Jump to content
  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Proportional representation would be a start, but I can't see the Conservatives voting for that now they've redrawn the constituency boundaries to suit themselves. Turkeys, Christmas and all that.
    • Sorry to hear about your problem, it's horrible when people take advantage like that.   I don't want to add to your woes, but road tax is not transferrable to a new owner so when he said 'road tax is paid so I have not to worry', he was wrong. See here:   https://www.gov.uk/sold-bought-vehicle   The last thing you need right now is another problem, so I'd either take the car off the road and make a SORN declaration or tax it as soon as possible. If you are planning on making life difficult for the seller then don't be surprised if he reports you for no tax!   I hope it all works out for you.
    • I recently purchased some wheels on eBay which were located at the other end of the country. The seller was happy for me to arrange a courier to collect them and I paid him for them.   I put a request for some quotes on Shiply and accepted one from a company with plenty of positive feedback, who claimed to be insured and would only take payment once the item was delivered. I paid a deposit of £8 immediately via PayPal.   Shortly after this, I recieved a message from the courier saying that because of Coronavirus they were no longer accepting payment at the door on delivery and would instead require payment by bank transfer two days before delivery. I paid the remaining fee of £44 as requested.   The day before delivery, I get a message from the seller say that he thinks the courier has collected the wrong items. I contact them immediately, and yes, they have collected the wrong items. They tell me that the seller was not present when they collected but had left a message at his works reception directing them to collect those items (the wrong ones). After I point out that they are wrong, they stop texting back.   I then get a message from the seller asking for my phone number so that we can figure out what to do. I send it, but have heard nothing from him since.   Today, while I was out, the courier has delivered the wrong items to my house an hour earlier than expected and my son has accepted them.   So, I wonder how to sort this out...   No doubt the courier will argue that they have done as directed and are not to blame. The seller will argue that he did not leave such a message/the courier misunderstood and he is not to blame either. So I get the sinking feeling that I will end up having to foot the bill for the wrong items to be returned AND the right ones to be delivered - only tripling the delivery cost!   Any suggestions??
    • Hi All, before I start I know there are similar threads of the topic I am raising, and each, of course, has its own unique scenario, which may benefit others. My case is as follows: 1. I saw a gumtree ad on the 16th of Oct 2020 for a Mercedes E220 CDI, priced at 7,500 2. I called the seller and said I will come over on the 17th of Oct 2020 to view. 3. On the 17th of Oct 2020 I went to his place where he is working and viewed the car. He is working for a major car rental company. I checked the car and of course asked the normal things to ask e.g. any insurance write-offs, loans, accidents, etc. The seller said the car is clean etc.no loan, he had a loan but all is paid off etc. and he has the papers. 4. I negotiated the car price to 6,800 because the rims were showing some signs of damage, the rear light had a small burst, cosmetics, etc. I checked all but did not see any sign of damage to the car (it's a black car, the car was a bit dirty, and the sun was already setting in) 5. We agreed on 6,800 and decided to purchase the car. We went into his office, where I paid cash, and also got a Car Sales Invoice with all details of the seller, and a V5C green slip 6. I purchased car insurance and drove off. I asked him about Road Tax and he said Road tax is paid so I have not to worry, just need car insurance. 7. On 18th of Oct 2020 I cleaned the car interior because it was really dirty inside - it took me a few hours so decided to clean the exterior the next day 8. On the 19th of Oct 2020 I went to clean the exterior and after the car was clean I noticed some parts were resprayed. I became a bit suspicious; so on the 19th of Oct 2020 in the eve, I went on the internet and run an HPI check. The outcome from the HPI did not show any accidents, insurance write-off but an outstanding Loan with Moneybarn. At this point, I thought maybe the database is not updated, etc. 9. On the 20th of Oct 2020, morning, things were going through my mind; the seller said the car is clean, no issues, no loan since he settled all etc. but the HPI reports say there is still some outstanding loan. So what I did, I called Moneybarn, and explained the situation, and gave them the contract number as well (since it was displayed on the HPI report). They said they will send me a form by email, but they cannot share any information due to Data Protection (GDPR). fair enough I thought, but what made me boil, they said they OWN the car! So, I took the car and drove to the seller where he is working. I confronted him. He said don't worry, I will handle it, he has no time, he is very busy and bla bla bla. I said what reasons do I have to trust you, you lied, and now you say you still have a debt, etc. So I said I will not leave until he has settled the debt, or repay me my money. I also asked what is outstanding, he said around 7,000. Well, since I confronted him at his workplace he may have felt the heat, he assured he will settle all soon, I said sorry, I need a date, so I said you will settle the debt with Moneybarn by 23 Oct 2020, if not, you will refund me my money. He said Ok he will do it, so I said, since I don't trust you, you will sign a piece of paper, and sign it. On the paper, he wrote "I will clear the debt for the Mercedes by Friday" and signed it. I said I am not happy and added the debt details with contract number, and also a clause that if he fails to settle the debt with Moneybarn by Friday the 23rd of Oct 2020, he will refund me my money, 6,800, and sales of the car Mercedes, license plate, will be void. Also, I said to put an initial on each amendment I made with signature. He did, and I left. 10. On 22 Oct I sent him a message, to remind him to settle the debt by Friday 23 Oct 2020 noontime and also I outlined some legal jargon I had to sent that I received from citizensadvice. 11. On 23 Oct, morning time, I received a message from the seller, he said he will not/cannot refund me the money, not to visit him at his office or place, and that he feels threatened by me. 12. Now, the dilemma/headache; a). I received the form from Moneybarn on the 20th of Oct 2020 and I have to send it back within 7 days b). the seller send me a message he will not refund the money c). is the seller holding the title with Moneybarn or did he also buy and not knowing there is an outstanding loan on it d). did he sent the V5C to DVLA since I have the green slip? e). Shall I fill in the form and sent it to Moneybarn? f). If Moneybarn has all my details they may send someone to repossess the car? 13. I decided, I will not undertake anything yet, because my mind said, go there, confront him, park the car in front of the company since I purchased it there and signed all paperwork in their office, they will call the police, the police will come and surely will not do anything but will force me to remove the car and park somewhere else, record all on camera, take all evidence, sent to Moneybarn and at the same time to the seller's employer (when I asked him to sign a letter he will settle the debt by Friday 23rd of Oct 2020, he used a paper of the car rental company, and on the back, the logo of the rental company is displayed clearly and he may have acted on behalf of the company to sell me the car, after all, I don't know if he holds the title with Moneybarn - well, this is an excuse for me to even sue the car rental company, or blacklist him with the company he is working for since it seems he is some type of manager there and he may have acted in the capacity as a sales person to sell the car to me on behalf the company....). 14. So on the 23rd of Oct 2020, I didn't do anything like described under 13....it's not my style as such I called AWH solicitors, explained all, and they said one person is specialized in dealing with such cases and will call me back after studying my case and inform me if it is something they can fight or not. So they will call me Monday the 26th of Oct 2020. I also said I want to go now and confront the seller, but she said better wait till Monday, and if they can fight the case, they will tell me the next course of action - but my funds are limited and cannot afford a lengthy battle, because if no case against Moneybarn means I will have to sue the seller to the court which will cost me. The car has comprehensive insurance and with all this saga I added on the 20th of Oct 2020 also legal insurance on top. Lengthy story, but I am trying to be as detailed as I can, and yes I should have done an HPI before buying the car, but I am from Holland and car sales work there a bit different, and this is my first time I buy from a private seller. Well, once I have sent the form to Moneybarn, I will park the car in a garage, and at this stage, I am renting a room in a house (there is one more tenant). Since I am from Holland, I am planning a trip within 2 weeks to visit my family and I will drive down with the car and in the meanwhile wait if the solicitor can be of any help. I need some advice though, I am still planning to drive down to the seller on Tuesday after I talked with the solicitor, park the car in front of the company, and confront the seller, and try to record all. I will also try to make him sign a letter that I purchased the car in good faith from him (regardless if he holds the title with Moneybarn or not but at least I purchased in good faith from him). Evidence that I have: 1. Car sales invoice 2. Paper that I made him sign 3. Gumtree ad; I could retract this from google history, but the original add removed from gumtree. At least I can show it was advertised 4. I tried to create a history of past owners, total owners including me are 5. It seems the car was also posted on gumtree before by a company in Essex (I saw on google). The reason for doing this, it is very likely that the seller purchased the car from someone else with an outstanding loan. Since then I read a lot on the internet, so please any advice is welcome to pursue my case, I paid a lot and at least I want my money back. Also what I read so far, Moneybarn is not easy to deal with...thanks in advance for any advice I can use for my case.
    • Hi   I think you need to check not just the serial number but what Meter Point Reference Number (MPRN) as the MPRN is what is registered and energy supplier go off as well as the serial number.   So you need to see what the MPRN is as well as the energy supplier it is registered with.   If you look at this Ofgem link: https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/consumers/household-gas-and-electricity-guide/connections-and-moving-home/who-my-gas-or-electricity-supplier   In the above link to do this check it gives a link to:   Find My Supplier: https://www.findmysupplier.energy/webapp/index.html (note you may have to complete a captcha, then input your postcode only and click find my address, when the list comes up click on your exact address, you will then see you actual MPRN and the energy supplier linked to your address)   With the above make sure and take the details of the MPRN and the Energy Supplier, better still take a screenshot/pdf the webpage.   Please let use know if on doing the above it matches your current supplier?  
  • Our picks

    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies
    • Oven repair. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/427690-oven-repair/&do=findComment&comment=5073391
      • 49 replies
    • I came across this discussion recently and just wanted to give my experience of A Shade Greener that may help others regarding their boiler finance agreement.
       
      We had a 10yr  finance contract for a boiler fitted July 2015.
       
      After a summer of discontent with ASG I discovered that if you have paid HALF the agreement or more you can legally return the boiler to them at no cost to yourself. I've just returned mine the feeling is liberating.
       
      It all started mid summer during lockdown when they refused to service our boiler because we didn't have a loft ladder or flooring installed despite the fact AS installed the boiler. and had previosuly serviced it without issue for 4yrs. After consulting with an independent installer I was informed that if this was the case then ASG had breached building regulations,  this was duly reported to Gas Safe to investigate and even then ASG refused to accept blame and repeatedly said it was my problem. Anyway Gas Safe found them in breach of building regs and a compromise was reached.
       
      A month later and ASG attended to service our boiler but in the process left the boiler unusuable as it kept losing pressure not to mention they had damaged the filling loop in the process which they said was my responsibilty not theres and would charge me to repair, so generous of them! Soon after reporting the fault I got a letter stating it was time we arranged a powerflush on our heating system which they make you do after 5 years even though there's nothing in the contract that states this. Coincidence?
       
      After a few heated exchanges with ASG (pardon the pun) I decided to pull the plug and cancel our agreement.
       
      The boiler was removed and replaced by a reputable installer,  and the old boiler was returned to ASG thus ending our contract with them. What's mad is I saved in excess of £1000 in the long run and got a new boiler with a brand new 12yr warranty. 
       
      You only have to look at TrustPilot to get an idea of what this company is like.
       
      • 3 replies
    • Dazza a few months ago I discovered a good friend of mine who had ten debts with cards and catalogues which he was slavishly paying off at detriment to his own family quality of life, and I mean hardship, not just absence of second holidays or flat screen TV's.
       
      I wrote to all his creditors asking for supporting documents and not one could provide any material that would allow them to enforce the debt.
       
      As a result he stopped paying and they have been unable to do anything, one even admitted it was unenforceable.
       
      If circumstances have got to the point where you are finding it unmanageable you must ask yourself why you feel the need to pay.  I guarantee you that these companies have built bad debt into their business model and no one over there is losing any sleep over your debt to them!  They will see you as a victim and cash cow and they will be reluctant to discuss final offers, only ways to keep you paying with threats of court action or seizing your assets if you have any.
       
      They are not your friends and you owe them no loyalty or moral duty, that must remain only for yourself and your family.
       
      If it was me I would send them all a CCA request.   I would bet that not one will provide the correct response and you can quite legally stop paying them until such time as they do provide a response.   Even when they do you should check back here as they mostly send dodgy photo copies or generic rubbish that has no connection with your supposed debt.
       
      The money you are paying them should, as far as you are able, be put to a savings account for yourself and as a means of paying of one of these fleecers should they ever manage to get to to the point of a successful court judgement.  After six years they will not be able to start court action and that money will then become yours.
       
      They will of course pursue you for the funds and pass your file around various departments of their business and out to third parties.
       
      Your response is that you should treat it as a hobby.  I have numerous files of correspondence each faithfully organised showing the various letters from different DCA;s , solicitors etc with a mix of threats, inducements and offers.   It is like my stamp collection and I show it to anyone who is interested!
        • Thanks
        • Like

Discussion about insurers and the Consumer Insurance Act


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1743 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

See section 4 1 b) under misrepresentation.

 

This talks about the Insurers being able to use misrepresentation, when they would not have offered Insurance.

 

So the consequence of this, is that if Insurers underwriting would allow cover under the real situation that exists, they cannot really use the misrepresentation against the policyholder.

 

I hope you see what I mean. I am using a ipad mini so difficult to copy stuff across. The way these laws are writren requires interpretation.

 

4Qualifying misrepresentations: definition and remedies

 

(1)An insurer has a remedy against a consumer for a misrepresentation made by the consumer before a consumer insurance contract was entered into or varied only if—

(a)the consumer made the misrepresentation in breach of the duty set out in section 2(2), and

(b)the insurer shows that without the misrepresentation, that insurer would not have entered into the contract (or agreed to the variation) at all, or would have done so only on different terms.

(2)A misrepresentation for which the insurer has a remedy against the consumer is referred to in this Act as a “qualifying misrepresentation”.

(3)The only such remedies available are set out in Schedule 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

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but Dacouc's point at his post no.15 was that if there is a defect of some kind on the insurance application then the insurer is obliged by some provision in this recent Act to accept additional premium and is then obliged to pay out for the insured peril.

 

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.
This is extremely philanthropic stuff because it basically means that a policyholder can remedy a flawed contract by paying, say, a further £250, and in return the insurer must the stump up say, £10,000 to cover the loss incurred as a result of the occurrence of the insured peril.

 

I'm looking hard at the statute, but I don't see it.

 

Furthermore, even if Dacouc has erred in his interpretation of the statute - hardly likely, I know, - UncleBulgaria, who has a great deal of experience working in the insurance industry, has told us in his post no.20 that this is an occasional practice which is already established within the industry as the result of some code - written or unwritten, I'm not too clear. I have already indicated in my post no.21 that this is great news.

 

Maybe I could come straight out and ask UncleBulgaria whether he agrees with Dacouc that the statute in question obliges insurers to accept retrospective premiums to cover perils which have already occurred?

If Dacouc is right - then I really would like to have it explained to me please

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you not check to see if it shows up on the MID site see here >> http://ownvehicle.askmid.com/

 

 

Link obtained from here >> https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-insurance/uninsured-vehicles

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry but Dacouc's point at his post no.15 was that if there is a defect of some kind on the insurance application then the insurer is obliged by some provision in this recent Act to accept additional premium and is then obliged to pay out for the insured peril.

 

This is extremely philanthropic stuff because it basically means that a policyholder can remedy a flawed contract by paying, say, a further £250, and in return the insurer must the stump up say, £10,000 to cover the loss incurred as a result of the occurrence of the insured peril.

 

I'm looking hard at the statute, but I don't see it.

 

Furthermore, even if Dacouc has erred in his interpretation of the statute - hardly likely, I know, - UncleBulgaria, who has a great deal of experience working in the insurance industry, has told us in his post no.20 that this is an occasional practice which is already established within the industry as the result of some code - written or unwritten, I'm not too clear. I have already indicated in my post no.21 that this is great news.

 

Maybe I could come straight out and ask UncleBulgaria whether he agrees with Dacouc that the statute in question obliges insurers to accept retrospective premiums to cover perils which have already occurred?

If Dacouc is right - then I really would like to have it explained to me please

 

Call it a lucky guess, but I think Uncle will agree with me re the legislation.

 

When Uncle describes it as an "occasional act" I think he will confirm that it's not occasional in that sometimes the Insurers will do it and sometimes they won't, what he means is the circumstances that it occurs eg non deliberate non disclosure and the Insurer would have accepted the business had the correct information been declared at a higher premium is not common.

 

The Ombudsman has basically followed this path for a long time.

 

"The Act has not changed the way we look into cases about misrepresentation and non-disclosure - because the law now reflects the approach we were already taking."

 

"So if the insurer would have accepted the risk but charged the consumer a higher premium, we usually say that the insurer should consider the claim. If the claim is valid, the insurer should pay it in proportion to the premium that was actually paid. For example, if the consumer had been paying half the premium they should have, then we will say the consumer should get half the settlement if the claim is accepted.

 

However, if the insurer decides to charge the additional premium and settle the claim in full instead of settling the claim proportionately, we may also decide this is fair - provided the insurer deducts the additional premium from the claim settlement and does not put the consumer in a worse position than they would be in with a proportionate settlement."

 

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/misrepresentation-and-non-disclosure.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites

You still haven't quoted the words in the Act which you are relying on. It would be really helpful if you would.

 

Not only that, if it is the law - as you say it is, then insurers would not be entitled to treat it as "an occasional act". There would be no discretion in it.

So please quote the words. I think that it will be very helpful to everyone

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Careless misrepresentations—claims

 

3 If the qualifying misrepresentation was careless, paragraphs 4 to 8 apply in relation to any claim."

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/6/schedule/1/paragraph/3/enacted

 

"Careless misrepresentations—claims

 

 

4 The insurer’s remedies are based on what it would have done if the consumer had complied with the duty set out in section 2(2), and paragraphs 5 to 8 are to be read accordingly."

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/6/schedule/1/paragraph/4/enacted

 

"Careless misrepresentations—claims

 

5 If the insurer would not have entered into the consumer insurance contract on any terms, the insurer may avoid the contract and refuse all claims, but must return the premiums paid."

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/6/schedule/1/paragraph/5/enacted

 

4 Being the most relevant section to this discussion

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, but this has nothing to do with your proposition in post 15.

 

Nowhere does this say or even suggest that the consumer can remedy the defect by paying extra premiums and then have the benefit of a perfected contract if insurance.

In fact this words you have quoted even make it clear that the sections provide for remedies for the insurer - not remedies for the consumer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you, but this has nothing to do with your proposition in post 15.

 

Nowhere does this say or even suggest that the consumer can remedy the defect by paying extra premiums and then have the benefit of a perfected contract if insurance.

In fact this words you have quoted even make it clear that the sections provide for remedies for the insurer - not remedies for the consumer.

 

The legislation is another example of law written, so it is open to argument.

 

It has been practice for a very long time for Insurers to forgive policyholders mistakes, as in the example i gave earlier, but it was discretionary. Even with the new law, i suspect you could have situations exactly the same treated differently by Insurers or even staff within the same company.

 

i don't know whether there have been court cases using the new law or FOS decisions based purely on it.

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'm not going to comment on what you tell me is industry practice. However, it is quite wrong to say that there is any such provision in the Consumer Insurance Act and particularly as no one has been able to pint to the statutory provision in question, it is unhelpful to say that there is such a provision.

Some people might even believe it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is always going to be each case on is own merits, trying to imterpret the situation in regard to usual practice or law.

 

I am trying to think of examples where you might expect an Insurers to accept a claim, but apply backdated underwriting.

 

A policyholder mistakenly does not disclose modifications in regard to a used car they bought. They did not realise that there were modifications and thought they were standard factory fitted items. The Insurers receive a total loss accident claim and their engineer reports the modifications. The modifications do not affect the risk as ok under underwriting guidelines, but affect the market value and there would have been an additional premium due. Would the Insurers include the modifications and pay the increased market value, subject to the additional premium being paid ? Not sure the law tells the Insurers what they have to do.

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'm not going to comment on what you tell me is industry practice. However, it is quite wrong to say that there is any such provision in the Consumer Insurance Act and particularly as no one has been able to pint to the statutory provision in question, it is unhelpful to say that there is such a provision.

Some people might even believe it.

 

I think it is useful to know law exists, but that it does not offer a definite guarantee of what consumers should expect. They would have to make the argument, based on their individual case.

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

Schedule One of the CIA 2012 concerns the remedies available to insurers.

 

In the event of a careless misrepresentation where the insurer would have taken on the business, subject to a different premium, the act provides for

 

In addition, if the insurer would have entered into the consumer insurance contract (whether the terms relating to matters other than the premium would have been the same or different), but would have charged a higher premium, the insurer may reduce proportionately the amount to be paid on a claim.

 

So if the premium charged was £100 but would have been £200 then the insurer can pay 50% of a claim.

 

That said, it is common in the industry to just charge the additional premium and not reduce a claim payment - but it's not an automatic right to my knowledge

Link to post
Share on other sites
Schedule One of the CIA 2012 concerns the remedies available to insurers.

 

In the event of a careless misrepresentation where the insurer would have taken on the business, subject to a different premium, the act provides for

 

 

 

So if the premium charged was £100 but would have been £200 then the insurer can pay 50% of a claim.

 

That said, it is common in the industry to just charge the additional premium and not reduce a claim payment - but it's not an automatic right to my knowledge

 

In my post about car mods, how would you deal with this.

 

The mods not disclosed increased market value by £1000. The additional premium would have been £100.

 

Would the Insurers pay the market value without including the mods.

 

Would they backdate the mods, pay the increased value, subject to the additional premium being paid.

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

Explanations of the new law

 

"If the insurer would have imposed different terms (other than relating to premium), it may choose to treat the contract as if those terms applied. If, for instance, it would have included a particular exclusion and the claim falls within that exclusion, the insurer will not be obliged to pay the claim. And where the insurer would have charged a higher premium, any claim under the policy can be reduced proportionately."

 

http://www.out-law.com/page-11391

 

"40. If, in the absence of a breach of the Duty, the insurer would have written the risk, but

on different terms, the contract will be treated as if it had been written on those

terms.

45 That does not include terms relating to the premium. Effectively, this means

that the courts will rewrite the contract – on the basis of what the underwriter would

have written if he/she had received a fair presentation of the risk. "

 

 

This link has a good explanation of the new law http://www.7kbw.co.uk/media/uploaded_files/Guide_to_the_Insurance_Act.pdf

 

For the record, these practices have been in place for a very long time already and were backed up by the Ombudsman, the new law enabled enforcement via the courts and in effect removed "Utmost Good faith"

Link to post
Share on other sites
Explanations of the new law

 

"If the insurer would have imposed different terms (other than relating to premium), it may choose to treat the contract as if those terms applied. If, for instance, it would have included a particular exclusion and the claim falls within that exclusion, the insurer will not be obliged to pay the claim. And where the insurer would have charged a higher premium, any claim under the policy can be reduced proportionately."

 

http://www.out-law.com/page-11391

 

"40. If, in the absence of a breach of the Duty, the insurer would have written the risk, but

on different terms, the contract will be treated as if it had been written on those

terms.

45 That does not include terms relating to the premium. Effectively, this means

that the courts will rewrite the contract – on the basis of what the underwriter would

have written if he/she had received a fair presentation of the risk. "

 

 

This link has a good explanation of the new law http://www.7kbw.co.uk/media/uploaded_files/Guide_to_the_Insurance_Act.pdf

 

For the record, these practices have been in place for a very long time already and were backed up by the Ombudsman, the new law enabled enforcement via the courts and in effect removed "Utmost Good faith"

 

When they write these new laws, they add to the complexity.

 

Another example

 

Policyholder takes out Contents Insurance for £30k believing it covered the value of their possessions. They suffer a burglary and a loss assessor calculates that the sum insured should have been £40k. At £40k the Insurers would have applied minimum security conditions and it is found that the policyholder would not have complied with these conditions, had they been applied at in inception.

 

How should Insurers deal with the situation ? What parts of the new law would apply ?

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
When they write these new laws, they add to the complexity.

 

Another example

 

Policyholder takes out Contents Insurance for £30k believing it covered the value of their possessions. They suffer a burglary and a loss assessor calculates that the sum insured should have been £40k. At £40k the Insurers would have applied minimum security conditions and it is found that the policyholder would not have complied with these conditions, had they been applied at in inception.

 

How should Insurers deal with the situation ? What parts of the new law would apply ?

 

The law is much easier than you're making out, it basically just used the way the Ombudsman previously dealt with non disclosure and made it law enabling you to enforce via the court and they in effect removed Utmost good faith.

 

The law allows the Insurer to rewrite the insurance on the premium / terms they would have had they know the correct information, so if they would have applied a security warranty they can decline the claim.

 

Obviously this is assuming the theft was affected by the minimum security as per ICOBS eg if the theft was carried out by entering and exiting via a smashed window the minimum security warranty would probably not prevent the consumer claiming.

 

It's no different than how the Ombudsman would have handled the non disclosure prior to the law change, the FOS have used this system for 10 + years at the very least.

 

The normal rules for under insurance would apply

Link to post
Share on other sites
The law is much easier than you're making out, it basically just used the way the Ombudsman previously dealt with non disclosure and made it law enabling you to enforce via the court and they in effect removed Utmost good faith.

 

The law allows the Insurer to rewrite the insurance on the premium / terms they would have had they know the correct information, so if they would have applied a security warranty they can decline the claim.

 

Obviously this is assuming the theft was affected by the minimum security as per ICOBS eg if the theft was carried out by entering and exiting via a smashed window the minimum security warranty would probably not prevent the consumer claiming.

 

It's no different than how the Ombudsman would have handled the non disclosure prior to the law change, the FOS have used this system for 10 + years at the very least.

 

The normal rules for under insurance would apply

 

You sort of make the case for me. The new law makes you question what you would normally have done anyway.

 

As you say, you compile evidence of the loss event, what was taken, how entry was made, what Contents the Policyholder had particularly valuables and come to a decision. Has the policyholder deliberately under valued their Contents, would the security terms have made any difference etc.

 

My experience of such claim events, is that Insurers would pay the claim based on £30k sum insured and apply under insurance. But as part of dealing with the claim, they would insist on the Policyholder increasing the sum insured and upgrading the security where needed.

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
You sort of make the case for me. The new law makes you question what you would normally have done anyway.

 

As you say, you compile evidence of the loss event, what was taken, how entry was made, what Contents the Policyholder had particularly valuables and come to a decision. Has the policyholder deliberately under valued their Contents, would the security terms have made any difference etc.

 

My experience of such claim events, is that Insurers would pay the claim based on £30k sum insured and apply under insurance. But as part of dealing with the claim, they would insist on the Policyholder increasing the sum insured and upgrading the security where needed.

 

It's not rocket science, it's basically putting into law what has been best practice within the industry for donkeys years backed up by the Ombudsman

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be useful to know whether the Consumer Insurance Act has made any difference to the way Insurers deal with Policyholders and whether either the FOS or Courts have used this act to come to decisions.

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 post about car mods, how would you deal with this.

 

The mods not disclosed increased market value by £1000. The additional premium would have been £100.

 

Would the Insurers pay the market value without including the mods.

 

Would they backdate the mods, pay the increased value, subject to the additional premium being paid.

 

Recent case: my friend had his car stolen and recovered a week later completely smashed, total loss.

Engineer inspected the car and pointed out sport suspensions, larger calipers and brakes, aftermarket alloy wheels despite a vw badge in the middle.

My friend never knew about these and

Didn't declare mods.

The insurance only paid for market value of the car, explaining that it's policyholders' responsibility to confirm accurate details.

My friend never challenged this decision because he didn't eve know about the mods and had not paid extra for them.

Maybe a one off or standard insurance practice?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Recent case: my friend had his car stolen and recovered a week later completely smashed, total loss.

Engineer inspected the car and pointed out sport suspensions, larger calipers and brakes, aftermarket alloy wheels despite a vw badge in the middle.

My friend never knew about these and

Didn't declare mods.

The insurance only paid for market value of the car, explaining that it's policyholders' responsibility to confirm accurate details.

My friend never challenged this decision because he didn't eve know about the mods and had not paid extra for them.

Maybe a one off or standard insurance practice?

 

They obviously decided the mods did not affect whether the car was stolen and paid out for the market value of a standard car. So a sensible decision. The Insurers were obviously not prepared to pay anything for mods, neither the policyholder or they knew about. Not all mods increase value, after a period of time. It can make a car less attractive to some buyers.

 

If the claim had been an accident, where they smashed the car up, with no third party involved, the Insurers may not have been as understanding. They could have said the performance enhancements were not declared and therefore not considered by underwriters, refusing to pay the claim. There is then the argument, about whether the mods has anything to do with the accident.

 

A friend of mine smashed his car up and he had undeclared mods. He tried to take off the mods before the engineer visited, but the engineer spotted signs of previous mods. The Insurers initially refused the claim, but eventually paid out, as they could not prove the mods were on the car at the time of the accident.

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
Recent case: my friend had his car stolen and recovered a week later completely smashed, total loss.

Engineer inspected the car and pointed out sport suspensions, larger calipers and brakes, aftermarket alloy wheels despite a vw badge in the middle.

My friend never knew about these and

Didn't declare mods.

The insurance only paid for market value of the car, explaining that it's policyholders' responsibility to confirm accurate details.

My friend never challenged this decision because he didn't eve know about the mods and had not paid extra for them.

Maybe a one off or standard insurance practice?

 

Have a read of case 90/4

 

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/90/90-vehicle-related-complaints.htm

 

However it's worth bearing in mind that the Ombudsman generally works on the basis that modifications normally do not increase the value of a car and sometimes reduce them.

 

This link explains it.

 

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/motor-valuation.html

 

Well worth having a good read of the link as it's invaluable if you ever have a vehicle written off

Link to post
Share on other sites
They obviously decided the mods did not affect whether the car was stolen and paid out for the market value of a standard car. So a sensible decision. The Insurers were obviously not prepared to pay anything for mods, neither the policyholder or they knew about. Not all mods increase value, after a period of time. It can make a car less attractive to some buyers.

 

If the claim had been an accident, where they smashed the car up, with no third party involved, the Insurers may not have been as understanding. They could have said the performance enhancements were not declared and therefore not considered by underwriters, refusing to pay the claim. There is then the argument, about whether the mods has anything to do with the accident.

 

A friend of mine smashed his car up and he had undeclared mods. He tried to take off the mods before the engineer visited, but the engineer spotted signs of previous mods. The Insurers initially refused the claim, but eventually paid out, as they could not prove the mods were on the car at the time of the accident.

 

So Uncle, just to understand, in my friend case if he'd had an accident, how could they say that the performance was enhanced?

Alloy wheels, larger brakes and better suspensions don't make the car go any faster, in theory they make it safer.

Would they argue that because of the mods, the driver would have driven faster having confidence that the car was safer?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Possibly. The car would behave differently to a standard car.

 

My friend had mucked around adding bits to change engine performance, but making changes to suspension, brakes etc, might be an indication that the car may have had its performance altered. With modern cars, you can change the tuning electronically to produce more performance. The various mods may create suspicion about other changes.

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...