Car Insurance co "robs" mother of 4 of her car

[Mossycat]

Is this the LAW or insurance LAW that she did not abide to?

 

I suspect the argument is Contract Law, which it appears she did NOT abide to.

 

Mossy

[Mossycat]

She will need to prove that the expenses were necessarily and reasonably incurred and were not excessive (among other things).

 

Thank You.

 

Finally a voice of reason!!!!!!!!!!

 

Mossy

[hachette]

The barrister's opinion was based on the dates. Policy taken on 17/11/07. Her son send the registration document to register his car in his mother's name on 20/12/07 and dated it the day he send it.

Edited October 26, 2008 by hachette

[Mossycat]

The barrister's opinion was based on the dates. Policy taken on 17/11/07. Her son send the registration document to register his car in his mother's name on 20/12/07 and dated it the the he send it.

 

Yes I accept that.

 

OK policy taken out on 17/11/07. IF (and I stress IF it is a condition of the policy that the policyholder is the registered keeper) then if the effective date that car was registered to the mother is 20/12/07 then quiet clearly the condition was breached and as such the contract is voided.

 

Had the son put the correct date ie 17/11/07 then the condition would have been met

 

I'm coming to the conclusion that this is their argument.

 

Mossy

[callumsgran]

Ive never had an insurance policy that states the registered owner must be the policy holder

 

When did this become the norm?

[hachette]

Thank you all. I will reply to all quries but must get the facts right first just in case.

[Mossycat]

Ive never had an insurance policy that states the registered owner must be the policy holder

 

When did this become the norm?

 

Most insurers ask it on the proposal form

 

ie 'Is the car registered to you and at the same address'.

 

The reason they ask it is to ascertain factors that will influence their decision to provide cover and if so at what cost (amongst other things).

 

For some insurers it has been the norm for a long time.

 

If that is the case with the insurer concerned in this case, then it could be a major problem in contract law.

 

Mossy

[hachette]

So the son made an error. He did not know that he should have back dated the transfer to the time his mum was named as a prime driver. He had entered the date he posted it. So now becauce of it they lost £8000 pounds car and got more into debt as a result of it.This can not be right. We are not talking here about "fronting" and all that stuff that I/she do not even understand and never knew about until now. This lady took an insurance on the car she was driving every day and when it cought fire it was a shock. Still do not know why and how it happened.

[callumsgran]

So the son made an error. He did not know that he should have back dated the transfer to the time his mum was named as a prime driver. He had entered the date he posted it. So now becauce of it they lost £8000 pounds car and got more into debt as a result of it.This can not be right. We are not talking here about "fronting" and all that stuff that I/she do not even understand and never knew about until now. This lady took an insurance on the car she was driving every day and when it cought fire it was a shock. Still do not know why and how it happened.

 

I agree its not an ideal outcome but insurance companies are notorious for finding loopholes not to pay out and i personally think its an unfair term that nowadays the reg keeper has to be the policy holder (btw how does that work out if the reg keeper is disabled and cant drive the car?)

 

I used to insure the car that belonged to my employer, she couldnt drive it but was the reg keeper/owner

 

What amazes me is that the insurance company have still got the car and havent investigated how the fire started 9 months later!!!!

I mean if it was proved one way or the other that it wasnt arson then they should pay out in my opinion

[JonCris]

She will need to prove that the insurer had acted unreasonably in denying/delaying a valid claim and that the expenses were necessarily and reasonably incurred and were not excessive (among other things).

 

 

Precisely bernie costs that would not have been incurred had the insurer acted reasonably. If she is able to prove it's essential that she has a car then, provided she doesn't upgrade, she would be entitled to claim

[JonCris]

So the son made an error. He did not know that he should have back dated the transfer to the time his mum was named as a prime driver. He had entered the date he posted it. So now becauce of it they lost £8000 pounds car and got more into debt as a result of it.This can not be right. We are not talking here about "fronting" and all that stuff that I/she do not even understand and never knew about until now. This lady took an insurance on the car she was driving every day and when it cought fire it was a shock. Still do not know why and how it happened.

 

Provided there was no intention to defraud & provided the change had actually occurred then the 'clerical' error should not extinguish the claim.

 

Suggest you consult another lawyer asap

[hachette]

I have now spoken to my friend so I can verify some queries made by Mossycat.

The mother and son both owed a car prior to her taking an insurance on her son’s car.

The idea was that his car to be loaned on temporary basis when her car was scrapped until such time she is able to sort herself with her own transport.

Broker was notified by phone call only. They did not request it in writing.

The broker did not refuse to insure his mother as a prime driver when son telephoned them. He told them at the time the car was registered to him so they informed him he should change his V5 to his mum name and he has confirmed he will do so.

She does not remember receiving or completing an insurance proposal form but can not be sure.

The cover note was received showing his mum as a policy holder and him as a second driver

She was insured with different insurers when she had her own car.

His mum was named on her son’s policy when he owned the car but he was not named on her policy when she had a car as he never drove it.

She thinks she was the last person to drive it but can not be sure.

By issuing proceedings against Chaucer insurance I mean I used a web site called “moneyclaimonline” where you can take legal action against person/company who owes you money.

[Mossycat]

I agree its not an ideal outcome but insurance companies are notorious for finding loopholes not to pay out and i personally think its an unfair term that nowadays the reg keeper has to be the policy holder (btw how does that work out if the reg keeper is disabled and cant drive the car?)

 

I used to insure the car that belonged to my employer, she couldnt drive it but was the reg keeper/owner

 

What amazes me is that the insurance company have still got the car and havent investigated how the fire started 9 months later!!!!

I mean if it was proved one way or the other that it wasnt arson then they should pay out in my opinion

 

To answer this question let me start by telling you what you can insure, you can insure something if it actually exists and you can insure something if you have an insurable interest in it (ie a financial obligation or debt etc if something happened to it). There are other things that affect the ability to insure something but since they are not salient to this case I won't bother mentioning them here.

 

I accept that in this case the car did exist and it may have or may not have (I haven't seen the paperwork so like everyone else on this forum I am in no position to confirm it) belonged to the mother, either by gift, sale or was just loaned to the mother. But I do accept that she has an insurable interest in it.

 

So having confirmed that she may insure it, she now needs to find an insurer who will offer her a policy (a policy is a contract to which both parties agree and are bound). In the main most insurers are the same, but they may or may not have conditions that they insist on before accepting the risk. Not all companies insist that the registered keeper is the policyholder BUT SOME DO. And if this is the case with this insurer then the policy was never in force, it never existed because the policyholder was NOT the registered keeper.

 

The insurance company offered a policy based on their terms and conditions, if the person taking out the policy did not conform to those conditions then that is the fault of the policy holder NOT the insurance company.

 

Callumsgran you may well have insured a car that belonged to your employer, maybe you were with an insurer that allowed this, or maybe you never disclosed this and because you didn't have a total loss it never came to light. What you have done in the past with another insurer is totally irrelevent to this case.

 

Why should the insurance company investigate this? The policy never existed (see above), they have nothing to do with it. Arson or not why should they pay out for a car that was never insured with them, the contract never existed (see above).

 

I hope that clarifies your questions.

 

Mossy

[Mossycat]

I have now spoken to my friend so I can verify some queries made by Mossycat.

 

The mother and son both owed a car prior to her taking an insurance on her son’s car.

 

The idea was that his car to be loaned on temporary basis when her car was scrapped until such time she is able to sort herself with her own transport.

 

Broker was notified by phone call only. They did not request it in writing.

 

The broker did not refuse to insure his mother as a prime driver when son telephoned them. He told them at the time the car was registered to him so they informed him he should change his V5 to his mum name and he has confirmed he will do so.

 

She does not remember receiving or completing an insurance proposal form but can not be sure.

 

The cover note was received showing his mum as a policy holder and him as a second driver

 

She was insured with different insurers when she had her own car.

 

His mum was named on her son’s policy when he owned the car but he was not named on her policy when she had a car as he never drove it.

 

She thinks she was the last person to drive it but can not be sure.

 

By issuing proceedings against Chaucer insurance I mean I used a web site called “moneyclaimonline” where you can take legal action against person/company who owes you money.

 

OK thanks for that.

 

Your answers have closed down some options that may have been arguable in Court.

 

A proposal form MUST have been completed. The mother MUST have completed the proposal form (either online, by telephone or on paper).

 

The broker obviously advised the son that the car MUST be registered to his mum (ie the policyholder) and the son agreed to do this. Therefore it is MOST likely that it was conditional upon this that the contract was effected. (Hence why the Barrister advised that no action would succeed against the insurer).

 

The cover note was issued on the basis of the proposal and subject to the laws of contract. The contract was breached because the policyholder did not own the car. Therefore the cover note is worthless because the policy is void at inception (it never existed).

 

In my opinion (feel free to ignore this or seek further legal advice) form what I have read I would state the following.

 

The Insurer (Chaucer) offered a policy subject to their terms and conditions.

 

The policyholder accepted these terms and conditions and a cover note was issued.

 

A claim arose, in the course of the claim it was discovered that the terms and conditions of the Insurer had NOT been met. The Insurer refuses to deal with it, informs the policyholder and withdraws from anything further to do with investigating the claim, the salvage (the remains of the car).

 

The mother continues to hire a car in full knowledge that the insurer has refused to deal with the claim. This is her responsibility and nobody else's.

 

The mother is aware that the claim has been refuted but continues to allow the car to stay at the location it was recovered to, any storage charges after the date that the claim was turned down will be her responsibility.

 

The V5 is a legal document, I am no expert on it but I would be fairly certain that it would state that the dates entered must be CORRECT and also when you sign it you CONFIRM everything to be correct. The son signed over the car on 20/12/07 in the eyes of the law.

 

Whether I accept an error was made by the son or not is irrelevent, all errors have consequences, some more serious than others.

 

A Court of law will look at the facts, and the fact is that the terms and conditions were not met by the policyholder. Therefore the contract never existed.

 

The above is based purely on what I have seen on this thread, I have not seen the paperwork, nor do I know for certain that the insurer is indeed relying on breach of contract and if so on the remedy of void ab initio. My comments are based on my best understanding and instincts and should in no way either deter or encourage you from seeking further advice or persuing this matter.

 

I am sorry if this wasn't what you wanted to hear, but it is my opinion.

 

Mossy

[hachette]

Why then insurance brokers insured her with a full knowledge that her name was not on registration document. Surely they know it takes up to 6 weeks to receive your V5. They made her falsely belive that she was holding a policy on that car from the date phone call was made. If that is the case they should tell her son to get his V5 in her name first and then change the policy to her name in which case they would look for an insurance that can insure her without having registration doc in her name.

[callumsgran]

Why then insurance brokers insured her with a full knowledge that her name was not on registration document. Surely they know it takes up to 6 weeks to receive your V5. They made her falsely belive that she was holding a policy on that car from the date phone call was made. If that is the case they should tell her son to get his V5 in her name first and then change the policy to her name in which case they would look for an insurance that can insure her without having registration doc in her name.

Did she make any payments on the insurance?

[Mossycat]

Why then insurance brokers insured her with a full knowledge that her name was not on registration document. Surely they know it takes up to 6 weeks to receive your V5. They made her falsely belive that she was holding a policy on that car from the date phone call was made. If that is the case they should tell her son to get his V5 in her name first and then change the policy to her name in which case they would look for an insurance that can insure her without having registration doc in her name.

 

I cannot comment on what the brokers may or may not have said but I would answer that by saying when I go to buy a car I arrange insurance to allow me to drive it away from the garage.

 

At the exact moment I pick up my car and for some weeks after I am not the registered keeper (because the garage will not notify the DVLA until I pay for the car and because the DVLA have backlogs etc).

 

Yet despite that I am perfectly entitled to drive the car, in reality that must be the case otherwise everyone would have to wait 6 weeks (or however long it takes the DVLA) before they can arrange insurance.

 

The son was advised to put the car in the name of the mother, you have stated that several times, he failed to do that, you have confirmed that.

 

Most likely (this is guessing) Broker advises that the car must be in the name of the policyholder, Broker is told this will happen, Broker proceeds in good faith on the understanding that this will happen. It is NOT the fault of the Broker that something they were led to believe would happen didn't happen.

 

To go back to my personal example, I go to a Broker, I ask them for a quote, they go through the proposal, I accept the quote, I buy the car and the car is registered in my name. If the case you state happened because of a mistake by the garage then I would be suing the garage for my loss because their actions had invalidated my insurance.

 

Mossy

Edited October 26, 2008 by Mossycat

[Mossycat]

Did she make any payments on the insurance?

 

That's totally irrelevent

 

Any payments made have no meaning if contract was Void at inception, the insurer will state (quite correctly) that they accepted payments based on the contract. Since the contract was breached it matters not one iota about payments made or accepted.

 

Technically the Insurer may have to refund some or all of the premium, but they can also claim compensation for the time and administration they have put into this.

 

Mossy

Edited October 26, 2008 by Mossycat

[JonCris]

Mossy am I correct in thinking you do or have worked for insurers??

[Mossycat]

Mossy am I correct in thinking you do or have worked for insurers??

 

Yes

 

Mossy

[JonCris]

Yes

 

Mossy

 

 

Thought so. It's obvious from your advice

[Mossycat]

Thought so. It's obvious from your advice

 

I'm not sure how to take that.

 

Are you suggesting that I am siding with the Insurer and defending their right to void the policy?

 

Mossy

[hachette]

I am very confused now. The insurance broker agrees to insure his mum on the basis that at some point (as soon as he can which not neccessary means on that day) he will register the car in his mum name. So lets say she has an accident the next day what happens then. Was she or wasn't she insured.It seems to me they did everything in order to keep a customer. If 20/12/07 was the earliest time he managed to send transfer should not be an issue unless they specified the time his V5 should have been back from DVLA and registered in her name. Also who can possibly guarantee that required document will arrive within a specific time. The fact is they should have never put the policy in her name if the insurers requirments specified she had to be a registered keeper at the time.

 

I will look forward to hear tape recording made on that date as according to the brokers all the conversations are recorded for legal purposes.

Edited October 26, 2008 by hachette

[Mossycat]

I think the V5 states that it is the responsibility of the registered keeper to notify any changes IMMEDIATELY.

 

Like I said earlier I am not in a position to comment on what may or may not have been said by the Broker, I was not party to the conversation, nor have I seen record of it.

 

I strongly doubt that any Broker would say 'at some point'.

 

I keep saying IF it's a condition of the policy that the registered keeper is the policyholder because I don't know if that's the reason for denial (I can only strongly feel it is), then ask yourself that question and you will have the answer.

 

Furthermore NOBODY ever specifies that V5 should have been back from the DVLA and in her name at the time, that's not practical and it would never work in reality. If that was the case buying and selling cars would be a nightmare.

 

I cannot understand why the son's first opportunity to notify the DVLA was almost 30 days later.

 

I cannot comment on why the son put the date of 20/12/07 on the V5 as the date of transfer nor can I comment on why he confirmed that everything stated on that form was true to the best of his knowledge and belief.

 

Mossy

[hachette]

Also her claim was not refused from day one. They even made an offer of £7400 that had been agreed. However nothing was coming in the way of cheque and subsequently they started to ask for a copy of V5. As the transfer was forwarded to DVLA on 20/12/07 by 4/1/08 it did not come back. After 4/1/08 insurers who are now aware that registration document had been applied for by her son to be registered in his mum name informed them that Mrs Gonta is no longer in possession of this car therefore DVLA refuses to issue it. After all accident happened on 4/1/08 ( after the V5 transfer was made)