Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Former MSE Wendy
    • By Former MSE Wendy 7th Apr 08, 7:06 PM
    • 868Posts
    • 1,782Thanks
    Former MSE Wendy
    Car Insurance Job Picker Discussion
    • #1
    • 7th Apr 08, 7:06 PM
    Car Insurance Job Picker Discussion 7th Apr 08 at 7:06 PM

    This thread is to discuss what you think of the


    And to check with other MoneySavers if they think your new job title is legit.

    Please click reply to discuss.
    Last edited by Former MSE Wendy; 12-06-2008 at 4:31 PM.
Page 2
    • raskazz
    • By raskazz 22nd Nov 09, 5:19 PM
    • 2,832 Posts
    • 1,284 Thanks
    raskazz
    As I said earlier, the two job titles make no difference to the quotation.
    Originally posted by PollyLL
    May I ask how you know this? Because Highway were quite clear and unambiguous in their letter:

    "We have checked with Swinton-Dyer and Holmes, who have confirmed that at no time before or after inception of your policy were they informed of the fact you are a property landlord. Had we been aware of this, we would not have agreed to give cover."

    It is all very well running a quote with Swinton but Swinton are the broker not the insurer. It may not affect the quote that you get with Swinton now but that quote is likely with an insurer other than Highway.

    An much as you might protest, from any reasonable and objective viewpoint you are a landlord - and that is the most appropriate job description, not a 'property lettings manager' or anything else.

    If, when asked, you tell people that you "manage a bunch of houses for a living", why did you answer "I'm a landlord and rent properties out for a living" when the insurer asked you what you do? :confused:
    Last edited by raskazz; 22-11-2009 at 5:25 PM.
  • PollyLL
    May I ask how you know this? Because Highway were quite clear and unambiguous in their letter:

    "We have checked with Swinton-Dyer and Holmes, who have confirmed that at no time before or after inception of your policy were they informed of the fact you are a property landlord. Had we been aware of this, we would not have agreed to give cover."

    It is all very well running a quote with Swinton but Swinton are the broker not the insurer. It may not affect the quote that you get with Swinton now but that quote is likely with an insurer other than Highway.

    An much as you might protest, from any reasonable and objective viewpoint you are a landlord - and that is the most appropriate job description, not a 'property lettings manager' or anything else.

    If, when asked, you tell people that you "manage a bunch of houses for a living", why did you answer "I'm a landlord and rent properties out for a living" when the insurer asked you what you do? :confused:
    Originally posted by raskazz

    Because as I said already, when I use go compare to obtain quotes twice using both job titles, it comes up with identical quotes from all insurers including Swinton. There is no difference, not even a penny.

    You don't get to put in "landlord rent properties for a living" etc as an occupation. You start typing property (which I did, because I prefer the tile "property investor" and up comes an acceptable list. I chose property lettings as the most appropriate.

    It's disgusting and simply an excuse to not pay the claim. The worst part though is that I have a feeling that they've dumped my name on an insurance fraud database which is probably why the quotes are coming in a fair bit higher now.

    If it was a different job, you probably wouldn't argue, you'd be against the insurer like any normal person. I find it difficult to believe that there's people here who'd joing a thread about how great it is to choose what you think is the best job description, then tell people it serves them right when their insurance is rejected outright because of a minor opinion based point on what the best description would have been.

    Have you even heard me say - I manage the properties full time, it really is a full time job. Landlord sounds so passive, property lettings manager is far more appropriate.
    Last edited by PollyLL; 22-11-2009 at 7:16 PM.
    • dacouch
    • By dacouch 22nd Nov 09, 7:46 PM
    • 20,264 Posts
    • 12,510 Thanks
    dacouch
    My post was not negative, it just set out the facts of the matter along with advice, I think you feel it is negative as I did not give you the answer you want. I would also say that Raskazz's post is not really negative.

    I have had a look at the Swintons motorbike quote system and gocompare and it neither offer a Letting Property Manager as a job title, they offer Property Manager which is an even different job title than a Letting Property Manager.

    Insurance is based on "Utmost Good Faith", the Insurer agrees to pay valid claims in return for you paying the premium and telling them the total truth. If you deliberately miss lead the Insurers the utmost good faith is breached and they will normally throw out a claim and void a policy.
    • raskazz
    • By raskazz 22nd Nov 09, 8:00 PM
    • 2,832 Posts
    • 1,284 Thanks
    raskazz
    Because as I said already, when I use go compare to obtain quotes twice using both job titles, it comes up with identical quotes from all insurers including Swinton.
    Originally posted by PollyLL
    You didn't read my previous post, did you?

    Swinton are not an insurer. They are a broker. Your risk was placed with Highway, the insurer, who have voided your policy.

    Running quotes now and concluding that Highway have treated you unfairly as there is no difference in the quotes presented is not a valid argument. This is because insurers who are quoting you now are clearly not Highway. It doesn't matter how other insurers view 'landlord' as an occupation - only how Highway view it. Highway are a broker only insurer so you have no real way of testing whether they insure landlords.

    As they have stated in black and white that they do not insure landlords, they will have made sure that they are on firm ground with this, so I'm fairly sure that what they are telling you is correct. Reason being that if any complaint was referred to the Ombudsman they would be required to produce evidence that they do not insure landlords, in the form of underwriting manuals etc which were in force at the time you took the policy out.
    Last edited by raskazz; 22-11-2009 at 8:13 PM.
    • raskazz
    • By raskazz 22nd Nov 09, 8:03 PM
    • 2,832 Posts
    • 1,284 Thanks
    raskazz
    If it was a different job, you probably wouldn't argue, you'd be against the insurer like any normal person.
    Originally posted by PollyLL
    Er, no. I have nothing against landlords. I am merely trying to explain why this situation has arisen and why, from an objective standpoint, some of your reasoning does not really apply.

    Landlord sounds so passive, property lettings manager is far more appropriate.
    Originally posted by PollyLL
    It isn't though! I know it's hard for you to be objective but to everyone else it is quite clear - as you own the property concerned a landlord is the correct description, not a 'property lettings manager'.

    "landlord (lănd'lôrd')
    n.
    One that owns and rents land, buildings, or dwelling units"
    Last edited by raskazz; 22-11-2009 at 8:06 PM.
  • PollyLL
    You didn't read my previous post, did you?

    Swinton are not an insurer. They are a broker. Your risk was placed with Highway, the insurer, who have voided your policy.

    Running quotes now and concluding that Highway have treated you unfairly as there is no difference in the quotes presented is not a valid argument. This is because insurers who are quoting you now are clearly not Highway. It doesn't matter how other insurers view 'landlord' as an occupation - only how Highway view it. Highway are a broker only insurer so you have no real way of testing whether they insure landlords.

    As they have stated in black and white that they do not insure landlords, they will have made sure that they are on firm ground with this, so I'm fairly sure that what they are telling you is correct. Reason being that if any complaint was referred to the Ombudsman they would be required to produce evidence that they do not insure landlords, in the form of underwriting manuals etc which were in force at the time you took the policy out.
    Originally posted by raskazz
    Pppllleeeaassseee....they haven't said they don't insure landlords. You made that up. They've used it as an excuse to say had they known, they wouldn't have offered it.

    It's just BS from a company trying to get out of an £850 cost which is dispicable.
  • PollyLL
    My post was not negative, it just set out the facts of the matter along with advice, I think you feel it is negative as I did not give you the answer you want. I would also say that Raskazz's post is not really negative.

    I have had a look at the Swintons motorbike quote system and gocompare and it neither offer a Letting Property Manager as a job title, they offer Property Manager which is an even different job title than a Letting Property Manager.

    Insurance is based on "Utmost Good Faith", the Insurer agrees to pay valid claims in return for you paying the premium and telling them the total truth. If you deliberately miss lead the Insurers the utmost good faith is breached and they will normally throw out a claim and void a policy.
    Originally posted by dacouch
    Do you people work for the insurer or something? There is no conceivable reason I would try to "delibarately mislead". As I said, I simply chose what I felt best described the actual work I do.
  • PollyLL
    By the way. i phoned my car insurer Churchill instantly upon realising the contents of this letter (who I also got car insurance through go compare with) and they DIDN'T WANT TO CHANGE MY OCCUPATION BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T THINK IT WAS MATERIALLY DIFFERNT!!!

    Same with my wife' car insurance. We phoned them, didn't care but changed it anyway.

    It is simply an excuse by my moped insurer to try to get out of it, but the fact that they may have flagged it as some type of fraud is outrageous and I hope that my efforts here telling others about it saves some people similar hassle.
    • raskazz
    • By raskazz 22nd Nov 09, 8:46 PM
    • 2,832 Posts
    • 1,284 Thanks
    raskazz
    Pppllleeeaassseee....they haven't said they don't insure landlords. You made that up. They've used it as an excuse to say had they known, they wouldn't have offered it.

    It's just BS from a company trying to get out of an £850 cost which is dispicable.
    Originally posted by PollyLL
    They have said that. It's the letter you yourself posted earlier:

    "We have checked with Swinton-Dyer and Holmes, who have confirmed that at no time before or after inception of your policy were they informed of the fact you are a property landlord. Had we been aware of this, we would not have agreed to give cover."
  • PollyLL
    They have said that. It's the letter you yourself posted earlier:

    "We have checked with Swinton-Dyer and Holmes, who have confirmed that at no time before or after inception of your policy were they informed of the fact you are a property landlord. Had we been aware of this, we would not have agreed to give cover."
    Originally posted by raskazz
    Sorry I must be stupid. It doesn't say "we don't insure landlords" as you implied.
    • raskazz
    • By raskazz 22nd Nov 09, 8:48 PM
    • 2,832 Posts
    • 1,284 Thanks
    raskazz
    By the way. i phoned my car insurer Churchill instantly upon realising the contents of this letter (who I also got car insurance through go compare with) and they DIDN'T WANT TO CHANGE MY OCCUPATION BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T THINK IT WAS MATERIALLY DIFFERNT!!!

    Same with my wife' car insurance. We phoned them, didn't care but changed it anyway.

    It is simply an excuse by my moped insurer to try to get out of it, but the fact that they may have flagged it as some type of fraud is outrageous and I hope that my efforts here telling others about it saves some people similar hassle.
    Originally posted by PollyLL
    Again, totally irrelevant. It doesn't matter how Churchill, Direct Line, Aviva or anyone else rate the occupation of 'landlord'. All that matters is how Highway rate 'landlord'. Different companies will aim for different profiles, have different appetites for risk and have differing experiences particular occupations.
    • raskazz
    • By raskazz 22nd Nov 09, 8:49 PM
    • 2,832 Posts
    • 1,284 Thanks
    raskazz
    Sorry I must be stupid. It doesn't say "we don't insure landlords" as you implied.
    Originally posted by PollyLL
    It clearly does.

    They are saying that had they been aware that you are a landlord they would not have offered cover, i.e. they would not have offered a quote.
  • PollyLL
    [QUOTE=raskazz;27134645]You didn't read my previous post, did you?


    As they have stated in black and white that they do not insure landlords, they will have made sure that they are on firm ground with this, so I'm fairly sure that what they are telling you is correct. Reason being that if any complaint was referred to the Ombudsman they would be required to produce evidence that they do not insure landlords, in the form of underwriting manuals etc which were in force at the time you took the policy out.[/QUOTE]

    Now see the bold bit, that's useful information.

    How do you know it?
    • raskazz
    • By raskazz 22nd Nov 09, 8:54 PM
    • 2,832 Posts
    • 1,284 Thanks
    raskazz

    Now see the bold bit, that's useful information.

    How do you know it?
    Originally posted by PollyLL
    See this:

    http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/46/46_non_disclosure_insurance.htm

    Particularly the last paragraph:

    "Where there has been inadvertent non-disclosure or misrepresentation, we expect insurers to rewrite the insurance. This should be done on the terms they would originally have offered if they had been aware of all the information. In some cases this may result in a proportionate payment; in others it may result in no payment at all. This is because the inadvertently-withheld information would, if disclosed, have led to the firm declining the application altogether."
  • PollyLL
    Again, totally irrelevant. It doesn't matter how Churchill, Direct Line, Aviva or anyone else rate the occupation of 'landlord'. All that matters is how Highway rate 'landlord'. Different companies will aim for different profiles, have different appetites for risk and have differing experiences particular occupations.
    Originally posted by raskazz
    Again, useful info which I will use in my telephone conversations with them tomorrow.

    There's also a Swinton brokerage office just up the rd from my place too.

    The fact is that I manage let properties for a living. It's immaterial whether I own them or not. Does it matter if really the lenders own them and I'm just the pig in the middle between the bank and the tenants.

    I do appreciate your opinion by the way, it's just very frustrating stuff and yes, in hindsight - landlord. But at the time it seemed neither here nor there and more important to put something that reflects the work that I actually do - managing property lettings.
  • PollyLL
    See this:

    http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/46/46_non_disclosure_insurance.htm

    Particularly the last paragraph:

    "Where there has been inadvertent non-disclosure or misrepresentation, we expect insurers to rewrite the insurance. This should be done on the terms they would originally have offered if they had been aware of all the information. In some cases this may result in a proportionate payment; in others it may result in no payment at all. This is because the inadvertently-withheld information would, if disclosed, have led to the firm declining the application altogether."
    Originally posted by raskazz
    If that's the case, I can live without the £850. But to be labelled as fraudulent would be shocking.

    Is anyone else able to see if their insurance prices have jumped, is it the market or is it me?

    I literally had a quote from earlier in the week, £212 from Swinton, now (landlord or property lettings manager) £448. The cheapest thing on the new quote list is £280 where before there were lots close to £200.
  • PollyLL
    See this:

    http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/46/46_non_disclosure_insurance.htm

    Particularly the last paragraph:

    "Where there has been inadvertent non-disclosure or misrepresentation, we expect insurers to rewrite the insurance. This should be done on the terms they would originally have offered if they had been aware of all the information. In some cases this may result in a proportionate payment; in others it may result in no payment at all. This is because the inadvertently-withheld information would, if disclosed, have led to the firm declining the application altogether."
    Originally posted by raskazz

    That's a good link thanks.

    From the link:

    An insurance contract is a ‘contract of utmost good faith’, which means that all parties to the contract are under a strict duty to deal fully and frankly with each other. Customers must disclose all facts that are ‘material’ (or relevant) to the risk for which they are seeking cover.
    A ‘material’ fact is one which would influence an underwriter when they were deciding whether to accept the risk, and the terms and conditions that should apply. If a customer fails to disclose (or misrepresents) a material fact and this induces the insurer to accept the proposed risk, the legal remedy is to ‘avoid’ the policy. This means the insurer is entitled to treat the policy as though it never existed. Unless fraud is involved, the insurer will normally return the premium and will not pay out on any claim made under the policy.
    ========================

    So I'll have to find out whether I'm getting a full refund to know whether they actually would take the ridiculous position that its fraud.
    • raskazz
    • By raskazz 22nd Nov 09, 9:05 PM
    • 2,832 Posts
    • 1,284 Thanks
    raskazz
    It's immaterial whether I own them or not. Does it matter if really the lenders own them and I'm just the pig in the middle between the bank and the tenants.
    Originally posted by PollyLL
    It is material to Highway. It makes you a landlord.
    • raskazz
    • By raskazz 22nd Nov 09, 9:08 PM
    • 2,832 Posts
    • 1,284 Thanks
    raskazz
    That's a good link thanks.

    From the link:

    An insurance contract is a ‘contract of utmost good faith’, which means that all parties to the contract are under a strict duty to deal fully and frankly with each other. Customers must disclose all facts that are ‘material’ (or relevant) to the risk for which they are seeking cover.
    A ‘material’ fact is one which would influence an underwriter when they were deciding whether to accept the risk, and the terms and conditions that should apply. If a customer fails to disclose (or misrepresents) a material fact and this induces the insurer to accept the proposed risk, the legal remedy is to ‘avoid’ the policy. This means the insurer is entitled to treat the policy as though it never existed. Unless fraud is involved, the insurer will normally return the premium and will not pay out on any claim made under the policy.
    ========================

    So I'll have to find out whether I'm getting a full refund to know whether they actually would take the ridiculous position that its fraud.
    Originally posted by PollyLL
    In the letter they say that they are making the policy void from inception and do not mention fraud, so you should expect a full refund of the premium which you paid. They may not process the refund until you have returned the certificate of insurance to them.
    • dacouch
    • By dacouch 22nd Nov 09, 9:14 PM
    • 20,264 Posts
    • 12,510 Thanks
    dacouch
    Highway will almost certainly refund the premium, this is because they have declared that the contract is null and void so therefore did not exist. This is why they refund the premium.

    One thing to bear in mind is that having a policy cancelled / voided generally makes it very difficult to obtain any other type of Insurance including home insurance. You will find that Insurers specifically ask a question about it and will certainly require you to advise them of it before or at renewal time.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

940Posts Today

6,827Users online

Martin's Twitter