URGENT help on an Insurance Issue! Owner/PolicyHolder

[su_parking]

Hi Guys

 

I was involved in an accident a couple of months back, where a lady driver reversed into my parked car. We exchanged details etc, but a few weeks later I got a letter from my Insurance company suggesting that the 3rd party driver is claiming the accident was my fault and that she is also pursuing a PI claim (Typical opportunist)!

 

The investigations are ongoing and I have defended my case, providing my insurance company with pictures of her vehicle etc. and so far it is my word against hers...

However, yesterday I received a letter from my insurance company saying that my insurance is in doubt and could be voided, due to them recently finding , via DVLA, out that my car's registered keeper and the main insurance policy holder are two different people. i.e. Registered keeper lives in Oxford, and Main Insurance policyholder (Me) lives in London. They are correct. The registered keeper is my Cousin brother in Oxford.

BUT, does having registered keeper and policyholder as 2 different people void my insurance??? That is my Question! and why did they search now??

 

My suspicion is that they are trying to worm their way out of 'paying out' on the claim on the above recent accident!!!! and this would be a real concern, as not only will they void my insurance and I will not get my insurance money back, but also in the event that the ongoing accident claim settles n Her favour (e.g. if she produces fake witnesses etc) then does this mean that I wasn't insured at time of accident and therefore could become a police/court matter???

 

 

Please Help, I am really worried! Advice required!!!!!

 

 

John

 

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Sounds odd is RK also on the policy, the vehicle

reg shows on the insurance certificate which states

who can drive the car?

[su_parking]

No - The RK is not on the insurance policy. There is a genuine reason as to why the RK and PH (policyholder) are two different parties, and it's definitely NOT to defraud the Insurance company (If this was the case then the I would've been insured at the Oxford address).

Sounds odd is RK also on the policy, the vehicle

reg shows on the insurance certificate which states

who can drive the car?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I think you must get a full explanation from

the insurer on this, I have certainly never

heard of this in 40+ years of driving.

[su_parking]

I think you must get a full explanation from

the insurer on this, I have certainly never

heard of this in 40+ years of driving.

 

Never heard of which part?

 

I also forgot to state, that in the letter that they have sent me.... they are asking me to send them all my details i.e. driving licence, log book, and also asking me to verify the reasons behind why use my vehicle, access to other vehicles etc. So basically, they are asking me to verify the details which I would've provided them on inception of the policyholder. It almost seems like they are trying to catch me out.....

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

A query like this when the insurance cerificate shows the

reg, model etc of the car and a named driver.

I agree there seems to be an ulterior motive to this,

even on a third party only cover you are usually entitled

to drive other vehicles I think.

[su_parking]

I want to be completely open with my Insurance company, however because I am starting to believe that they are seeking a 'way out' from Insuring me due to the recent accident, it will only provide them ammunition to cancel my insurance policy. Although this may not be the case, and they have just randomly done a search on the vehicle against the ever more accessible DVLA systems, and they have found this discrepancy....

 

I don't know what their motive is here? (If any)

 

Can I not argue that it is NOT illegal to have differing registered keeper to main policy holder?? or is it dependent on the insurance company themselves?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Difficult question have you got a copy of the policy doc

and Ts & Cs

[su_parking]

Difficult question have you got a copy of the policy doc

and Ts & Cs

 

Yes I do, Would it say in there??

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Yes I do, Would it say in there??

 

Possibly look at exclusions and limiations of cover.

[su_parking]

I'll have a look. Though i am not hopeful.

 

 

Any other suggestions anyone???

[dw190]

When you complete a proposal for motor insurance you are asked a number of questions relating to the proposer and any drivers to be insured.

 

I seem to recollect questions like, are you the owner. Is the vehicle registered in your name.

 

You could check what the questions are by completing a draft proposal on line.

[old bill]

I have just spoken to my local police force about this sort of situation with regard to insurance. The OP will need to check his own motor policy to confirm he is insured to drive third party vehicles. If the other driver collided with a stationary vehicle, liability falls on that driver and their insurer. It also sounds to me as if the other driver and the OP's insurer is trying to pull a fast one.

[su_parking]

Hello All,

 

I recently received a letter from my insurance company saying my Insurance is becoming void due to the Insurance policy holder and the registered keeper of the vehicle being two different people at two different addresses.

The insurance co. ran a DVLA search and found that the Registered vehicle keeper(my cousin brother) lives in Guildford, and the Insurance policy holder (Me) is in London. This information, however, is correct and there is/was a legitimate reason for having two separate addresses, and it wasn't to defraud the insurance company.

 

However, The major concern I am having is that there is an ongoing claim with the insurance company - A few months back a a lady reversed into my car at parking speed while I was standstill, although NOT my fault the driver then had the audacity to claim against me saying I hit her from the rear and as a result gave her whiplash injuries (utter bulls***). Anyway, because it's My word against Hers, there is a possibilitythat she maybe successful (i.e. she has also faked a witness)...... IF my insurance is voided and she is successful in her claim, then this technically would mean that I was uninsured at the time of the incident, So therefore, does this then mean the liability is on my head personally??? I.e. Do I have to pay up??

 

Sleepless nights galore.

 

Please help. Thanks!

 

John

[ims21]

Two threads merged and moved to correct forum

 

Please keep to this one thread for this issue

[unclebulgaria67]

"recently finding , via DVLA, out that my car's registered keeper and the main insurance policy holder are two different people. i.e. Registered keeper lives in Oxford, and Main Insurance policyholder (Me) lives in London. They are correct. The registered keeper is my Cousin brother in Oxford." ( post 14/7/12 @ 12.52)

 

"Ran a DVLA search and found that the Registered vehicle keeper(my cousin brother) lives in Guildford, and the Insurance policy holder (Me) is in London, " ( post 24/7/12 @23.23 )

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I am confused. The cousin/brother lives in both Oxford and Guildford, which is shown on the V5 Reg document with DVLA. They are the registered keeper of the vehicle and therefore the main user of the vehicle, so they should be the main driver shown on any Insurance. The Insurance policy is in a different name, with the policyholder living in London.

 

The Insurers therefore appear to be correct in my opinion. The evidence points at the Policyholder providing false information on their Insurance proposal and if this is so, they are entitled to void the policy. This will mean that if the Insurers pay anything in regard to the accident, they will come after the Policyholder to claim the money back from them. This may include court action. Under the Road traffic Acts, the Insurers of the vehicle will have to deal with the third party claim and if the policy is to be made void, they will come after the Policyholder to recover any sums paid out. If the Insurers refuse the third parties claim, then they may decide to issue a court claim against the OP.

 

John, if you have an explanation about the confused ownership/main driver and address where car normally kept, I would suggest that you explain this to the Insurers claims manager in a letter by recorded delivery. Advise them that you and your brother/cousin are quite willing to be interviewed by them in regard to this matter, as you have nothing to hide. Also advise them that if they proceed to void the policy, they must issue a final response, noting the matter as a complaint, so the matter may go straight to the FOS, without delay.

 

[Mwynci]

I'm with UB67, this is not looking good for the OP, this is an insurable interest issue. The V5 is the registered keeper, not the owner, if the owner is different i.e. you have paid for it, been legally gifted it and can prove it, provide it.

[su_parking]

Thank you all for your recent responses.If I am understanding this correctly, I (the policy holder) require for the policy to be in the same name as the registered keeper in order to be 'legally' insured? Bit ludricrous!If I was looking at this case as an outsider, I wouldnt automatically assume that there is an attempt here to defraud the insurance company, as if this was the case then the insurance policy address would be that of Oxford, as clearly it would be cheaper than Londons!? It just so happens that the DVLA records werent switched over to my name when I bought the vehicle from my cousin bro in Oxford, nothing deliberate or sinister - just bad memory! So the car remained in his name...and I completely forgot about it at the time of taking out the policy. Besides I was under the impression that registered keeper/policy holder didnt need to match..All sounds very scary now, because the 'claim' is most likely going to settle 50/50 (as opposed to me winning it outright)... as both parties are denying liability. What would happen in this scenario??

[old bill]

Firstly, what attempts have the OP's insurers made to investigate the claims being made by the other side, who, incidentally, collided with a stationary vehicle and is, therefore, liable. My suspicion is that the other driver is either not insured or this is a Crash for Cash on the part of the other side.

 

Secondly, a person can drive a vehicle as a named driver with another person as the registered owner/keeper.

 

Thirdly, it is a legal requirement to notify DVLA within 28 days of transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle.

 

Fourth, unless liability in this matter can be established against wholly or significantly against one of the parties involved, it will, in all probability, be settled on a "Knock for Knock" basis, i.e. equal liability on both sides.

 

Fifth, the OP needs to speak to a legal professional at their local Law Centre. Motor insurers are notorious for wriggling out of claims or cancelling policies without having what could be described as "good, valid and lawful reason". There is, however, legislation coming into force in 2013 which will clamp down this.

[unclebulgaria67]

If the car has had a change of keeper, you both had a legal obligation to inform DVLA. They can impose a fine of £1000, where this is not done. Though usually it is only when the Police are involved that DVLA get to know about this.

 

Insurers act on the basis that people follow the law. You would have been asked about whether you were the legal owner and keeper of the car at the time you bought the policy. This would be the details on the V5 reg doc. If the details are wrong on the policy proposal, it is not the fault of the Insurers. If any cash changed hands, can you both evidence the transaction from bank records ? If so, send this information to the Insurers, with an explanation about you buying the car, but forgetting about DVLA requirement. If your cousin, just lent you the car, then you should have told the Insurers you were not the owner. They may not have insured you, unless you were the owner. Yes owner and keeper can be different.

 

For a 50/50 claim outcome, your Insurers will pay 50% of the claim and after the policy is voided they will come after you for the relevant amount. Therefore you and your cousin are going to have to provide information or some form of testimony confirming the change of keeper. Having a policy made void will prove to be VERY expensive. Not just the cost of the claim, but future Insurance costs.

[su_parking]

If the car has had a change of keeper, you both had a legal obligation to inform DVLA. They can impose a fine of £1000, where this is not done. Though usually it is only when the Police are involved that DVLA get to know about this.

 

Insurers act on the basis that people follow the law. You would have been asked about whether you were the legal owner and keeper of the car at the time you bought the policy. This would be the details on the V5 reg doc. If the details are wrong on the policy proposal, it is not the fault of the Insurers. If any cash changed hands, can you both evidence the transaction from bank records ? If so, send this information to the Insurers, with an explanation about you buying the car, but forgetting about DVLA requirement. If your cousin, just lent you the car, then you should have told the Insurers you were not the owner. They may not have insured you, unless you were the owner. Yes owner and keeper can be different.

 

For a 50/50 claim outcome, your Insurers will pay 50% of the claim and after the policy is voided they will come after you for the relevant amount. Therefore you and your cousin are going to have to provide information or some form of testimony confirming the change of keeper. Having a policy made void will prove to be VERY expensive. Not just the cost of the claim, but future Insurance costs.

 

This is absolutely ludicrous! I can barely afford to make ends meet, and from suggestions being made, I may potentially also have a legal bill at the end!?It is highly likely that the claim will be settled 50/50, even though I have sent the insurers pictures of her cars rear bumper post ‘accident’, which proves there was no damage to her car and thus no grounds to claim whiplash injury on. And also provided an eye witness statement who saw the ‘incident’, where she clearly reversed into MY car which was stationary.Having read the above, I have no doubt in my mind that the my so-called insurance company will try to worm their way out of paying by voiding my insurance, leaving me to face the music!I need an immediate resolution to this, Surely they cannot just leave me in a lurch like this by swiftly making up an excuse and cancelling my policy, even though it may have some strength.Also, given the evidence I have supplied to the insurers, should this not be suffice for the claim to be settled in my favour??Really appreciate the help.

[old bill]

This is absolutely ludicrous! I can barely afford to make ends meet, and from suggestions being made, I may potentially also have a legal bill at the end!?It is highly likely that the claim will be settled 50/50, even though I have sent the insurers pictures of her cars rear bumper post ‘accident’, which proves there was no damage to her car and thus no grounds to claim whiplash injury on. And also provided an eye witness statement who saw the ‘incident’, where she clearly reversed into MY car which was stationary.Having read the above, I have no doubt in my mind that the my so-called insurance company will try to worm their way out of paying by voiding my insurance, leaving me to face the music!I need an immediate resolution to this, Surely they cannot just leave me in a lurch like this by swiftly making up an excuse and cancelling my policy, even though it may have some strength.Also, given the evidence I have supplied to the insurers, should this not be suffice for the claim to be settled in my favour??Really appreciate the help.

 

You would be well-advised to seek professional legal advice from your local Law Centre about this. If your insurers are ignoring photographic and independent eye-witness evidence, they need kicking into touch. It may require intervention by the FOS.

[unclebulgaria67]

You would be well-advised to seek professional legal advice from your local Law Centre about this. If your insurers are ignoring photographic and independent eye-witness evidence, they need kicking into touch. It may require intervention by the FOS.

 

Agree with this in regard to the accident and how the Insurers should be dealing with the third party claim.

 

In regard to any complaint about voidance of the policy, Insurers will point out that their underwriting guidelines do not allow for them to Insure any vehicle which is not registered in the policyholders name with DVLA. John would have told his Insurers that he was the registered owner/keeper and this will be on the document sent to him. Insurers send you a copy of the information on which the policy has been issued.

 

So yes fight the way the Insurers are handling the claim and go legal if you have to. But in regard to the voidance, this may be difficult.

 

If the Insurers are considering paying any of the third party claim, in the full knowledge that they will be seeking reimbursement from you, then you need legal advice now.

[old bill]

Agree with this in regard to the accident and how the Insurers should be dealing with the third party claim.

 

In regard to any complaint about voidance of the policy, Insurers will point out that their underwriting guidelines do not allow for them to Insure any vehicle which is not registered in the policyholders name with DVLA. John would have told his Insurers that he was the registered owner/keeper and this will be on the document sent to him. Insurers send you a copy of the information on which the policy has been issued.

 

So yes fight the way the Insurers are handling the claim and go legal if you have to. But in regard to the voidance, this may be difficult.

 

If the Insurers are considering paying any of the third party claim, in the full knowledge that they will be seeking reimbursement from you, then you need legal advice now.

 

I had a similar case, some years ago now, where my insurers went ahead and settled a third-party claim, despite knowing there was strong evidence the other side was liable. They tried to make me pay for their incompetence, but backed away when I threatened to ask my former colleagues to investigate the matter. The chief executive of the insurer wasn't exactly pleased when he found out just how much his claims staff had cost the company. Not surprisingly, there were sackings.

 

As to whether the insurer, in the OP's case, can legitimately void the policy, this is why I am urging the OP to seek professional legal advice from his local Law Centre. Insurers are known to use any excuse that they think sounds plausible to evade paying out or voiding policies. This is why there is a change in the law coming into force in 2013 that will curb a lot of the unfair and questionable practices insurers have engaged in up to now.

[unclebulgaria67]

This page from the FOS may assist.

 

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/46/46_non_disclosure_insurance.htm

 

My view is that the Insurers may be justified in voiding the policy, IF they would not have insured the car, had they known it was not owned or legally kept by the policyholder. From what I have seen, if Insurers confirm this is the case to the FOS by providing their underwriting guidelines, then they will reject the complaint.

 

I normally take issue with Insurers voiding a policy, but in this instance, it is an option. Perhaps the OP needs to make a Data Protection Subject Access request to the Insurers, for all the information they hold including recordings of phone calls, to check how the policy was sold. If the Insurers made a mistake, then this will help the OP's cause.