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

[JonCris]

Hatchete I suggest you consult another solicitor.

 

Views between lawyers often differ (that's why we have courts) & because one barrister say's one thing doesn't mean you don't have a case for compensation

[Mossycat]

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)

 

That's fairly standard.

 

The insurer and the polichholder want a fire claim dealing with asap. The offer was made to speed things up but was conditional on sight of the documents. In a normal case the policyholder would write in accepting the offer at the same time as sending the documents.

 

No payment is ever made on a total loss without sight of the documents, hence why no cheque was forthcoming.

 

The Insurer was not aware on day 1 that there was a problem, so of course they proceeded to deal with as normal.

 

Mossy

[Mossycat]

Hachette

 

What you have to remember is that this is a forum for people to post ideas/opinions and or advice.

 

Nobody on this forum (not even you) are aware of the full facts.

 

Whatever anybody feels about this case and the rights and wrongs of it are both irrelevent and meaningless.

 

The person who has lost the car now has two choices, either accept that the insurance people will not pay out and get on with sorting the mess out, OR seek further legal advice from someone qualified and WILLING to take this case on.

 

Personally I am not going to comment on rights or wrongs, my opinions and comments were based on my understanding of Insurance Law, Contract Law, the Road Traffic Act and my experience in motor claims handling.

 

Mossy

[hachette]

I fully understand that Mossycat. But can you tell me as a person who knows a lot about car insurnace. What would have happened if she had an accident day after the brokers put her policy in place? (knowing she was not registered owner)

[hachette]

Jon, thank you for your support. We will get further legal advice. Shame I did not know about Ombudsman service before we took proceedings but will call them tomorow to get their advice. There is always talk about how members of public try to con insurance companies. How about looking into insurance companies trying to con honest members of public.

[callumsgran]

I fully understand that Mossycat. But can you tell me as a person who knows a lot about car insurnace. What would have happened if she had an accident day after the brokers put her policy in place? (knowing she was not registered owner)

IMO they would've still tried wriggling out of it, that's what insurance companies do

They will only pay out if there are no loopholes to use to get out of it

[hachette]

Mossycat, I talk to my friend every day. She told me everything she and her son remebered in this case all that time ago to the best of their knowledge. Nobody could have antisipated the events that took place therefore no notes were made.

[hachette]

I can not believe they can be allowed to destroy person's life like this. I got involved in this case as she did not know what to do next. She is a totally inocent party in this. I believe in truth and honesty and I know my friend. I intend to write to newspapers,TV, MP etc. Hope Chaucer insurance ( or their brokers) will get "good" advert for their services they give.

[Mossycat]

I fully understand that Mossycat. But can you tell me as a person who knows a lot about car insurnace. What would have happened if she had an accident day after the brokers put her policy in place? (knowing she was not registered owner)

 

That's impossible to answer. They would have asked for the documents though that is for sure.

 

Why it's impossible to answer is because.....

 

Nobody knows what the son would have done, ie would he have sent them to the DVLA or would he have sent them to the insurer

 

Nobody knows what date would he have put on the V5 as effective transfer date if that had happened

 

Also there is a big difference between 1 day and 30 days, the insurer may well have accepted that in such a short space of time it wasn't reasonable to get send off the DVLA.

 

I stress again, the brokers don't appear to have done wnything wrong, they will always arrange insurance for cars about to be bought knowing that the V5 isn't yet in the name of the policyholder, but 30 days is an unreasonable time.

 

Mossy

[Mossycat]

Mossycat, I talk to my friend every day. She told me everything she and her son remebered in this case all that time ago to the best of their knowledge. Nobody could have antisipated the events that took place therefore no notes were made.

 

I wasn't having a go when I said nobody on this forum (not even you) is aware of the full facts.

 

By your own admission you agree they have told you 'all they remember'

 

You were not present at the time the policy was taken out so you do not know what exactly was said by the brokers

 

Therefore I stand by what I said.

 

Mossy

[Mossycat]

IMO they would've still tried wriggling out of it, that's what insurance companies do

They will only pay out if there are no loopholes to use to get out of it

 

NOT ALL Companies do that.

 

You do not have information (nobody on this forum does) to state that they are trying to wriggle out of it, since it has not been determined exactly why they have refuted this claim.

 

Mossy

[hachette]

DVLA allowes themselves 6 weeks to produce registaration document.

 

Would insurers or would they not meet her claim if any accident happened the next day? That is my big question.Was she insured as they made her think she was by issuing her with cover note or not. Who cons who here I wonder???

Edited October 26, 2008 by hachette

[hachette]

There is not much really to add to the circumstances of taking up the insurance by my friend as a prime driver on her son's car. That is it.

 

There are reasons why she had to hire a car and all can be supported by evidence issued by her's and her young son's doctors.

 

She was not sure for months if they will settle her claim as only in July they requested for her to take an interview digitally recordered to see if she is telling the truth. She did agree, interview took place but by then we have taken legal proceedings and they decided not to do second digitally recordered interview. So it seems to me that seven moths later the date of the transfer was not an issue. What was who knows.

Edited October 26, 2008 by hachette

[patdavies]

DVLA allowes themselves 6 weeks to produce registaration document.

 

Would insurers or would they not meet her claim if any accident happened the next day? That is my big question.Was she insured as they made her think she was by issuing her with cover note or not. Who cons who here I wonder???

 

The time taken by DVLA to issue the V5 is totally irrelevant. The RK changes at the time that both old and new keepers sign and date the V5 - not even as long as the date when it arrives at DVLA. That date refers to the date of registration of change of keepership and not the change of keepership itself.

[callumsgran]

NOT ALL Companies do that.

 

You do not have information (nobody on this forum does) to state that they are trying to wriggle out of it, since it has not been determined exactly why they have refuted this claim.

 

Mossy

Oh purlease dont yank my chain.............you cannot be serious!!

[hachette]

Why there is a big difference between day 1 and 30 days. Either I am insured form day one or not at all.

[hachette]

Pat I read your post three times and still do not understand. Sorry. I am trying to learn fast about all these policies,rules and laws but get stuck ever so often.

[hachette]

At the end of the day we are talking here about single mother of 4 and young 23 year old boy who did not have much dealings in such matters. He has simply telephoned the brokers to change his policy to his mum name (insures requirement) as his mother was driving his car all the time and trusted that the "experts" will advice him. The fact that he send off the transfer later it does not mean that he wanted to con the insurers. He was just being 23 year old boy. If you have kids of that age you know what I mean ( ei I will do it mum I promise I will) . In fact if he posted it late and put an earlier date on it that would be dishonest. Young and naive. Does she (and her kids) have to pay such price for it.

[Mossycat]

At the end of the day we are talking here about single mother of 4 and young 23 year old boy who did not have much dealings in such matters. He has simply telephoned the brokers to change his policy to his mum name (insures requirement) as his mother was driving his car all the time and trusted that the "experts" will advice him. The fact that he send off the transfer later it does not mean that he wanted to con the insurers. He was just being 23 year old boy. If you have kids of that age you know what I mean ( ei I will do it mum I promise I will) . In fact if he posted it late and put an earlier date on it that would be dishonest. Young and naive. Does she (and her kids) have to pay such price for it.

 

Facts are facts and as such are not influenced by whether it involves a single mother of 4 or a multi-millionaire.

 

If he posted it late he could still (and did have a duty) to ensure the facts as stated were correct, if he stated the date of change of keeper was 20/12/07 then that in the eyes of the fact. I see no reason why he couldn't have entered the date 17/11/07 when he did fill in the form.

 

Mossy

[daviet1976]

I agree with Mossy on this.

 

However, there IS a possible solution.

 

Ask for the vehicle back. Afterall, it IS the property of your friend.

[Mossycat]

Would insurers or would they not meet her claim if any accident happened the next day? That is my big question.Was she insured as they made her think she was by issuing her with cover note or not. Who cons who here I wonder???

 

You asked that eariler and I answered it by saying it is impossible to answer.

 

IF the policy has been voided because she was not the registered keeper (but remember we do not know that is the reason), then at the time the cover note was issued it was the correct thing to do.

 

IF it was a condition of the policy that the registerd keeper is the policyholder, and she wasn't then it's clear that SHE was conning the insurance company.

 

Mossy

Edited October 27, 2008 by Mossycat

[Mossycat]

He has simply telephoned the brokers to change his policy to his mum name (insures requirement)

 

That is totally impossible and YOU NEED TO FIND OUT EXACTLY WHAT WAS SAID AND DONE.

 

A policy in the name of the son CANNOT be changed to any other name. The only thing the son could do was cancel his policy and let the mother arrange a policy of her own for that car.

 

An insurance policy is not like a car where you change ownership.

 

Mossy

[callumsgran]

You asked that eariler and I answered it by saying it is impossible to answer.

 

IF the policy has been voided because she was not the registered keeper (but remember we do not know that is the reason), then at the time the cover note was issued it was the correct thing to do.

 

IF it was a condition of the policy that the registerd keeper is the policyholder, and she wasn't then it's clear that SHE was conning the insurance company.

 

Mossy

I think that is a bit harsh Mossy, why would she deliberately want to con the insurance company?

What would she gain?

[Mossycat]

OK look we are going around in circles.

 

I honestly feel that from the information you have given based on what you know (or think you know), that there are some facts missing, and without those it would be pointless to carry on.

 

I suggest the follwoing.

 

Go back to the Broker and ask exactly what was said and done at the time, specifically ask if the son cancelled his policy and exactly who arranged a policy in the name of the mother. Ask how the proposal was completed and also ask about conditions imposed by the Insurer concerned regarding registered keeper and policyholder (must they be the same). Ask if you can have a copy of the proposal and also ask for a copy of the terms and conditions that Chaucer insist on.

 

If you issued proceedings against the insurer they must have entered a defence, what was the basis of their defence?

 

Finally go back to your solicitor/barrister and ask them to explain exactly why the claim would not succeed, if they again tell you it's because of the dates ask them exactly why that is important and tell them you don't understand the significance.

 

When you have the answers to these post back, until then I am withdrawing from posting further to this thread.

 

Mossy

Edited October 27, 2008 by Mossycat

[Mossycat]

I think that is a bit harsh Mossy, why would she deliberately want to con the insurance company?

What would she gain?

 

I was asked a question I answered it.

 

Do not let your emotions or personal feelings influence your answer.

 

IF the policyholder confirmed that she was the registered keepr and she wasn't then that is incorrect/ a mistake/ an oversight / a lie/ a con / a genuine error / a falsehood.

 

Pick whatever sits happier with you if that makes you feel better, but it does not change the fact that the policyholder was not 100% truthful IN THE EYES OF THE LAW.

 

I think you misunderstood the question and answer about who is conning who.

 

Based on what I have read I stated a fact. I was NOT saying this claim is a con NOR am I saying the mother had anything to gain.

 

OK consider this

 

I go out I meet a girl I think is attractive. I ask her age she states 16. We agree to sex. That's legal yes?

 

OK two days later I get a knock at the door, turns out she is only 15 and 364 days old.

 

I acted in good faith (she looked 16, she told me she was 16, and YES at some future date (the day after she wsa indeed 16).

 

Who conned who ?

 

Who gets arested for sex with a minor ?

 

Who gets put on the sex register ?

 

Mossy

 

PS Just to clarify the above, at my age I don't go chasing 16 year olds!!!!

Edited October 27, 2008 by Mossycat