanding is that the broker didn't sell, because you bought on-line direct from the insurer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You can request the DVLA to substitute an SP50

I have just spoken to them, they said I need to take it up with the court who issued the judgement.

My understanding is that the broker didn't sell, because you bought on-line direct from the insurer.

I didnt. I bought on-line through a broker.

Me v Barlcays Bank - Claim Stayed

Me v Jaguar Cars 1 - Won £1650

Me v Jaguar Cars 2 - Winning

Me v London Borough of Newham - Won, Warrant of Execution live

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...