Car Insurance Job Picker Discussion

I lloked again at the go compare job selection fields. It says to pick an occupation that best reflects the work that you do. I did, managing property lettings.

Update. The insurer Highway, says they just don't insure landlords. The FSA Ombudsman however has guidance that says if a non-disclosure was an innocent mistake, that the insurer won't be able to avoid the policy. They're now taking it up as a complaint as there is no conceivable reason that I would know that Highway doesn't insure landlords, but does insure Property Managers in Property Lettings. Highway are also looking into it again based on that FSA guidance and the guy sounded hopeful and understanding of my position that I don't want a stupid thing like this to cost me bundles in future insurance costs because of a voided policy.

I went into Swintons local office earlier in the process, they were very surprised and wanted to do all they could, but came up against Highway telling them they just don't insure landlords. She did openly acknowledge that I may have to pay loaded premiums in the future unless I can get it resolved which is why I'm determined to.

I spoke to Churchills, my car insurer. They agreed it was ridiculous, didn't affect the premium they've already charged me and have put a note on my policy to show I've disclosed the voided policy. By sheer co-incidence I was also paying my house insurance policy for my let places today, told them during the CC payment process, also thought it was ridiculous and didn't even want to note it for the house insurance.

Warning to others: ignore the advice on this website to tweak your job title (not that I was following it anyway) as it could be much worse than my case.

No reply from Martin or anyone working for MSE by the way.

olly300 wrote: »

I think you should actually change your advice as I like a few other people who use these boards work in industries where job titles are not clearly defined. I've worked with many different titles and have done exactly the same job. So when people ask me what I do I tend to answer with more than one job title.

Your actually advice would be more correct to say that if you are going to choose a job title for insurance purposes make sure its one you do use when people ask you what you do.

Agree 100%.

I was looking at my old bike policy when going through the papers. I stated Property Developer on that one for many years. I've done 7 extensions and many renovations, so that title is equally relevant as is Property Manager and Landlord. There's no plaque on my door that states my occupation, my response to people depends what's occupying me the most lately and I tend to be embarrassed by the word 'landord' as it doesn't convey an image of an active person. Much prefer Property Investor which is a more common term used in Australia where I come from.

This is the text I'm banking on from the FSA Ombudsman link that you provided yesterday (thanks):

innocent
Customers act in good faith if their non-disclosure is made innocently. This may happen because the question is unclear or ambiguous, or because the relevant information is not something that they should reasonably know. In these cases, the insurer will not be able to ‘avoid’ the contract and (subject to the policy terms and conditions) should pay the claim in full.

---

As far as I'm concerned, there's no way I could know that the description I gave them of my occupation would be the difference between a valid policy and an invalid policy. I gave a description that I stand by and apart from the helpful arguments on this forum, no other person has looked me in the eye and said I should have strictly used Landlord.

I wonder how many landlords Highway have policy's for where they could claim they were invalid because people also have another occupation, that they use on their form. You could argue that they should have declared landlord (imagine they earned more money as a landlord than they did as a school teacher for example), all Highway has to have is a slip of the tongue and the person is left uninsured.

PollyLL wrote: »

This is the text I'm banking on from the FSA Ombudsman link that you provided yesterday (thanks):

innocent
Customers act in good faith if their non-disclosure is made innocently. This may happen because the question is unclear or ambiguous, or because the relevant information is not something that they should reasonably know. In these cases, the insurer will not be able to ‘avoid’ the contract and (subject to the policy terms and conditions) should pay the claim in full.

---

As far as I'm concerned, there's no way I could know that the description I gave them of my occupation would be the difference between a valid policy and an invalid policy. I gave a description that I stand by and apart from the helpful arguments on this forum, no other person has looked me in the eye and said I should have strictly used Landlord.

I wonder how many landlords Highway have policy's for where they could claim they were invalid because people also have another occupation, that they use on their form. You could argue that they should have declared landlord (imagine they earned more money as a landlord than they did as a school teacher for example), all Highway has to have is a slip of the tongue and the person is left uninsured.

Your ommiting this part from the section your quoting from

Taking account of the law and good industry practice, we approach non-disclosure/misrepresentation cases in three stages. We summarise these three stages below, before describing each one in a little more detail. When the customer sought insurance, did the insurer ask a clear question about the matter which is now under dispute? Did the answer to that clear question induce the insurer; that is, did it influence the insurer’s decision to enter into the contract at all, or to do so under terms and conditions that it otherwise would not have accepted? Only if the answers to both (1) and (2) are ‘yes’, do we go on to consider whether the customer’s misrepresentation was an honest mistake, a dishonest attempt to mislead or due to some degree of negligence.

This is basically saying if the Insurer would not have offered cover had they been given the correct information they can void the policy IRRESPECTIVE of whether it was innocent or intentional.

With regard to your point about having two occupations Insurers (Including Highway) ask if you have any part time or any other occupations