Directline !!!!!!?

JimmyTheWig

raskazz wrote: »

It might be stating the obvious, but if you don't know the answer to a question you shouldn't answer it - especially when warnings are given at the quotation and incpetion stage that inaccurate answers can potentially invalidate cover.

So when someone is asked if their car has been modified they shouldn't say 'no' unless they know it's the correct answer. If they are unsure they can check. Surely that's not too much to expect?

I agree to some extent. But I still have a problem with it.
You see I can't understand how _anyone_ when buying _any_ second hand car with, for example, alloy wheels and metallic paint would know if these were standard or not.
Admittedly I know very little about cars and so maybe I'm in the minority.

So thinking about it further, I guess my "anyone" in the sentance is slightly harsh. My father-in-law probably would, but he deals with different cars every day with his job as a mechanic. And, for example, an MR2 enthusiast might know the exact specification of each model and would know if theres was different. So probably best to replace my "anyone" with "the average man in the street".

I'm going to show my lack of knowledge and admit that I don't even know if our current car has alloy wheels, let alone whether they are standard or not! But in that I probably am in the minority.

Futhermore, to return to the OP's situation, the insurer is taking fair steps to resolve the issue - they are only asking for the right amount of premium to be paid, they are not rejecting the claim.

Yes, I wouldn't have a problem with them doing that to me. But it's been suggested in other comments on this thread that other insurance companies may have rejected the claim outright.

raskazz

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

Yes, I wouldn't have a problem with them doing that to me. But it's been suggested in other comments on this thread that other insurance companies may have rejected the claim outright.

Yes, that can be the case, however there are extensive FSA rules about claims handling and a lot of FOS guidance on how these issues should be handled. This is quite an interesting FOS article on the matter that I'd recommend:

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/27/27-ins-nondisclosure.htm

Despite the long-held view of insurers as miserly types who get kicks from rejecting claims, an outright repudiation for non-disclosure of modifications is actually rare and is usually only taken in cases where the insured has knowingly lied about the spec of the car or where the car is so heavily modified that the insurer would not have accepted the business at any price had it known about the modifications.

leehal

raskazz wrote: »

Doesn't seem steep to me. If you read the OP's post the policy was covering a relatively young driver (25) who has only held a full licence for 10 months. Often alloys can add up to add up to 10-15% loading to a premium.

Working on that assumption the insurance would be around £1900, what would be the point of paying more for fully comp insurance than the car was worth ?

raskazz

leehal wrote: »

Working on that assumption the insurance would be around £1900, what would be the point of paying more for insurance than the car was worth ?

Because you are not only insuring the car, you are insuring against liability to third-parties (which is, incidentally, by a large margin the main risk associated with inexperienced drviers). For example, if the driver maims a third party, leaving them in need of round-the-clock care for the rest of their life, you are looking at a claim settlement running into millions of pounds. IIRC Fortis had to pay out over £30 million for the Selby rail crash.

JimmyTheWig

raskazz wrote: »

Yes, that can be the case, however there are extensive FSA rules about claims handling and a lot of FOS guidance on how these issues should be handled. This is quite an interesting FOS article on the matter that I'd recommend:

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/27/27-ins-nondisclosure.htm

Despite the long-held view of insurers as miserly types who get kicks from rejecting claims, an outright repudiation for non-disclosure of modifications is actually rare and is usually only taken in cases where the insured has knowingly lied about the spec of the car or where the car is so heavily modified that the insurer would not have accepted the business at any price had it known about the modifications.

I feel much happier, now. The link is basically saying "common sense prevails".

I particularly liked the following sentances from the link...

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]We may consider whether the firm gave any warning about the consequences of giving false or incomplete information, and how clear such a warning was.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]We may also look at the degree to which the policyholder should have been aware of the information he or she was asked to provide

[/SIZE][/FONT]

Wig

Hintza wrote: »

OP was your daughter hit or did she hit someone? If the former why is it going through your insurance if she is not at fault?

Because that is the way comprehensive insurance works, you pay the extra for peace of mind that you only have to deal with your insurer & that your insurer will pay out irrespective of blame.

Wig

OP,
Probably too late now, but someone earlier on in the thread made a good point, the car with alloys is worth more than the book price, so the offer made should have increased accordingly.

Dan29

raskazz wrote: »

No, optional extras are still classed as modifications

Doesn't this make it impossible for owners of cars fitted with optional extras to use insurance price comparison sites and/or cashback sites when buying insurance?

raskazz

Dan29 wrote: »

Doesn't this make it impossible for owners of cars fitted with optional extras to use insurance price comparison sites and/or cashback sites when buying insurance?

No, it just means they have to answer the questions accurately and honestly.

Wig

raskazz wrote: »

No, it just means they have to answer the questions accurately and honestly.

Well they can theoretically "use" the websites, but they will not be able to take out online insurance, because most if not all insurers require you to phone up for a quote if you tick the box saying you have had modifications.