Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks, @FTMDave for your feedback, I will take your points on board. I was using the title "Mitigation" in an attempt to convey how reasonably I have behaved, and how stubborn and overzealous (i.e. unreasonable) the claimant and their solicitors are. Any suggestions for a more appropriate title ? Cheers --skeet23
    • Hi guys   4 old debts (catalogues) have been sold to Lowells, I requested copies of credit agreements and received them this week.  I also received a notice of assignment from them for an old Vanquis account.  I need to pay these debts off but don't want them touching my bank account so was thinking of setting up a standing order.  I guess I will have to send them details of income and expenditure.  My question is, do I need to give my husband's details?  We are not really getting on at the minute and this will be the last straw for him so I would rather just leave him out of this.   Many thanks for reading x
    • I am unable to get credit of any description, apart from a payday loan with expensive Provident.   I have 3 accounts, 2 with Capital One, the other with Vanquish.   These 3 do show late repayments, but Capital One is showing partically settled in September 2018 and Vanquis settled in full in December 2016.   The main issue I had is with NewDay Ltd.   I notified NewDay that my disability living allowance was stopped after I had my review when I went to transfer over to PIP.   NewDay were sympathetic, and agreed to place my account on hold, freezing interest and payments etc etc.   On the 4th May 2018, I received a letter from NewDay; theyagreed that due to my financial issues, they would no longer chase me for payment.   Soon after, a default was issued with with credit reference agencies that the account default with a default date of 12th June 108.   Why then agree to not chase me for payment then issue me with a default seems to me to be grossly unfair!?   I did a Notice of Correction on my credit file to show lenders that my account was on hold, and they agreed not to chase me for payment.   Can anyone please give me some advice?   I have a good income of £1100 a month in benefits income, and I state on applications I am retired.   I am initially accepted for credit, but they then go to the CRA's, I am then declined.   Its frustrating I can only get a loan with Provident.
    • Sorry, I don't think I explain my case correctly. I'm the guarantor for a friend that rented a shop. My friend couldn't make rent repayment and the landlord terminated her contract. Now the landlord (claimants) has taken out the claim against me as I was the guarantor and is responsible for my friend's debt. When I first  became the guarantor, I signed an agreement with the claimants. ( 1st agreement) A year later I had a meeting with the landlord to discuss my debt situation and told them I was struggling to make repayment. They agreed to give me a debt deduction and other terms, so a new agreement was drawn up (agreement 2). to replace the 1st agreement.   In 2016 I received a warning letter for late repayment. No further warning letter or contact has been made by the claimant since 2016 so I was shocked when I received the money claim.  Claimants have only attached the 1st agreement with their claim form and they denied there was a 2nd agreement. Now they have submitted their final witness statement and attached the 1st and 2nd agreement. Proving the 2nd agreement does exist.   My question is; 1. How important is it that no letter before action was sent before I received the money claim? 2. Now there's proof of a 2nd agreement which was signed and dated after the 1st agreement. Does it prove that the 1st agreement is invalid? 3. Would the court dismiss this claim if they believe the claimants have submitted an invalid agreement for their money claim?    Thank you. 
    • Hi   What date did they move into the Property & when did the Tenancy end?   How long was the initial Tenancy Agreement for?   Did you pay a Deposit/Holding Deposit for the Property?   Exactly what Notice of Arrears was given and when(what date)? (if for rent arrears)   Are they still in the Property or have they ended their Tenancy as per the Notice requirement to end that tenancy?   Is the Claim for Rent Arrears/Damages etc.?   Have you sent a Subject Access Request (SAR) which is free(due to GDPR) to the Landlord/Letting Agent asking for 'ALL DATA'?    
  • Our picks

unclebulgaria67

Discussion about insurers and the Consumer Insurance Act

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1368 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

This thread has been created to allow a discussion of industry practice within the insurance industry and also the effect of the Consumer Insurance industry.

The posts here were moved from two threads which were going badly off-topic.

 

 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

I'm sorry to say that the position in the approach outlined in the above two posts is wrong.

 

The situation is the insurance company is not allowed to deny liability where the defect or breach that they are referring to does not materially affect the risk.

 

The failure to provide a copy of the CBT clearly has had no effect on whether or not you would have had the accident. It would be nonsense for them to try and say so.

 

If you didn't have a CBT then this could materially affect the risk because it would mean that you probably weren't qualified to drive and didn't have the knowledge or experience to do so. However, this is not the case here.

 

Therefore in terms of any withdrawal of cover, the insurance company is in breach of contract.

 

Additionally, the insurers are bound by ICOBS. ICOBS requires them to treat you fairly. There is also a very clear requirement in ICOBS that they are not entitled to withdraw, simply because of some administrative defect or failing – such as you failing to notify the insurer of a loss within 24 hours or 48 hours or some other stimulated time in terms and conditions, or such as you failing to provide them with a copy of the CBT – assuming that there was a valid one in force at the time – and we understand from you that there.

 

We don't know how this policy was purchased. Perhaps it was done online and it was clear the CBT had to be sent in within say 14 days. The letter enclosing the policy documents may have also reminded them of the need to send a copy of the CBT.

 

The policy may have been cancelled with letter or email sent advising of this, before the accident.

 

The Insurance contract relied on the CBT and proof being sent. In the absence of the CBT being received, they were entitled to cancel the contract and issue notice of this.

 

The OP appears to admit to not sending the CBT to the Insurers. Therefore before threatening Insurers with a court claim, it is important to find out whether they asked for it. Hence suggesting a written complaint and getting hold of the information.

Edited by BankFodder
...

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We don't know how this policy was purchased. Perhaps it was done online and it was clear the CBT had to be sent in within say 14 days. The letter enclosing the policy documents may have also reminded them of the need to send a copy of the CBT.

 

The policy may have been cancelled with letter or email sent advising of this, before the accident.

 

The Insurance contract relied on the CBT and proof being sent. In the absence of the CBT being received, they were entitled to cancel the contract and issue notice of this.

 

The OP appears to admit to not sending the CBT to the Insurers. Therefore before threatening Insurers with a court claim, it is important to find out whether they asked for it. Hence suggesting a written complaint and getting hold of the information.

 

Sorry, but none of this affects my answer above.

 

The insurance industry is statutorily bound by regulations made under the Financial Service and Markets Act 2000.

 

The only stumbling block is that it needs somebody with a bit of bottle to enforce it – and the Financial Services Ombudsman is not that person.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, but none of this affects my answer above.

 

The insurance industry is statutorily bound by regulations made under the Financial Service and Markets Act 2000.

 

The only stumbling block is that it needs somebody with a bit of bottle to enforce it – and the Financial Services Ombudsman is not that person.

 

The OP will have to get the Insurers side of the story, before they took this further. Jumping the gun, advising that the courts may be the answer.

 

Perhaps the OP has made a mistake and not read what was sent to them.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you read the rules in ICOBS?


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have you read the rules in ICOBS?

 

Yes. I just don't have your level of confidence in dealing with this in the way you suggested.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate that, but the rules are very clear and they are statutorily binding.

 

Not only that, ICOBS makes it clear that insurance contracts are not only subject to the FCA rules but they also subject To the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations – now contained in the consumer rights act.

 

Also, the issue of denying insurance liability being only justifiable in the presence of some fact which materially affects the risk is a common law principle going back a long way – and now reinforced in the FCA regulations.

 

The outcome of this problem will hinge entirely on the way that the OP is prepared to deal with it.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The key question is whether Insurers have a right to cancel insurance, if documents requested which affect risk, are not received ?

 

The answer surely is yes.

 

Once Insurers have decided to cancel insurance due to non receipt of documents, they have to send the policyholder notice of cancellation, giving a minimum period of 7 days.

 

The next question is whether the Insurers have any legal duty to reinstate Insurance, once they are provided with the missing documents. I have not seen anything, which requires Insurers to reinstate Insurance. Because of the Road Traffic Act and third party cover being a legal requirement, the Insurers are not really allowed to backdate Insurance. If a mistake had been made that the CBT had not been requested, then the Insurers could remedy the situation by reinstating the policy and not technically backdating the insurance. The Insurers would not routinely reinstate Insurance, without good reason.

  • Sad 1

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The key question is whether Insurers have a right to cancel insurance, if documents requested which affect risk, are not received ?

 

The answer surely is yes.

 

Once Insurers have decided to cancel insurance due to non receipt of documents, they have to send the policyholder notice of cancellation, giving a minimum period of 7 days.

 

The next question is whether the Insurers have any legal duty to reinstate Insurance, once they are provided with the missing documents. I have not seen anything, which requires Insurers to reinstate Insurance. Because of the Road Traffic Act and third party cover being a legal requirement, the Insurers are not really allowed to backdate Insurance. If a mistake had been made that the CBT had not been requested, then the Insurers could remedy the situation by reinstating the policy and not technically backdating the insurance. The Insurers would not routinely reinstate Insurance, without good reason.

 

Please will you provide links to authorities to support what you say here.

 

Thank you


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Non receipt of documents requested would be a simple contract issue and not complying with disclosure required by the Insurers. The insurance contract covers Insurers right to cancel the policy. iCOBS covers 7 day notice of cancellation.

 

Re issuing of Insurance certificate and legal issues, this is i believe from memory covered by S 174 of RTA, which you can look up.

  • Sad 1

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Non receipt of documents requested would be a simple contract issue and not complying with disclosure required by the Insurers. The insurance contract covers Insurers right to cancel the policy. iCOBS covers 7 day notice of cancellation.

 

Re issuing of Insurance certificate and legal issues, this is i believe from memory covered by S 174 of RTA, which you can look up.

 

Sorry but you are wrong.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry but you are wrong.

 

Can you supply evidence to support your statement ?

 

I believe i am correct that insurers can cancel insurance giving 7 days notice, if the document requested is not received. It is a condition of the Insurance contract being offered, that x document is supplied. The contract of insurance allows Insurers to cancel, giving 7 days notice. The cancellation is also notified to MID, hence the Police seeing that Insurance was not in force.

 

If you do your research, you will find a number of articles regarding legality of backdating insurance, where a policy has been cancelled. Now this is not straightforward, due to the way the RTA is written.

 

Link to recent Cii article on changes to Insurance legislation.

 

http://www.cii.co.uk/media/6632643/p94_bulletin_nov_2015.pdf

  • Haha 1

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you.

 

I think that we have both made our position clear.

 

I am now going to clean up this thread so that if and when the OP gets back, I can attend to the business of helping him sort out his problem.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you check Motorcycle Insurers such as Bennetts, they tell you that you must send in a copy of your CBT within 30 days or the policy will be cancelled.

 

It is the same as any other insurance contract situation. If you don't send in the documents requested within the time allowed, the Insurers will cancel the policy giving 7 days notice. The cancellation is then advised to MID.

 

The OP has also posted to MSE, but has also not returned to provide any more information, that might help us provide more assistance.

 

In regard to liability for the accident and insurance situation, not sure we have enough information. Some of these issues are covered within this Cii update.

 

http://www.cii.co.uk/media/6632643/p94_bulletin_nov_2015.pdf


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bankfodder.

 

If you really believe you are correct in what you have stated, why don't you contact the ABI. They are normally very helpful in clarifying these types of situation, particularly for online forums and media.

 

If you do find out that what i have stated is correct, perhaps you will add an update !


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agree totally with bank fodder. The insurance company is totally in the wrong if as you state you have cbt.

 

As i have stated but had posts deleted, it is common practice for Insurers to cancel, if they don't receive documents they requested. They send an email or letter giving 7 days notice of cancellation.

 

Up to the OP to find out, if the Insurers have made an error.

 

Will leave it at that.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you discover Markerstudy would have insured you had the correct information been declared but at a higher premium and / or with other terms applied to the Policy then they're obliged to deal with the claim subject to you paying the extra and / the terms being applied or they can adjust the total loss payment accordingly.

 

 

I doubt very much whether this is correct.

 

This is a bit like a punter going back to the betting shop after the horse has won and asking the betting shop to change the either-way bet to a to-win bet.

 

I don't expect at all that anybody could oblige an insurer to accept a premium retrospectively in order to cover a peril which has already occurred.

 

You might be more familiar with the same principle when you talk about "pre-existing conditions".


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I doubt very much whether this is correct.

 

This is a bit like a punter going back to the betting shop after the horse has won and asking the betting shop to change the either-way bet to a to-win bet.

 

I don't expect at all that anybody could oblige an insurer to accept a premium retrospectively in order to cover a peril which has already occurred.

 

You might be more familiar with the same principle when you talk about "pre-existing conditions".

 

dacouc is correct. I have dealt with such cases, where we have agreed to deal with claims, subject to relevant premiums being paid, where there has been some incorrect information disclosed. It is pretty unusual, but underwriters do allow it on occasions.

 

If you look on the FOS site, on the non disclosure policy page i believe, it mentons this Insurers option in dealing with inadvertent non disclosure cases.

 

You might get a case for example, where an old lady declares having one accidental damage claim within say the last 3 years. Then they come to claim and another claim is found. If the Insurers underwriting guideline says they would insure this lady with 2 claims in 3 years, but it would cost say an extra £50 premium, then the Insurers have the option of accepting the non disclosure, paying the new claim, subject to the extra premium of £50 being paid. This is correct, as the lady is in the same position premium wise, as she would have, had she correctly disclosed both claim at inception of the policy.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that is good then.

An example of insurers doing what they aren't obliged to do by law - as opposed to them doing what they are not entitled to do.

It is clearly something which they are undertaking voluntarily or as in compliance with some industry code.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well that is good then.

An example of insurers doing what they aren't obliged to do by law - as opposed to them doing what they are not entitled to do.

It is clearly something which they are undertaking voluntarily or as in compliance with some industry code.

 

Has been a general practice of UK Insurers for a very long time. The FOS have accepted it as standard practice.

 

It also is quite useful to Insurers when they are accepting risks via parties acting for the Policyholders. I have dealt with people (VIP's) who use agents or account managers to handle their Insurance arrangements. Sometimes it turns out that not all information provided turned out to be accurate. You then get a claim made, where the risk is different to what was advised originally. Having some flexibility in dealing with the underwriting after the event is extremely useful. You would be quite surprised at how some people with loads of money or who are too important for dealing with Insurance, are really so relaxed, that they can't be bothered to provide full or accurate information.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I doubt very much whether this is correct.

 

This is a bit like a punter going back to the betting shop after the horse has won and asking the betting shop to change the either-way bet to a to-win bet.

 

I don't expect at all that anybody could oblige an insurer to accept a premium retrospectively in order to cover a peril which has already occurred.

 

You might be more familiar with the same principle when you talk about "pre-existing conditions".

 

Could I recommend you read the Consumer Insurance Act, it's been in place nearly three years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you. I'll have a look

 

What section do you have in mind?


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you but as you have read the act, please direct me to the source section so I can understand where I have gone wrong


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you.

 

I am sure you are trying to be helpful but I haven't seen anything in the sections you indicated - or in the schedule that they refer to which supports your position

 

If you discover Markerstudy would have insured you had the correct information been declared but at a higher premium and / or with other terms applied to the Policy then they're obliged to deal with the claim subject to you paying the extra and / the terms being applied or they can adjust the total loss payment accordingly. Again providing they were not miss led.

I am sure that I must have missed something. Maybe you can quote the actual words you are relying upon and link back to the source.

 

Thanks


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...