Car Insurance Job Picker Discussion

raskazz wrote: »

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?

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.

PollyLL wrote: »

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.

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.

raskazz wrote: »

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.

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.

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 wrote: »

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."

Sorry I must be stupid. It doesn't say "we don't insure landlords" as you implied.