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

[daviet1976]

The bottom line, we are assuming, it that the policy was issued with conditions.

 

As those conditions were not met, the policy was avoided.

[callumsgran]

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!!!!

I should hope not!!!! lol unless you are 18 of course!?

[Mossycat]

Hopefully this will clarify the position a bit IF it transpires that the Insurers ARE saying the policy was void at inception.

 

IF that is so then they are relying on Contract Law.

 

An insurance agreement is a contract between the Insurance Company and the policyholder.

 

The contract will be entered into and based on negotiations (ie questions asked, questions answered, quotations given, quotations accepted, consideration must be present (that is the price that each other pays for the promise of each other), the maxim of utmost good faith and a few other things as well.

 

If the contract is breached then whoever suffers the breach has the right to decide which remedy they would like.

 

The most common remedies are as follows

 

They agree to carry on and let the contract stand (for example if the policyholder was asked about convictions and replied that they had a speeding conviction on 10/10/07 it was for SP30, they got three points and a £60 fine, but the insurer later discovers the actual date was 11/10/07 but everything else was correct then they would probably (but do not have to) let the contract continue)

 

They agree to carry on but ask for additional money (take the above example but it turns out the speeding fine was actually £200 and 6 points had been added to the licence)

 

They declare the contract Void Ab Initio (ie it would not have been entered into had they known what they now know, it is declared void at inception, in the eyes of the law it never existed). For example the policyholder states they have no convictions, later it comes to light the policyholder had convictions for drink driving, had been banned, didn't actually hold a licence, had convictions for arson and fraud.

 

Obviously I have cited examples that make it easy to understand why a particular remedy might be applied (so don't come back and say the mother didn't have convictions etc).

 

The Law is clear, the party who suffered the breach is the one who decides the remedy.

 

It's a bit like if you buy something from a shop and it goes faulty, it is YOU who decides if you want a replacement or your money back because you suffered the breach.

 

It is fair to say that depending on which side of the fence you are on will influence what you feel is fair.

 

If you are the Insurance Company, you are in business to make money, you might have share holders to consider, so what is fair to them? Is it fair to expect them to pay out in excess of £10,000 if they do not have to?

 

If you are the mother of 4, you have lost your car and have a big bill for a hire car. so what is fair to them? Is it fair to her that she is out of pocket for the cost of hiring a car and has lost her own car as well?

 

I doubt that the two answers will be the same, hence why I sit on the fence, I do not take sides and I do not judge or comment on rights or wrongs. I am not on the side of anyone, I simply give my opinion based on what I believe to be correct and true.

 

What I feel is fair is not relevent, it will not influence the outcome, and therefore isn't worth writing about.

 

Hope that clarifies it

 

Mossy

Edited October 27, 2008 by Mossycat

[daviet1976]

Yup.

 

Ins co's need to fade out the grey areas that existed when I was at NUI.

 

It needs to be more black and white.

 

We MUST look at this from the company's viewpoint to understand why they've done this.

 

It's not simply a case of thinking "...but it seems so unfair. After-all, the son was being a typical 23 year old".

 

The Insurer is COMPLETELY within it's RIGHTS to avoid this policy (based on the info we have been given). They are not "getting away with it", or "conning" anyone, or being "typical".

 

The conditions were not met. They policy was avoided.

 

I feel for the mother and her kids. I really do. But I don't think the Insurer can do much more.

 

If they did, it would be hefty ex-gratia...

[Mossycat]

Hachette

 

If you are still reading this thread I really do think the best course of action for you is to do what was suggested in post #74.

 

Until then it's going to be emotional comments and 'what-if' questions which will only confuse and cloud the issue.

 

Mossy

 

PS The reason I am advocating this is because you are adamant that the son took the policy out on behalf of the mother, or changed his policy into her name.

 

Neither of the above should have happened, if it turns out that this the case, then we are completely on the wrong track as to why the policy was voided.

 

(This could be really important to you)

[hachette]

I do not understand why everyone asumes that she/he had lied when policy was taken. The brokers were told that the son was the registered keeper at the time policy was taken. Why did they issue her with a policy in her name if it was against their policy rules? They should have told her to re-register the car to her name first. In which case she could have stayed as a second driver on his policy while V5 is transfered.

[hachette]

I have spoken today to Ombudsman services and they are going to take over this case. Will let know what happens.

[Mossycat]

I do not understand why everyone asumes that she/he had lied when policy was taken. The brokers were told that the son was the registered keeper at the time policy was taken. Why did they issue her with a policy in her name if it was against their policy rules? They should have told her to re-register the car to her name first. In which case she could have stayed as a second driver on his policy while V5 is transfered.

 

You have asked that a few times and it has been answered a few times.

 

Read the previous posts

 

Mossy

[Mossycat]

I have spoken today to Ombudsman services and they are going to take over this case. Will let know what happens.

 

Fantastic News

 

Do let us know the outcome

 

Mossy

[JonCris]

The penalty for breaching a contract has to be reasonable. Breaching a contract does NOT always cause it to be voided

 

In addition there has to be an argument that changing the ownership would have had a detrimental effect on the contract & in this case it would not.

 

As I advised consult another lawyer

[Mossycat]

The penalty for breaching a contract has to be reasonable. Breaching a contract does NOT always cause it to be voided

 

In addition there has to be an argument that changing the ownership would have had a detrimental effect on the contract & in this case it would not.

 

As I advised consult another lawyer

 

 

In this case changing ownership COULD be fundamental to the contract being effected AND not therefore cannot be detrimental to it (if indeed it is declared Void Ab Initio)

 

I think you need to read up on both Contract Law and Insurance Law.

 

I for one will be very interested in what FOS decide

 

Mossy

[patdavies]

How are the insurance company claiming to have gained knowledge as to any change of ownership?

 

All that is on the V5 is the keepership - a wholly different beast.

 

If the insurance company require ownership as a condition of contract, then this took place at or about the time the insurance was instigated. As the vehicle appears to have been a gift, there is no requirement whatsoever for any documentation to exist regarding this change of ownership. A change of owner, does not necessarily mean a change of registered keeper.

 

If the insurance company require registered keepership as a condition of contract, then this was effected on the date that both parties signed and dated the V5 (when the DVLA issue a new V5 is irrelevant to the date of change)

 

If the insurance company require keepership as a condition of contract (unlikely) then this would effectively be unenforceable as keepership can change several times per day.

 

If the insurance company require the main driver to be the insured party, then this is what they got.

Edited October 27, 2008 by patdavies

[hachette]

I have also just spoken for the first time to the brokers and approached them for the tape ( that is what her solicitor was going to do but it appears never did). I do not want to get mine and hers hopes up but after they requested and were given authorisation from my friend and the sum of only £10 was paid I was informed the tape will be posted tomorow.

 

So very soon there should be more clear picture how it all happened.

[daviet1976]

This is good news.

 

Let's see what the broker has said/done.

[hachette]

Very disappointed. The tape did not arrive today. Most likely it was posted second class. One more thing came to light is the fact that the original transfer send by her son was lost be DVLA. So we will never know what date was put on that transfer. When the new document was not coming In March 08 the DVLA have told them to request a copy. He did so in March but did not remeber the original date he has put on his V5.

 

And that is when 20/12/07 was entered from his memory. the registraston document still did not arrive.

 

Anyway still waiting for that tape.

[callumsgran]

Hachette all may not be lost, if i'm reading this right and DVLA 'lost' the original transfer from son to mother the date of transfer cannot be proved by either side

 

So mother might have been confused as to whether or not the car was in her name, the son could also be confused as to the date he sent it in, get my drift?

 

Also, the insurance company wont be able to prove anything either, so she might be ok

[Mossycat]

One more thing came to light is

 

Those words worry me, this is 'one more thing' that you were not aware of before you issued through MCOL.

 

As I said earlier, nobody on this forum, not even you hachette are aware of the full facts (as evidenced above).

 

I am beginning to think there is something missing here, something that you haven't mentioned (yet), or are simply unaware of.

 

I'm glad the FOS have taken this up, because they will get to the bottom of why the claim was refused.

 

Mossy

[hachette]

I feel I have really now spoken to my friend in depth as to what had happened . There is her, her son's and insurence brokers story we/I need to clarify.

Lets hope the tape comes tomorow. One thing I am sure of they did not try to con insurers. Why would they? What would be the gain? Will post as soon as the tape is received.

[hachette]

Thank you callumsgran for your positive posts. I does help.

[hachette]

Thank you Mossycat I hope so too.

[callumsgran]

Thank you callumsgran for your positive posts. I does help.

YW hun, lets hope there is a good end result for this

[hachette]

callumsgran, love the cat.

[Wulfyn]

Ok, I'm joining this argument a bit late, but I think a few extra facts might help you hatchett.

 

 

Firstly main driver and second driver is often a moot point with regards to the underwriting conditions. Most insurers rate the 'main' driver as the youngest one on the policy anyhow, regardless of what you might put in the form.

 

Secondly although not that common it is possible to insure a car in another person's name. In fact the Proposer (the name given to the person taking out / paying for the policy) doesn't even need to be covered. These are called "Named Only" policies (as opposed to "Insured and Named" - this terminology might be confusing but we call the Proposer the Insured when they are covered by the policy ie Insured and Spouse, Insured and Any).

 

Thirdly just because a company has special rules regarding the sale of a contract does not make it legally binding. A prime example is that many insurance companies rate car insurance upon the occupation of the insured. However some brokers can be a bit lazy, and instead of trawling through 1000's of ABI occupation codes will just select the first occupation on the list - Accountant.

 

 

Now the point is that although the insurance company might try to wriggle out of paying a claim due to any of the above 3, it is very unlikely that they will get away with it. More likely they are just having a go and hoping that bad advice or inactivity will let them get away with it. The good news is that the FSA don't let them get away with nit-picking with regards to this.

 

Which makes my entire post a bit pointless because my advice is what you have already done - to talk to the FSA Ombudsman about this. I honestly believe that the FSA will fall on your side with this one, because who the vehicle is registered to doesn't make a scrap of difference to the cover, and if anything your friend's son was showing a willingness to accommodate by rebroking the insurance to specify the change in main user.

[JonCris]

Precisely Wulfyn:)

[callumsgran]

callumsgran, love the cat.

 

I know he's lovely isnt he/she? Lol

 

Ok, I'm joining this argument a bit late, but I think a few extra facts might help you hatchett.

 

 

Firstly main driver and second driver is often a moot point with regards to the underwriting conditions. Most insurers rate the 'main' driver as the youngest one on the policy anyhow, regardless of what you might put in the form.

 

Secondly although not that common it is possible to insure a car in another person's name. In fact the Proposer (the name given to the person taking out / paying for the policy) doesn't even need to be covered. These are called "Named Only" policies (as opposed to "Insured and Named" - this terminology might be confusing but we call the Proposer the Insured when they are covered by the policy ie Insured and Spouse, Insured and Any).

 

Thirdly just because a company has special rules regarding the sale of a contract does not make it legally binding. A prime example is that many insurance companies rate car insurance upon the occupation of the insured. However some brokers can be a bit lazy, and instead of trawling through 1000's of ABI occupation codes will just select the first occupation on the list - Accountant.

 

 

Now the point is that although the insurance company might try to wriggle out of paying a claim due to any of the above 3, it is very unlikely that they will get away with it. More likely they are just having a go and hoping that bad advice or inactivity will let them get away with it. The good news is that the FSA don't let them get away with nit-picking with regards to this.

 

Which makes my entire post a bit pointless because my advice is what you have already done - to talk to the FSA Ombudsman about this. I honestly believe that the FSA will fall on your side with this one, because who the vehicle is registered to doesn't make a scrap of difference to the cover, and if anything your friend's son was showing a willingness to accommodate by rebroking the insurance to specify the change in main user.

 

 

I think this is what ive been trying to say, pretty much :-?

 

Hope we're right