Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I apologise if I was being unclear. Where it currently stands is that they will have it repair, placing scaffolding in our garden for 5 days. They have moved fast, but we will still have to postpone our contractors, meaning, we won't necessarily have the work done in time for the wedding and therefore will incur additional expenses for either a marquee or a wedding venue. They are vehemently against having any kind of liability in any regard but continue repeating that they are legally entitled to use our garden for their repairs (I believe this is true unless the work can be carried out using a cherry picker). The neighbour seems either indifferent or oblivious to the fact they can't reach all of the side of the roof from the space where they can place the scaffolding. They have asked their roofer of choice about using a cherry picker but the roofer has said it wasn't possible. It's not clear whether the roofer doesn't want to use a cherry picker or whether there is an issue with it. They have told us it is a problem that we are installing a gazebo as it will prevent them to access their roof from our garden in the future?!?  
    • Couldn't agree more, really wanted a true ruling on this just for the knowledge but pretty sure the Judge made some decisions today that he didn't need to?.. maybe they all go this way on the day? We hear back so few post court dates I'm not sure. Each Judge has some level of discretion. Their sol was another Junior not even working at their Firm, so couldn't speak directly for them! that was fortunate I think because if she would have rejected in court better, she might have  been able to force ruling, we are at that point!, everybody there!!, Judge basically said openly that he can see everything for Judgement!!!  but she just said "I can speak to the claimant and find out!" - creating the opportunity for me to accept. I really think the Judge did me a favor today by saying it without saying it. Knowing the rep for the sol couldn't really speak to the idea in the moment. Been to court twice in a fortnight, on both occasions heard 4 times with others and both of my claims, the clerk mention to one or both parties "Letting the Judge know if you want to have a quick chat with each other"! So, it appears there's an expectation of the court that there is one last attempt at settling before going through the door. So, not a Sol tactic, just Court process!. Judge was not happy we hadn't tried to settle outside! We couldn't because she went to the loo and the Judge called us in 10 minutes early! - another reason to stand down to allow that conv to happen. Stars aligned there for me I think. But yeh, if the sol themselves, or someone who can make decisions on the case were in court, I would have received a Judgement against today I think. She was an 'advocate'.. if I recall her intro to me correctly.. So verbal arguments can throw spanners in Court because Plinks dogs outsource their work and send a Junior advocate.
    • that was a good saving on an £8k debt dx
    • Find out how the UK general elections works, how to register to vote, and what to do on voting day.View the full article
    • "We suffer more in imagination than in reality" - really pleased this all happened. Settled by TO, full amount save as to costs and without interest claimed. I consider this a success but feel free to move this thread to wherever it's appropriate. I say it's a success because when I started this journey I was in a position of looking to pay interest on all these accounts, allowing them to default stopped that and so even though I am paying the full amount, it is without a doubt reduced from my position 3 years ago and I feel knowing this outcome was possible, happy to gotten this far, defended myself in person and left with a loan with terms I could only dream of, written into law as interest free! I will make better decisions in the future on other accounts, knowing key stages of this whole process. We had the opportunity to speak in court, Judge (feels like just before a ruling) was clear in such that he 'had all the relevant paperwork to make a judgement'. He wasn't pleased I hadn't settled before Court.. but then stated due to WS and verbal arguments on why I haven't settled, from my WS conclusion as follows: "11. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter such negotiations with the Claimant. "  He offered to stand down the case to give us chance to settle and that that was for my benefit specifically - their Sols didn't want to, he asked me whether I wanted to proceed to judgement or be given the opportunity to settle. Naturally, I snapped his hand off and we entered negotiations (took about 45 minutes). He added I should get legal advice for matters such as these. They were unwilling to agree to a TO unless it was full amount claimed, plus costs, plus interest. Which I rejected as I felt that was unfair in light of the circumstances and the judges comments, I then countered with full amount minus all costs and interest over 84 months. They accepted that. I believe the Judge wouldn't have been happy if they didn't accept a payment plan for the full amount, at this late stage. The judge was very impressed by my articulate defence and WS (Thanks CAG!) he respected that I was wiling to engage with the process but commented only I  can know whether this debt is mine, but stated that Civil cases were based on balance of probabilities, not without shadow of a doubt, and all he needs to determine is whether the account existed. Verbal arguments aside; he has enough evidence in paperwork for that. He clarified that a copy of a DN and NOA is sufficient proof based on balance of probabilities that they were served. I still disagree, but hey, I'm just me.. It's definitely not strict proof as basically I have to prove the negative (I didn't receive them/they were not served), which is impossible. Overall, a great result I think! BT  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Voided Insurance / HELP


Richa
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3293 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

HiI am in a situation where my car insurance was voided.

 

I got my car and insurace in Feb 2013 and I passed my driving test in Jan 2012.

 

DUring this time I was driving my comoany car and I had two claims on that. My uncle went to the broker and sorted my car insurance for me.

I had given them the copy of my Driving license and the letter from the leasing company stating both my claims.

 

In April I ran at the back of another car and it was literally just a bump. I am still driving the same car without any repair which indicates it was not a massive crash.

I received a call from the insurance company stated that they are voiding my insurance as I had told them that I passed my driving test in 2006 but I had actually passed my driving test in 2012.

 

I am at fault that I did not read the policy documents but I never mentioned 2006.

 

I had also given them the copy of DL which they are declining now. They also asked me to keep on paying the premium for full year which I did.

 

Last year July I received another letter from them saying that I owe thwm 7000 something for the claim without mentioning any details.

 

After so much trouble I got them to send a letter to include the break down of the cost.

 

It turned out the couple (other car involved in the accident) had claimed PI and had some legal fees as well.

Initially when my policy was voided i went to Ombudsman but my claim was rejected on the basis that I should have read the documents and got the policy documents corrected if they were wrong.

When I received the letter from the company for 7000, I again contacted Ombudsman and they again rejected my claim on the fact that it is within their right to claim this money.Its been nearly one year it is happening and I had changed my address and had informed the insurance company and they had been sending the letters to my new address.

 

But after the claim rejection by Ombudsman, I received a letter at my old address that they want the money withoin 21 days else they will start the legal proceedings and I will have to bear the cost.

 

It was just a chance that I went to the old house and got the letter, else it would have gone un noticed.

Can someone please let me know what my options are?

Do I have a fighting chance? Should I offer settlement?

Please help me urgently.

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is the insurance company?

 

Did you pay the quote they gave in full?

 

Did they make you aware that there was a PI claim being made against you/them?

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying that you applied for insurance, gave them all the correct details – but that they recorded the details incorrectly and implemented an insurance contract based on their own misunderstanding of the information that you had truthfully given?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you or your uncle give the information to the broker ? Reading your first post, it sounds like your uncle gave the broker the wrong information.

 

My uncle gave the correct information along with the documents.

 

Yes I had paid the full premium.

 

They did not tell me anything about PI

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying that you applied for insurance, gave them all the correct details – but that they recorded the details incorrectly and implemented an insurance contract based on their own misunderstanding of the information that you had truthfully given?

 

Yes that's true. Its just that I did not read the policy documents.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you. I think that you have a very good case.

 

Do I also understand that they voided the policy that insisted that you keep on paying the premium right to the end of the year?

 

I'd like to know more about your complaint to the ombudsman. Was this done in writing – and did you receive a reply in writing from the ombudsman?

 

Have you got correspondence from the insurance company?

 

I think that you should send an SAR to the insurance company to begin with. Do this straightaway while we discuss your case and your options.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks.

 

Yes I took the insurance in Feb and the accident happened in April but they asked me to continue paying the premium. I was paying the premoium till the end of the teram along with another insurance which I had to take of course at a very high premium.

I applied to Ombudsman in writing and their response was that I do not have no evidence to prove that I gave them correct information as the policy was taken out in the branch. Their response was in writing.

The company later denied knowledge of any documentation being provided to them. The only evidence I literally have is the letter from the leasing company showing my claims which is dated a day or two before the got the insurance. Dont know if this will actually prove anything.

 

Because they have sent me this final letter to a differenr address and they know I am not at that address, do you think I can buy some time?

 

I have almost all the correspondence from the insurance company. More than the insurance company it is broker's fault.

 

What is SAR? WHat are the benefits or repercussions of filing this?

Thank you. I think that you have a very good case.

 

Do I also understand that they voided the policy that insisted that you keep on paying the premium right to the end of the year?

 

I'd like to know more about your complaint to the ombudsman. Was this done in writing – and did you receive a reply in writing from the ombudsman?

 

Have you got correspondence from the insurance company?

 

I think that you should send an SAR to the insurance company to begin with. Do this straightaway while we discuss your case and your options.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In this position I think you will have to try to negotiate a settlement and see whether you can agree to pay it over a period. The Insurers had to deal with the third parties claim and if they were expecting you to pay them back they should have kept you informed.

 

Not sure it would be worth you making them take you to court as I can not see you getting anywhere with it. When Insurers void the policy in this situation, they don't have to pay the premium back, as Insurance is a legal requirement and they still had to deal with the admin for a claim.

 

If you want another assessment, see if you can speak to local Solicitor. Many offer a free half hour consultation and Citizens Advice may be able to put you in touch with one. But I think they will tell you the same.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had formed the impression that you had evidence that you had supplied the correct information.

 

In fact it seems that I am mistaken – and that you do not have evidence. In fact I now understand that your uncle went and applied for the insurance on your behalf and that maybe you are not even present. Is this correct?

 

Also I see a contradiction here. In your original post you said that you had been rejected because you had not read the policy document and corrected any errors.

 

In a subsequent post you say that your claim was rejected because you did not have evidence that you have provided the correct information.

 

Which is it?

 

If your insurance is being rejected because they made a mistake and you did not correct it – then I think that this is unfair and I think that you have a good case.

 

If you gave the wrong information then I don't think you have a case at all.

 

Sending an SAR would require the insurance to supply you with all the information that they have about you including the original application form. If the original application form showed that they had put down 2006 then you would have a very solid case.

 

In the absence of any other evidence, I think that you need to send an SAR.

 

It is very unhelpful that it was your uncle who made the application for you because now we find ourselves in a game of Chinese whispers where you are unable to give direct evidence as to what happened. You have to rely on a third party who may have given the wrong evidence because he simply wasn't aware of the time – or maybe he can't remember.

 

This kind of thing is unlikely to convince a court.

 

I'm also mystified that anybody thinks that the insurer was entitled to void the policy and yet to keep the money for the entire year. On the basis that you were in the wrong, they would be entitled to keep their administrative costs – but not the entire sum.

 

How much was the insurance premium?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aologies if I had created confusion.

It was my uncle who went to the branch and got the insurance sorted. He had all the information with him along with the documents. I know it it not ver helpfuk a third party getting involved in this.

After the incident the insurance company had paid the third party and informed me that the insurance is void now and I will not be able to claim anything for my vehicle. But I paid the premium in full. The amount was around 1300 and the claim itself at that time was of 700 something. But after year and half they told me that the claim is 7000. I was not even aware that the claim was still open.

 

I am not sure what can be classed as an evidence that I provided the correct information.

In my intial policy document they had written 2006 which I checked later.

 

I had formed the impression that you had evidence that you had supplied the correct information.

 

In fact it seems that I am mistaken – and that you do not have evidence. In fact I now understand that your uncle went and applied for the insurance on your behalf and that maybe you are not even present. Is this correct?

 

Also I see a contradiction here. In your original post you said that you had been rejected because you had not read the policy document and corrected any errors.

 

In a subsequent post you say that your claim was rejected because you did not have evidence that you have provided the correct information.

 

Which is it?

 

If your insurance is being rejected because they made a mistake and you did not correct it – then I think that this is unfair and I think that you have a good case.

 

If you gave the wrong information then I don't think you have a case at all.

 

Sending an SAR would require the insurance to supply you with all the information that they have about you including the original application form. If the original application form showed that they had put down 2006 then you would have a very solid case.

 

In the absence of any other evidence, I think that you need to send an SAR.

 

It is very unhelpful that it was your uncle who made the application for you because now we find ourselves in a game of Chinese whispers where you are unable to give direct evidence as to what happened. You have to rely on a third party who may have given the wrong evidence because he simply wasn't aware of the time – or maybe he can't remember.

 

This kind of thing is unlikely to convince a court.

 

I'm also mystified that anybody thinks that the insurer was entitled to void the policy and yet to keep the money for the entire year. On the basis that you were in the wrong, they would be entitled to keep their administrative costs – but not the entire sum.

 

How much was the insurance premium?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure why the people who arranged the Insurance allowed your Uncle to take out the policy for you. I don't think they should have done this unless you had already given the information required to take out the policy and your Uncle was simply giving the date it was to start and sorting out the payment.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my intial policy document they had written 2006 which I checked later.

You will need to send an SAR.

 

I now understand that they had paid out against accident and this is why they demanded the full insurance premium.

 

This is normal.

 

On the other hand, if they are now seeking to claim back the money they paid out, then it would not be fair for them to hang onto the premium. I don't think that they can have it both ways.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You will need to send an SAR.

 

I now understand that they had paid out against accident and this is why they demanded the full insurance premium.

 

This is normal.

 

On the other hand, if they are now seeking to claim back the money they paid out, then it would not be fair for them to hang onto the premium. I don't think that they can have it both ways.

 

They can have it both ways. If you read the FOS site they don,t think Insurers have to refund in this situation.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

They can have it both ways. If you read the FOS site they don,t think Insurers have to refund in this situation.

 

Can you link it please

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you link it please

 

Actually having just checked their latest information it says that the Insurers should only retain the premium If there has been fraud.

 

Only where there is clear evidence of fraud should the insurer retain the premium. In all other cases of deliberate or reckless non-disclosure, the premium should be returned, not least so as to protect the insurer’s position. Retaining the premium could be interpreted as an intention to affirm the contract and/or waive the right to "avoid". Our experience is that most insurers return the premium in any event.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Retaining the premium could be interpreted as an intention to affirm the contract and/or waive the right to "avoid".

 

Exactly correct. Please will you provide a link.

 

I don't think that the OP should ask for his premium back. I think that the fact that they continued to ask for the premium can be used against them later on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All,

 

Interesting situation.

 

Just so you guys know I also have previously had insurance voided (wrongfully may I add) it was a long hard fight but eventually I won, got it removed from all databases, got my premium refunded along with some compensation! So there is hope!!

 

Now with this case, lets clear some facts.....

 

1) Insurance purchased through a Broker whom your uncle went to.

Don't know how they managed to do it without you being there, but possible course of action for you to pursue as you weren't present?

 

2) The insurance company NOT the broker has voided your policy on the fact that their paperwork says you passed your licence in 2006 but in fact it was Jan 2012.

Is there a possibility that in 2006 you couldn't have legally been able to pass your licence as you would have been too young or something? If this is the case then that's another point for you to pursue.

Also I've read a case on the FOS website where someone bought insurance through a broker, which was voided because not all the facts has been declared to the insurance company. The customer had infact declared everything to the broker and it was the broker who had not passed correct information on to the insurance company.

 

3) They didn't refund your premium

Not looked into this and i know this has been discussed above, can they do this? Keep on taking the premium - somebody please confirm.

 

4) Claiming their costs back

Techinically at this stage yes they can pursue you for the costs. Put this into dispute on the basis you are in process of determining the voidance of the policy, and therefore also if you are liable for these costs. Say you not refusing payment, but cannot pay until it is confirmed you are 100% liable (keep them sweet). £7k is a big amount and would take time to arrange blah blah....DO NOT under any circustances agree a payment plan or anything. Even if this part went to court the judge would be happy with the above.

 

Also insurance companies are b*stards - they seem to be willy nilly voiding and cancelling people's policies on small technicalities. This then stays on record forever hence resulting in your paying an over inflated premium. Its their own fault for not cracking down on crash for cash and now the rest of us are paying for this...

 

hope this helps!

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...