car insurance claim

dacouch

The saliant point in your quote is "Unless the Insurer can provide sufficient evidence to the contrary"

Oscar_The_Grouch

I think dacouch is right here; the cover is for market value and the insurers should provide the funds required to replace the car.

Point 9 is the FOS saying that if you buy a car for £10,000 and write it off in a week, you should reasonably expect £10,000 back. If you paid £10,000 for a £20,000 car because you found someone desperate to sell and write it off a week later, you should expect £20,000; you can show that the market value is much greater than the price you actually paid and the same is true for a car bought at auction.

The whole point is to make it fair on the consumer.

FlameCloud

I would be exceptionally careful about pushing the matter further. Yes, technically you maybe entitled to more if the insurer insists on the receipt then they will know you have been lieing, which will equal no payment at all.

raskazz

FlameCloud wrote: »

I would be exceptionally careful about pushing the matter further. Yes, technically you maybe entitled to more if the insurer insists on the receipt then they will know you have been lieing, which will equal no payment at all.

I think this is probably the most salient point.

FlameCloud

raskazz wrote: »

I think this is probably the most salient point.

Indeed. The heartless !!!!!! in me thinks it would be highly amusing to see this happen.

rudekid48

FlameCloud wrote: »

Indeed. The heartless !!!!!! in me thinks it would be highly amusing to see this happen.

Why?

dacouch

I think they will still pay out and probably a high amount as although he has lied the Ombudsman will see it that by lying he has or will not received more than if he had not lied. The ombudsman has case histories on this type of thing. He tends to side with the Insurers if by lying they would have received more than they were entitled to

FlameCloud

The FOS will only take that approach if quantum isnt tainted by the fraud of the policy holder. I.e. they will tend to let policy holders get away with submitting bent quotes(and the insurers catching the fraud at this level) as opposed to the policy holder lieing, and then saying nothing when he recieves the payment.(and even then they are wrong on a legal basis). Once quantum is assessed using the fraudulent statement of a policy holder, and payment is made on that basis, the FOS should side with the insurers.

rudekid48

FlameCloud wrote: »

The FOS will only take that approach if quantum isnt tainted

I had an aftershave called Quantum once - that was pretty tainted.

dacouch

FlameCloud wrote: »

The FOS will only take that approach if quantum isnt tainted by the fraud of the policy holder. I.e. they will tend to let policy holders get away with submitting bent quotes(and the insurers catching the fraud at this level) as opposed to the policy holder lieing, and then saying nothing when he recieves the payment.(and even then they are wrong on a legal basis). Once quantum is assessed using the fraudulent statement of a policy holder, and payment is made on that basis, the FOS should side with the insurers.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/41/41_aspects_ins.htm
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/21/insurance-fraud.htm
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/42/42_ins_fraud.htm