Jump to content
  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Can you ask your GP to get a second opinion on the NHS?  (I ought to know because I'm a retired NHS manager, but worked in mental health where x-rays didn't really feature very much(!).)   Your GP may be reluctant for various reasons but you've got nothing to lose by asking.  Might be difficult if there's only one consultant in that specialty locally.   If that is a non-starter, you could ask your GP for a private referral if any of the relevant specialists run private clinics.  Your son'll get seen quicker and an initial private consultation shouldn't cost more than about a couple of hundred quid.  Then take it from there.   (Emphasise to your GP what your real concerns are and why you have them - even if it's just "I looked it up on the internet and it looks like this which can lead to serious complications.  What do you think?  I'm really worried...")   EDIT:  Just looked on my local NHS Clinical Commissioning Group website and searched for "second opinion" but nothing comes up...  I thought you were entitled to one - you'll have to ask your GP.  Or look on your own CCG site.  Oh - despite being a NHS manager I have paid to see a consultant privately.  £150 well spent - if you can afford it... which I appreciate not everyone can.
    • dont think they are even allowed to offer settlement by instalments, they are not creditors.   read the letter carefully and understand what it doesn't actually say....like the word WILL anywhere.   they,  a DCA, can't recommend anything and their client most certainly wouldn't have disclosed anything to a powerless DCA about what their solicitors might or might not have said to them. and ofcourse a solicitor is in no position whatsoever to suggest to their client they get back to the DCA and tell the DCA to tell you their client will accept instalments!   the letter is a load of ole BS that is concocted by the dca without any input or knowledge of their client nor their clients solicitor...   dx      
    • The paediatric orthopaedic consultant at the fracture clinic told us today that he believes it is just a sprain behind the knee. I'm concerned my GP will say something along the lines of, 'you have seen a consultant, he says it will heal in 2 to 3 weeks, you don't know more than him!', or something like that. It's just that I believe I can clearly see a fracture. And as there was no fall or hard knock, only a very tightly streched knee bending at an angle behind, with a load. I figured that the temdon must have pulled some bone up. And thats the injury I found online. I totally take on board what you are saying. You are correct. I guess I'll see what my GP says tomorrow, hopefully she allows me to email the images, if she doesent have access to them already. Thanks again
    • With the global market for recycled cardboard worth billions of dollars, it is attracting criminals. View the full article
    • UK house prices are predicted to fall but a report spells out why property may remain out of reach. View the full article
  • Our picks

    • Curry’s cancelled my order but took the money anyway. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/423055-curry%E2%80%99s-cancelled-my-order-but-took-the-money-anyway/
      • 11 replies
    • Father passed away - Ardent Credit Services (Vodafone) now claiming he owes money. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/423040-father-passed-away-ardent-credit-services-vodafone-now-claiming-he-owes-money/
      • 9 replies
    • Currys Refuse Refund F/Freezer 5day old. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422656-currys-refuse-refund-ffreezer-5day-old/
      • 6 replies
    • Hi,  
      I was in Sainsbury’s today and did scan and shop.
      I arrived in after a busy day at work and immediately got distracted by the clothes.
       
      I put a few things in my trolley and then did a shop.
      I paid and was about to get into my car when the security guard stopped me and asked me to come back in.
       
      I did and they took me upstairs.
      I was mortified and said I forgot to scan the clothes and a conditioner, 5 items.
      I know its unacceptable but I was distracted and Initially hadn’t really planned to use scan and shop.
       
      No excuse.
      I offered to pay for the goods but the manager said it was too late.
      He looked at the CCTV and because I didn’t try to scan the items he was phoning the police.
       
      The cost of the items was about £40.
      I was crying at this point and told them I was a nurse, just coming from work and I could get struck off.
       
      They rang the police anyway and they came and issued me with a community resolution notice, which goes off my record in a year.
      I feel terrible. I have to declare this to my employer and NMC.
       
      They kept me in a room on my own with 4 staff and have banned me from all stores.
      The police said if I didn’t do the community order I would go to court and they would refer me to the PPS.
       
      I’m so stressed,
      can u appeal this or should I just accept it?
       
      Thanks for reading 
      • 16 replies
heliosuk

Query for the insurance buffs!!

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3645 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

Mum has an accident in a supermarket car park as car suddenly lurched foward. Damaged 2 other cars and plod turns up as does ambulance as knocked another lady. No damage to lady apart from a bruise. All details etc exchanged. Her car is technically an economic write off but is very repairable.

 

Now, insurance co goes through motions and suggests settlement figure, all agreeable but the crux is that policy is held in dads name with mum named as main driver. Insurance co now want a copy of dads licence which expired last year and due to his condition it was decided not to renew. However on the renewal notification she just renewed it not realising dads licence had expired.

 

Now she thinks her policy was invalid and as such is not insured so will have to pay for damage to other cars and is fearful of prosecution.

 

Query therfore is "is she insured" and if not "what is likely to happen next"

 

Any opinions greatly received as she is on the verge of a breakdown with this and dad's issues.

 

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can be 99.9% certain that the policy will be cancelled retrospectively and premium refunded. In theory Mum will be charged with no insurance, 6 points £200 fine.

 

It is an absolute condition of the policyholder that they hold a VALID driving licence for the vehicle 'insured' and notify the insurer of any material change, ie points, change of address, banning etc.

 

If it is correct that Dad's license expired (presumably 70th birthday) and he did not renew for whatever reason, then his insurance will be null and void and cancelled. Your Mum WOULD have been covered if it was her policy and he was the named driver, although they would still try to wriggle out, but in this case I cannot see anyway the insurance can remain valid.

 

It is probable that mum will not get done for no insurance as the police will have recorded and checked this at the time and won't become aware unless they are told by Mum or someone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most policies state that the policy holder must hold or must have held a licence, so in itself your mother may still be covered, particularly if the policy would have expired before your father decided to give up driving.

 

Look at the policy as clauses like this are usually in the small print which very few people bother to look at, and then contact your insurers and talk the issue over with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies Caggers. I'll read the small print when down there on Wednesday. It has occurred to me though that there must be thousands of cases such as this around.

 

Whilst I understand the changes need to be notified I can't see that dads licence expiring is a change to the material facts when the policy was taken out as mum was the only named and notified main driver. Yes it should have been in her name but what's the difference if dads licence was valid? He wasn't in the car and wasn't driving, mum was who was "technically insured" was.

 

I don't understand why it makes a difference.

 

Anyone kind enough to explain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why it makes a difference.

 

Anyone kind enough to explain?

 

because it gives the insurance company another easy "get out" for not paying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the replies Caggers. I'll read the small print when down there on Wednesday. It has occurred to me though that there must be thousands of cases such as this around.

 

Whilst I understand the changes need to be notified I can't see that dads licence expiring is a change to the material facts when the policy was taken out as mum was the only named and notified main driver. Yes it should have been in her name but what's the difference if dads licence was valid? He wasn't in the car and wasn't driving, mum was who was "technically insured" was.

 

I don't understand why it makes a difference.

 

Anyone kind enough to explain?

 

Insurance companies do not want to pay out. Fact. They will where they have to, but they certainly won't where they don't have to.

 

In this case, Dad is the policy holder. Mum is a named driver. So far so good. AT inception Dad had a licence, but he failed to have a licence when he did not renew (reasons totally acceptable). It is a condition of all car policies with insurares that the policyholder holds a valid licence for the class of vehicle throughout teh policy's life. Any points or bans change the initial arrangement and the insurer needs to be given the oportunity to re-evaluate the risk and increase or decline insurance accordingly.

 

If you were an insurer you may happily insure someone. Then they get done for speeding. You may let that go as exepirnec. then they get done for speeding again. This time you realise this is a habit, so load the risk by £100 extra premium. Then they get done a third time for speeding. You decide this is so habitual, that the risk of tehm colliding with something is increased to the point there is likely to be a claim in the near future. You would rather insure people who will not be claimed against, and thus you decide to cancel the policy and refund their premium.

 

Now the same person gets all teh speeding offences but this time fails to tell you. They have an accident believeing they are insured. You investiaget and uncover the speeding offences. You would not have covered them if you knew, so you cancel the policy and refund their premium leaving them with a big bill for the collsion and not you.

 

Same applies to not holding a licence. Whilst Mum has done nothing wrong other than shunting a car slightly, she has nothing to declare as an extra named driver. However, the policy holder did and does. The material fact that he 'lost' his licence (through surrender in this case) means that he could not hold valid insurance and thus the policy would have been cancelled if the insurers had been told. They weren't so it will be done retorspectively just as in the example above. Dad will receive a refund of teh premium for the current polciy, mu will end up with the accident bill.

 

It is possible the insurers will let it go if it is a very low value claim (say £150) and Dad has been with them for years, but highly unlikley as they are not in the charity business but insuarnec business and it is a business bottom line. As a shareholder I would be outraged if they paid out. As a decent human being I would love them to pay out. Insurers are a business.

 

The circumstances you have described sound very genuine and unfortunate. However, the fact remains that the policyholder did not notify the insurer of a material change, one that would have resulted in the policy being cancelled as motor inrance is not offered to persons unless they hold a valid licence for the vehicle. That could be a full licence or provisional, but it must be valid. Dads wasn't at the tiem of the collision.

 

 

Just as a footnote, Dad being the policyholder is decalring he is the main driver. I get the impression and so will the insurers that Mum became the main driver. Another material fact.

HTH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as a footnote, Dad being the policyholder is decalring he is the main driver. I get the impression and so will the insurers that Mum became the main driver. Another material fact.

HTH

 

It's not strictly true that the policyholder has to be the main driver. I hold a number of policies in my name for vehicles I own, but on some of them I am not the main user so the policy has a "main named driver" and I am noted as "an occasional driver" on the policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mum has always been the main driver since the policy's inception. This is where I am miffed.

 

Let's be clear, they haven't rejected it yet, it's just a case of what they might or can do. It might just sail through as it should.

 

My argument is that the fact that dad is not the main driver, 1. The age of the drivers has to be declared so their systems should pick this up. 2. Given that it has always been declared that mum was the main driver on the renewal this should have been picked up if there was an issue with it happening 2 years in a row. Direct line managed to do this in same said circumstances with me taking over the use of my wifes car. 3. If they try to back it and refund the premiums then isn't this like a bookmaker refusing to pay out on a horse that wins because it happened to have 5 weetabix in the morning. Hardly a material fact is it?

 

I can understand wheelies point about speeding etc which is very valid but here is a case where the policy holder is essentially just a name on a husband and wife policy.

 

I'll know more tomorrow evening so will update on Thursday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had an accident where I lost my leg. The 17 year old young lady was driving as a main driver on her father's insurance. Although the insurance company stated that the insurance was invalid as a comprehensive policy they did accept that they still had third party liability. Therefore the girls and father's losses were not paid presumably but I still was paid out as I was the third party.

 

I wouldn't give up hope as yet the insurance company took the premium to insure Mum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the 3rd party liability that she seems to be most worried about most together with prosecution. If events take a turn for the worse so to speak then provided the 3rd parties are covered then the problem will be over. For the Grand she will lose on her car ( one which she was never too happy with anyway!!) I'd be happy with as the grief it's causing me at the moment would be worth it. Then we could get on with dealing with the major issue of how to handle dads illness.

 

Thanks for the comments anyway all. More opinions welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to the prosecution I doubt if that will happen unless one of the other party's to the accident find out there is no insurance. If there is third party insurance then there is insurance so I would keep that hope in there at the moment. Remember that the police have to apply for a summons within 6 months as this is only a magistrates court matter so there is a time limit on them. The insurance companies don't normally inform the Police after the event it is normally the police who investigate at the time or soon after by issuing a form to produce the insurance, although it seems to be done now on their computer systems which all seem to be joined together now. So unless she was reported at the time I would rest easy for the time being.

 

What's wrong with your Dad? What problems are you wrestling with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Dad has something called Lewes Body disease which is easiest described as a mix of Alzheimers and Parkinsons with dementia thrown in for good value.

 

Anyway have been through all policy docs tonight with fine toothcomb and large magnifying glass and can see nothing that should prevent them from paying out. Further, after going through piles of old insurance docs it seems like it's been the same policy for the last 6 years so they've had their moneys worth of premiums.

 

Clause I'm relying on is as follows.

 

Under Persons or classes of persons permitted to drive on the Certificate.

 

"As indicated below provided that the person driving holds or has held a driving licence to drive the vehicle and is not disqualified for the purpose of holding or obtaining such a licence, The policy holder and his or her Spouse/Civil Partner only."

 

Can confirm that mum has always been the main driver, well certainley records exist for the past few years anyway.

 

So she's quite a bit more happier than before now. Thanks guys for pointing out what to look for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bump, any more thoughts or opinions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...