Car insurance claim void.

[patian47]

Car stolen in march 07, after sending in all the paperwork to the insurance assessors, 2 months later received a rather blunt letter stating, insurance policy void from march07 due to policy holder not registered keeper of vehicle, they have returned all the paperwork to us including the keys ect. It is a unrecovered stolen and in receipt of police crime number. I contacted the broker M&S for CIS and they have stated that they will check all the given info on their system as this is what the CIS will work from. They said that I was the keeper , I was on the last car that we owned and sold but then changed the vehicle details to this new one, but I am not on this policy as I dont drive this one. My husband has always been the policy holder,and main driver, with our son as named driver, the V5 is in our sons name. So it appears to this simple error along the way we have been accused and insulted and discarded without a chance to ask for a reveiw. And really can anyone explain what difference does it make who is the owner/ keeper on a policy. We had a at fault / no injury claim with this vehicle in feb 07 and that was dealt with efficiently, we were asked to maintain monthly direct debits opn and not cancel the policy whilst ongoing claim, so for two months now we have done that and , if they have had our paperwork for weeks why only now refuse. Any helpful advice.Or a draft letter of how to complain to them.

[Beanie1]

Can answer 1 part of this for you. The registered owner/keeper of the vehicle must have the insurance in their name. As the car "technically" belongs to your son (V5 docs in his name) any insurance payout should be payable to him. Was your son the main driver of the vehicle? If so was he named as such on the policy? If not then the insurance company could invalidate the claim on the basis of misrepresentation. Its something all the insurance companies are clamping down on. More commonly known as "fronting" people are insuring their sons/daughters vehicles in their own name and putting them on as named drivers to keep the cost down and most dont realise the impact until trying to claim.

 

Please dont take this as accusational, just trying to understand a little background into possible reasons why the would reject the claim.

[Beanie1]

Hi.. remember to keep thread updated. cheers

[dx100uk]

strictly speaking:

the registered keeper and any driver of a vehicle must have valid insurance.

a named driver is just that, it is the name of any person they [the keeper] are giving permission to, to use the vehicle. their details must be passed to the keepers' insurance co. they usually must have their own insurance.

 

a car can be damaged whilst not being driven [keepers insurance covers]

a car can be damaged whilst being driven [drivers insurance covers]

 

hence:

a named driver is not covered by the keepers' policy unless they are one and the same.

 

there are variations to this dependent upon policy type, but, as beanie indicates, you really must get the magnifier out and study the small print of the policy concerned very very carefully.

 

it could be that he is covered, as the insurance would fall to third party only, but this normally covers theft anyhow.

the issue here seems to be that the registered keeper is only a named driver and as such, the policy is not in his name. need to do a bit of reading up on this me thinks

 

dx100uk

[Trojan1401]

From the original thread, it appears that you have at least 2 cars in the family. The one stolen was registered to your son but the insurance policy was in your husbands name. Had you advised the insurer that this was the case ?

 

Normally, the registered owner/keeper of the vehicle must insurer a vehicle in their own name. there are one or two exceptions to this, the main one husband/wife.

 

I am not making accusations on this occasion, but from an underwriters point of view, I would conclude that the vehicle was your sons and insured via your husband to reduce the premium that would apply if your son took out the insurance. Is your son under 25 ? Basically what Beanie is saying above.

 

If this is the case, you have not disclosed a material fact and acted outside the principle of utmost good faith. The insures are therefore entitled to void the insurance policy.

 

The fact that you had a non-fault claim paid previously on this vehicle was probably because there was no need to provide a copy of the V5. If insurers had known at the time, they would probably not have paid this.

 

I'm sorry but must side with the insurers on this one.

[patdavies]

the registered keeper and any driver of a vehicle must have valid insurance.

a named driver is just that, it is the name of any person they [the keeper] are giving permission to, to use the vehicle. their details must be passed to the keepers' insurance co. they usually must have their own insurance.

 

a car can be damaged whilst not being driven [keepers insurance covers]

a car can be damaged whilst being driven [drivers insurance covers]

 

hence:

a named driver is not covered by the keepers' policy unless they are one and the same.

 

 

I'm sorry but this is totally confusing.

 

There is no requirement whatsoever for the RK of a vehicle to insure it. The RK doesn't even need to have a driving licence.

 

Strictly, insurance should be held by the main user.

 

Named drivers on an insurance policy are just that - other drivers who are fully covered by the primary insurance policy. They do not need to have any other form of insurance; they are fully covered in the same way as the policyholder. For example, I insure my car fully comp. My wife and son are named drivers on the policy - they also may drive it with fully comp cover under my policy - they do not need any sort of policy of their own.

 

I believe that you are getting confused with the 'driving other cars' provision that can exist that allows an insurance holder to be insured under his own policy to drive another car that he does not own.

[patdavies]

Can answer 1 part of this for you. The registered owner/keeper of the vehicle must have the insurance in their name. .

 

There is no such thing as a registered owner; there is a registered keeper and, as the DVLA reminds us on every V5, this is not necessarily the owner. The registered keeper is not necessarily the person who drives the vehicle.

 

When you apply for motor insurance, most companies will ask if you are the owner of the vehicle. Some will refuse cover if you are not.

 

However, it is perfectly possible to insure a vehicle that you do not own - otherwise company cars, private lease cars and cars on HP could not be insured.

 

There is no requirement for the owner or registered keeper of a vehicle to insure it. The insurance is required by the driver. In the UK, we insure the driver, not the vehicle. Motor insurance relates to the use of the vehicle, not the ownership. Normally, the main driver of a vehicle will hold the insurance related to that vehicle.

[patian47]

Thankyou to all that replied. I am still confused. This car was stolen, just happened that the last driver to park up was our son. The car was recovered burnt out, we were informed by police, it took 3 days to require a crime nimber, then when we were told that the car was again stolen from where the police found it initially, both the police and local council say that there are people with trailers that go and pick cars up just to salvage alloys etc. So car unrecovered stolen. That clarifys the claim. When I approached a ford garage this week, we asked them about reg/ keeper, they stated that ANYONE CAN BE A KEEPER,So that would say to us that suppose my son had own policy, but the keeper was say his girlfriend, who doesnt drive as yet, if he had a theft such as we had , his policy would be void as keeper and policy holder are different? But it seems to us that the problem that the CIS insurers are voiding it for is, keeper not policy holder, as they have that (MRS) is keeper, im not on this one, but on our old car policy,and actually our son is keeper. I have never had my own insurance due to driving once a month at that. Equally, our son yes who is 21, has been on my husbands policy since he was 18. Keepers vary from myself to my husband now to our son, but at no timeis it explained that both must be the same.Al ldirect debits come from our account so just left it, we had no idea that insurance company would void it just to keeper . After all the keeper is actually on the policy. But we are waiting for CIS to see why I am still listed as keeper, maybe then we can go from that. We totally refute that we are duping the insurance company as if they do not want families on one policy they should not sell them! And we were under the impression that all named drivers on the fully comp cover received all the same entitlements., But it is only the POLICY holder who is entitled to drive another car third party with agreement from that car owner. What we are trying to ascertain is it ACTUALLY ILLEGAL tohave policy holder and plus 2 named drivers and Keeper v5 as somebody else. MARKS & sPENCER is the broker, our insurance is CIS .

[Beanie1]

It could be classed as defrauding the insurance company if the registered owner keeper is different to the policy holder (with the exception of domestic partners, eg live together and share financial responsibility). If the registered keeper is changed then you should contact the insurer to advise this, if not then leaving yourself open to this sort of thing.

 

If the V5 docs are not in either the policyholder or spouses name then the insurance company are within their rights to void the claim. If anyone could insure anyones vehicle then makes a whole load of mess. Although I have no real legal experience of this would say that yes it is illegal (although many years experience in the insurance industry).

 

Maybe someone else would have a better insight.... anyone?

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

Correct Pat

 

If the keeper was named as a driver on the policy that would be all that is required. I could park my car at my aged grannies home (who has never held a licence in her life) for safekeeping & that is the address I'm obliged BY LAW to notify the DVLA as being the keepers. Failure could lead to a fine of £1,000

 

Alternativley I could buy my kid a car insure it with her as named driver but as the keeper & the insurance would still be valid.

 

The premium (& lets face it thats all they are concerned about) would be based on the least quailified driver. In other words the day's when you could reduce the premium by naming the most experienced or older driver are gone

 

The OP needs to speak to a supervisor at the insurer & if they still maintain their position they should consider either reporting them to the MIB or issuing proceedings

[Beanie1]

There is no such thing as a registered owner; there is a registered keeper and, as the DVLA reminds us on every V5, this is not necessarily the owner. The registered keeper is not necessarily the person who drives the vehicle.

 

When you apply for motor insurance, most companies will ask if you are the owner of the vehicle. Some will refuse cover if you are not.

 

However, it is perfectly possible to insure a vehicle that you do not own - otherwise company cars, private lease cars and cars on HP could not be insured.

 

There is no requirement for the owner or registered keeper of a vehicle to insure it. The insurance is required by the driver. In the UK, we insure the driver, not the vehicle. Motor insurance relates to the use of the vehicle, not the ownership. Normally, the main driver of a vehicle will hold the insurance related to that vehicle.

 

Pat...

 

Take the example of lease cars, the company owns the vehicle and the policy holder would be the registered keeper, same with hire cars and courtesy cars. You are correct in that the owner/keeper doesnt always have to insure the vehicle as long as the insurance company accepts the risk if it belongs to someone else.

 

Re-read this post and realised i sounded patronizing so thought i'd better edit it.. sorrry

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

In the case of leasing or HP the car must be registered to the keeper who is not nesessarily the owner. THe reg doc is evidence of where the vehicle is kept not who owns it

 

Leasing does not bestow ownership nor does HP as you are required to pay a transfer fee (in HP often £1) at the end of the contract

 

Hire & courtesy cars are only temporary loans. They are principaly in the keeping of the owners

[patian47]

the car in question is on finance that our son has via capital financial , they automatically put the keeper v5 in his name., I contacted M&s to change car details, as I was also coming off the last policy and at no time did an agent say, keeper has to be policy holder, otherwise I could have simply sent the v5 away to be change the name only. I do think that it should have been bought to my attention. As like my husband and I assumed, that as long as the car and named driver had up to date policy, that was it. If they are voiding claim due to the info stating (mrs) was keeper and then we return the V5 in our sons name,I can see how this would not match poilcy holder, but where does it clarify that insurance is void if they did not match. An agent should have clarified this owing to the fact I being removed off the old policy, and feel totally let down, that a simple change could avoided all this, and yet it was not bought to our attention, and with having a claim already gone through some months back you assume that the insurance you have is adequate. after all you. even with my husband as main policy holder, I can assure everyone who has made a reply to me, that the insurance for him alone was £200. per year if that , but with our son on it went to over 1000, so i wouldnt say we duped or intended to misrepresnt the company, we are clearly shocked at their response after 2 months?, no corresspondence in between .We were not to concerned at the time scale as we believe that the police do have allow 2 months to verify the car still unrecovered. As it stands we are without transport and owe finance £10.000 due to a keeper error. I approached fso, they say I must put in writing a complaint to CIS or m&s direct allow 8 weeks for their response, then revert back to fso if not sorted.. So waiting now for M&S as they are who we always approach first whenever we need assistance.I will update so that other members may avoid upset unlike we have, through not enough knowledge, and not simply to get away with anything.

[patian47]

Update for you all. Contacted legal advice team, this is included in with our policy entitlement, after giving the facts, and reading the response letter out too the lawyer, which we received this week. The legal team have suggested that I contact the brokers M&S as the fact that CIS have refused our claim, keeper not policy holder, is a technical issue as the keeper our son actually resides at the same address and, V5 is a location of where vehicle is kept and a legal requirement by DVLA.And any changes that are listed in policy as far as they are know would be details of drivers on policy..So I am more hopeful now. The lawyer advises that once we have spoken to M&s to follow it up in writing and allow them to proceed on our behalf, negotiating with CIS. Obviously specifically stating that we have been a regular customer with 1 claim , no premiums or any thing other than the keeper issue in dispute.

[Beanie1]

Well done Patian, M+S should respond within the week to acknowledge the complaint and I think (dont quote me on this) they have 40 days to resolve before you can refer to FOS. If they respond closing the complaint you then have 8 weeks to challenge their decision by escalating the complaint. Keep us updated .. and good luck

[xrchris]

The fact that the car has been purchased with finance in your sons name would lead the insurers to believe that he is the owner of the vehicle regardless of what it states on the V5 reg. doc. As others have said a V5 is not proof of ownership.

 

Who on the policy is the declared main user and is there more than 1 vehicle in the household?

 

In the past i have seen claims where insurance companies ask you to pay the 'back premium' based on the correct information and then continued to pay the claim so all is not necessarily lost here.

[bed32]

While I'm no expert this sounds like a difficult situation. As I understand it if changing the registered keeper to your son's name would have changed the insurance cos view of the risk and so led to increased premiums (either due to the age of the driver or merely the change of address) then they are entitled to avoid the policy.

 

The best thing to do is to write a grovelling letter to the insurance company stating how this came about and asking them to reconsider (at this point be polite) you could say that you are aware of the obligation of utmost good faith but that this was a genuine mistake and that you don't think it is material. It is probably worth saying as politely as possible that you are prepared to refer it to FoS.

 

If they don't change their minds then you can refer it to the FOS and they will rule whether the company are in the right or not (and their ruling will depend on whether the company would have increased the premium, or declined cover had they known). Note that if you do refer this to FOS that will cost the insurance company money whichever way the ruling goes, so depending on the sums involved the company may decide it is less hassle / cheaper to pay up than to let it go to FoS even if they would win.

 

As an additional complication the fact that you have now had a policy avoided may be significant as far as other insurance policies are concerned - if you don't get the ins co to change their mind they you should tell your other insurers.

[patdavies]

Correct Pat

 

If the keeper was named as a driver on the policy that would be all that is required.

 

The keeper doesn't even have to be able to drive - never mind insure the vehicle.

[patdavies]

Pat...

 

Take the example of lease cars, the company owns the vehicle and the policy holder would be the registered keeper, same with hire cars and courtesy cars. You are correct in that the owner/keeper doesnt always have to insure the vehicle as long as the insurance company accepts the risk if it belongs to someone else.

 

Re-read this post and realised i sounded patronizing so thought i'd better edit it.. sorrry

 

No, In the past when I have had company cars (which were leased) the RK is shown on the V5 as the leasing company - I know this because of all the paperwork needed to take the car out of the country. My company insured the car as the policy holder. This is standard practice.

[patdavies]

In the case of leasing or HP the car must be registered to the keeper who is not nesessarily the owner. THe reg doc is evidence of where the vehicle is kept not who owns it

 

Company cars are usually lease cars. When I have had company cars in the past, the leasing company has been the RK. My company insured it. Although I was the sole user, the V5 was definitely not in my name.

 

This is why NiPs and parking tickets go to the leasing company first.

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

we aren't talking leasing or hiring we are talking HP & the insurer who refused to accept liability is wrong to do so. If the HP & the insurance are in a particular persons name, they have an insurable interest & are therefore covered. The the name on the V5 is irrelevant.

 

Company cars the driver is the user not the keeper

[patdavies]

we aren't talking leasing or hiring we are talking HP

 

Now I'm confused

 

In the case of leasing or HP the car must be registered to the keeper

 

 

 

Company cars the driver is the user not the keeper

 

Technically, in legal terms, the company car used is the keeper; just not the registered keeper

[Pliny the Penuriosus]

Now I'm confused

 

Hiring refers to rental! HP refers to hire PURCHASE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Technically, in legal terms, the company car used is the keeper; just not the registered keeper

I assume you mean the company IS the keeper & if so correct

Anyone who has an insurable interest can insure that interest whether it be a car or otherwise. They don't even need the consent of the keeper

[patdavies]

I assume you mean the company IS the keeper & if so correct

 

Anyone who has an insurable interest can insure that interest whether it be a car or otherwise. They don't even need the consent of the keeper

 

No, when I had company cars, I was the sole user and the vehicle was kept at my address. Technically, I am the keeper.

 

Yes, HP means HIRE PURCHASE. It is a HIRE for the length of the agreement. The PURCHASE takes place at the end, with the final payment. The person paying the HP does not own the vehicle until the agreement is completed; until that point he/she is hiring the vehicle.

[humbleman]

When you insure any vehicle they will usually ask you if you are the registered owner/keeper as long as you answered correctly, doesn't matter in whose name the car is, as long as the dirver has insured the vehicle.