Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


Undeclared123

Insurance with go skippy/Watford ins. Car stolen - Undeclared banned named driver on policy - they won't payout!!

Recommended Posts

Hi all,

 

Just looking for some help or advice.

 

My car was stolen and burnt out a month ago.

I contacted my insurance to make a claim.

They asked me to send all drivers that are on the policy licence details etc.

 

I had my brother as a named driver who I haven’t spoken to for over a year.

My policy renewed with him on it from the year before.  

 

I went to his address to ask for his details so I could carry on the claim.

Only for him to tell me that he’s disqualified.

Now the underwriters have cancelled my insurance and are not going to pay out.

This is what it states in the email. 
 

 Under Section 1. "Cancellation" point "g" states:
"Where We believe that continuing to provide cover following a known breach of any Policy Term, condition or Endorsement presents an unacceptable risk to us."
This has left them with no alternative but to invoke their right to cancel in accordance with the above mentioned Policy Section and therefore we are hereby giving you notice that your Policy will be cancelled as from 7 days after the date of this letter.

 

Any help or advice much appreciated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Undec and welcome to CAG

 

Can you say what insurance Co. this is please.

 

Was a report made to the police and Crime No. given to you.

 

Can you tell us brief bullet point of events, like how the car was stolen, when it was found, value of car, date of their 7 day warning, etc.


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

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stolen from outside my house don’t know how they didn’t have keys.

It was found the next day burnt out.

 

Insurance company is go skippy.

Underwriters are Watford insurance company Europe ltd.

 

yes was reported to police got crime ref.

Car was valued at £3500

the 7 day notice was given today 05,05,2020 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So they have cancelled the policy due to an undisclosed ban of a named driver.


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

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you may struggle with this. However, there may be an avenue:

 

15 hours ago, Undeclared123 said:

"Where We believe that continuing to provide cover following a known breach of any Policy Term, condition or Endorsement presents an unacceptable risk to us."

 

It is difficult to see how the disqualification of a named driver on the policy presents them with an "unacceptable risk", particular with regard to theft.

 

In fact it could be argued that (obviously provided the named driver adheres to his ban) their risk is actually reduced.

 

I'm not sure of the process to challenge this (probably via an Ombudsman in the first instance) but you need to make every effort to have the decision reversed.

 

Apart from the immediate problem of no payout for your stolen car, having an insurance policy cancelled by the insurers will mean you will have to declare it forever when making any future applications.

 

There is usually a question along the lines "Have you ever had a policy cancelled?"  If you say that you have you may see cover declined or become prohibitively expensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am writing with reference to your GoSkippy Car Insurance, incepted on 18th May 2019.


Following an investigation into your claim dated 7th April 2020, it came to light that you have failed to disclose the following motoring conviction for your named driver 
 DR30 – 11/11/2018
 SP30 – 06/06/2018


When renewing your policy over the phone with a GoSkippy agent to commence on 18th May 2019, you were asked ‘Can you confirm from me that all the details from your current policy are still correct”? to which you responded by saying ‘Yeah”. This was not entirely correct.


Had you disclosed these convictions, prior to inception, an offer would not have been made to you.


Under the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012 insurers have remedies made available to them if a misrepresentation was careless. If we, as the insurer, would not have entered into the consumer insurance contract, on any terms, we may avoid the contract, refuse all claims and issue you with a full refund of premium monies paid.

 

If the qualifying misrepresentation was deliberate or reckless, we, as the insurer, may avoid the contract, refuse to pay claims and retain premiums.


We consider you made the misrepresentation recklessly not caring whether it was true or otherwise.


Somerset Bridge Limited (No. 10427946) is an Appointed Representative of Eldon Insurance Services Ltd.

 

 As a result of this misrepresentation we put you on notice that we will not be indemnifying you for any claim that has arisen as a result of motor accident dated 7th April 2020.


It is our intention to ask our claims handlers to pursue you for recovery of any payments we are obliged to pay by law in connections with this accident.


I trust that this has been clearly explained.

 

just got this email today. Great

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That puts a somewhat different slant on it.

I notice your named driver was disqualified for failing to provide an evidential specimen (that's the offence that attracts the DR30 endorsement code).

 

The minimum disqualification period for that offence is 12 months and even if a course was offered that only reduces it to nine.

So when you renewed your policy your named driver must have been still disqualified.

 

The insurers argument is that they would not have offered cover at all and that's almost certainly correct as I cannot imagine any insurer issuing a policy when one of the drivers was disqualified. I think you are stuffed.

 

There is an additional problem in that the insurers mention an accident.

Was there an accident or was your car simply stolen and torched?

 

If there was an accident your insurers may be liable to meet any Third Party claims (even though they have voided your policy) and they say that they will pursue you to recover their outlay. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I noticed the reference to "this accident" as well.  I hope for the OP's sake that this is some sort of typo (eg it's a template letter and the "accident" reference should have been deleted but wasn't) and that they aren't going to be lumbered with accident compensation costs/damages as well as not being insured for the theft and destruction of their car(!).

 

(Where a policy is cancelled because the policy holder has breached the T&Cs, will the policy holder still be liable to reimburse the insurer for their costs even where the car has been stolen and been in an accident).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There should be a "?" at the end my post #9  ie "Where a policy...in an accident?).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was no accident. Think they are just talking about the recovery cost of the vehicle. I honestly never knew he was banned. I wouldn’t of kept him on my policy else. We haven’t spoke for over a year. Until this. He works nights and just keeps his self to his self. Still to this day it’s hard to get him to answer the phone. So we don’t see or speak to each other. He lives in a completely different area also. I have a family my eldest is 10 think he’s seen her once twice at the very most. He has never been to my address either. It’s just one of those things I guess. My own fault. I’ll just have to deal with it. I just bought another car for £400 to get me a to b. So I’ll cope. Insurance is Going to be £3400 a year tho. Not gunna let it get me down. Life goes on. Wish i was a bit more clued up on this sort of thing. But I’m not. So guess I’ll just have to take it on the chin. Thanks anyway everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunate tale. The greatest cost now to the OP will result from a termination of policy on record and it might be worth a try at getting that rescinded before it comes into effect.

 

I'm not all 'up' on current motor insurance practice and how commercial and hard nosed they are in terms of future and understanding.

The OP made an unwitting mistake, without first checking, at the last renewal that in reality had no bearing on the incident or OP's claims/loss record,  nor any actual risk as the other driver hadn't even been spoken with let alone entered the vehicle.

 

With that in mind, I wonder if is worth the OP going to the (ex)insurer before the 7 days are up and ask them if they would reconsider their decision and continue and renew the policy on 18 May, subject to -

 

1. OP accepts the loss of the old vehicle and any costs related to that.

2. Delete additional drivers so OP is sole driver.

3. The changed vehicle

4. A revised quote on the basis of the changes, emphasising  the OP's error was neither deliberate nor devious and had no relevance to the loss which he will now carry, nor had insurers been exposed to any actual increased risk because of it,

 

Others may be able to advise - or correct me for being too idealistic.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For sake of clarity, it would be helpful to confirm the basic facts.

 

1) The Insurers issued renewal documents which clearly showed the named driver was still on the policy.

 

2) The policy was renewed , even though the policyholder was no longer in contact with the named driver. 

 

3) When the policy was renewed, the policyholder when answering questions about whether any changes needed to be made, needs to be considered together with what is stated on the renewal documents.

 

4) Did anything on the renewal documents or what was asked during the phone call when policy renewed, make it clear that the policyholder had to check with the named driver, about their current position e.g. Driving licence ?

 

5) The Insurers say the policyholder was reckless ( edit) when renewing the policy, therefore they are justified in cancelling the policy and not paying the claim.  What you could look at is searching for FOS information on what is considered, careless or reckless, to see whether there are examples which may help you.

 

The best way to challenge this, is to look at the renewal process in microscopic detail. Ask the Insurers for a copy of the phone call recording by submitting a GDPR Subject Access Request to see what was said/asked exactly.  Look at the wording on the renewal documents and see what it says about checking details, particularly named drivers.


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
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, unclebulgaria67 said:

 

 

5) The Insurers say the policyholder was careless when renewing the policy, therefore they are justified in cancelling the policy and not paying the claim.

 

 

 

Actually I read it as the insurers saying the OP replied either deliberately or recklessly, not carelessly.  Careless is less culpable and they will refund any premiums paid - if deliberate or reckless they won't refund.

 

I think the insurers are saying that by simply replying "Yeah" when asked if the current policy details were still correct, the OP had been reckless in not actually checking this was the case.  [EDIT:  FWIW I'd be inclined to say it was reckless.  And why have somebody on your insurance policy you virtually never have contact with?  It's asking for trouble.  Sorry.]

 

 

Edited by Manxman in exile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Manxman in exile. Thanks, I have edited my post, as yes you are correct the Insurers thought the way the renewal was completed was reckless.   They seemed to believe that the policyholder did not care whether the information on the policy was accurate or not.

 

 


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

Yes,"reckless" normally means "with no regard for the consequences". I have to say that when entering into a motor insurance contract one has to have regard for the consequences of any declaration made and to fail to do so can only be regarded as reckless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few links which may help.  I would suggest following through with a complaint, after obtaining a GDPR Subject Access Request.  Try to make the argument that the Insurers helped you  make a careless mistake, if this is possible.  

 

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/businesses/complaints-deal/insurance/misrep-and-non-disclosure

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/6/contents/enacted

 

3Reasonable care

(1)Whether or not a consumer has taken reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation is to be determined in the light of all the relevant circumstances.

(2)The following are examples of things which may need to be taken into account in making a determination under subsection (1)

(a)the type of consumer insurance contract in question, and its target market,

(b)any relevant explanatory material or publicity produced or authorised by the insurer,

(c)how clear, and how specific, the insurer’s questions were,

(d)in the case of a failure to respond to the insurer’s questions in connection with the renewal or variation of a consumer insurance contract, how clearly the insurer communicated the importance of answering those questions (or the possible consequences of failing to do so),

(e)whether or not an agent was acting for the consumer.

(3)The standard of care required is that of a reasonable consumer: but this is subject to subsections (4) and (5).

(4)If the insurer was, or ought to have been, aware of any particular characteristics or circumstances of the actual consumer, those are to be taken into account.

(5)A misrepresentation made dishonestly is always to be taken as showing lack of reasonable care.

 

 

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.

 

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In "(d)in the case of a failure to respond to the insurer’s questions in connection with the renewal or variation of a consumer insurance contract, how clearly the insurer communicated the importance of answering those questions (or the possible consequences of failing to do so)," what does "failure to respond" mean?

 

I wondered whether the OP could have an argument here (depending on how clearly the insurer communicated the need for accuracy) but then I realised it said "failure to respond".   Unfortunately the OP did respond, but not accurately.  I think it's difficult to see this as anything other than a qualifying misrepresentation?

 

Would it be possible for the OP to try to persuade the insurer to let him (the OP) cancel before they do, or is it too late for that now?  Would that even be legal?  At least they wouldn't have to declare a cancelation in future?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just on the phone to them now they said if I cancel the policy before they do it won’t go down as cancelled insurance on my name. Still unsure whether to do that though. I have until the 12th to decide. I have got a lawyer ringing me on Monday from indemnity legal I’ll speak to him 1st see what they have to say. Just done a subject access request for the call of my renewal I will send that to them also. She also told me it won’t go down as a claim if I cancel before they do. So buzzing either way. I’ll log the date of that call I just made so I can get her to send me that in the future if need be. Thanks for all help everyone much appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So they've given you until the 12th to cancel the policy yourself before they do?  So if you want to avoid for evermore having to declare that you've had a policy cancelled by your insurer (and I would want to avoid that), you have a way out.

 

See what your lawyer says and others on here, but I suspect cancelling yourself is the best option.  I would consider anything else to be potentially too risky or too costly, but that's just a personal view.

 

Moving forward, don't put anyone on the insurance who does not need to drive the car, and always always double-check the details when renewing.  Don't just say "Yeah" - check!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I will speak with my lawyer first, but more then likely I will cancel before they do. 
 

Also I definitely 100% will not be putting anyone on my policy in the future. I have learnt my lesson there. 
 
Thank you for giving me a way out this whole I put myself in. Been depressed since all this happened. You’ve took a lot of weight off my shoulders. Just want this nightmare to end.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like you've sorted it out by yourself if you've contacted them and they've given you the opportunity to cancel it yourself before they do.

 

Personally, I'd bite their hand off to cancel it myself, but see what others think over the weekend.  I sometimes avoid risks that are quite safe to take - especially with motor insurance...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She did say if I cancel then the claim would still be going until settled. Ie them chasing me for recovery cost of the vehicle etc. But I just wanna be 100% sure to cancel it before I do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cancel the policy for the reasons given, but you will have to pay a cancellation fee, but probably cheaper than years of expensive Insurances if the Insurers cancelled.

 

Suggest you register a formal complaint, saying that you disagree with their decision not to pay the claim, because of the issue with the named driver and that you will be taking the matter further.    When you enter your complaint with them, advise that you will be submitting more information in due course, but just wanted to register the complaint first.  

 

Once you have the GDPR subject access request information, the put together a detailed complaint and send to the Insurers.  Come back for any advice, when you do this.   When the Insurers issue their final response, you might as well continue your complaint with the FOS, as even if they agreed with the Insurers, it would be a long time in the future and the Insurers could not pursue you for any debt they believed you owed in the meantime. 


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

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...