Is this law, or are car insurers discriminating against me?

kittykitten

I'm hoping someone who knows about car insurance and the law surrounding it can help me on this one. My car insurer (and other car insurance companies) have well and truly baffled me on this with their strange attitude. Situation is as follows:

I own a 5 year old car, and insurance is in my name, with me as the main driver, my mam and dad both as named drivers. All well and good until 3 weeks ago. You see I have epilepsy, and I had a seizure 3 weeks ago, ling and short of it being I have had my licence withdrawn until I have been free of seizures again for a year (usualy DVLA procedure for those of us with epilepsy - I'm only ever issued a 3 year driving licence, and every time I have a seizure I lose my licence for at least a year).

So now I can't drive. But it'd still be really useful if my mam and dad could drive my car, not least because it would mean they could drive me places when needed. So I rang my insurers (elephant.co.uk) and spoke to a man who was really quite rude, who told me he absolutely had to cancel my policy right this minute, and couldn't insure my car with my mam or dad as the mian driver and the other as a named driver, because I own the car.

My mam then spoke to her insurer (AA) who also said they wouldn't add my car to her policy because I own the car.

I really can't get my head around why a car can't be insured for my mam and dad to drive, just because I own it. Essentially what was recommended by both insurers was that I sign my car over to my mam. So unless I do that, it means that through no fault of my own my car is now sitting on my driveway uninsured, so if it gets stolen tonight I'll get nothing back for it. To my mind what they're doing is discriminating against me, because essentially until I had a seizure there was no problem with my mam and dad being insured to drive my car, it's only because I can't be insured (due to nothing other than a medical condition) that I have this problem.

Can anyone tell me if this is something actually written into law? Or are the insurers just being awkward? And is there anything I can do about it?

raskazz

Relax, your car is still insured at this point in time. They can only cancel the policy by giving you notice in writing - usually seven days.

The insurer isn't discriminating against you, it merely has its own underwriting criteria which you unfortunately no longer fit. Many 'direct' insurers or 'direct style' intermediaries have inflexible criteria that only allows 'standard' type business - often this will mean that they will only cover a risk where the policyholder is the main user of the vehicle and is also the registered keeper and owner of the car (or their spouse is the registered keeper and owner).

What you should do is to accept the policy cancellation, as you should receive a pro-rata return of premum paid, and then speak to a broker who can sort you out a policy in your name which excludes you from driving.

mattymoo

Doesn't really help the OP though since he will lose additional NCD and will have premium charged at short rate terms to reflect early cancellation (iirc).

I think I would be tempted to push the DD Act angle on this. The op has fallen outside their acceptance criteria through no fault of his own, assuming that the epilepsy was originally declared.

If their only reason for cancelling is the loss of license / named drivers not being the vehicle owner then that would be discriminatory towards many disabled persons. Doesn't just have to be epilepsy either. If I broke my hip tomorrow and couldn't drive I would need someone else as the main driver.

OP - is there a forum similar to MSE for epilepsy sufferers? If so, have they come across the problem before and what was the outcome?

raskazz

I'm fairly sure the insurer won't apply short-term rates - indeed they cannot as they are enforcing cancellation of the policy. I'm also fairly sure that the Disability Discrimination Act angle won't work because the insurer will say that their criteria are uniform - i.e. they in all cases decline someone who is no longer the main user of the vehicle because they no longer hold a valid licence to drive - whether they are disabled/ill or not.

The broken hip analogy is not quite the same as in that instance you would still hold a valid licence and would not be prevented from driving by the DVLA - you would only be warned against driving for medical reasons.

mattymoo

Thx for clarifying Raskazz - I wasn't too sure about the short term rates issue.

The OP would presumably have to disclose this cancellation mid term. Would that not affect his insurance options in the future?

I can understand an insurer refusing to offer cover due to narrow acceptance criteria, and that the criteria would be legal if uniformly applied. However, in this case the issue has arisen mid-term. I am quite certain that the insurer could arrive at an equitable solution to the problem for the remainder of the policy, i.e. apply terms, continue the policy and then decline to offer renewal. This would allow the OP to build up another years NCD and wouldn't leave them stranded in the short term.

The insurer is not faced with any greater risk in the meantime, possibly even a reduced risk.

Just needs a little common sense from a technical underwriter within the company and not a call centre bod narrowly interpreting their criteria?

PS: We used to call these cases (and other out of the ordinary stuff) "Friday afternoon cases" - because they inevitably arose at 4pm on a Friday afternoon and a decision was needed by 5.

raskazz

I'm pretty sure that if the OP requested it the holding insurer would agree to cancel the policy by mutual consent with pro-rata terms, thus avoiding the issue of having insurance declined.

If cancellation was actually enforced then it might require a phone call to an insurer to explain the circumstances and obtain their agreement that they but I don't know of any competent insurer that would treat this kind of scenario in the same way as a cancellation due to fraud, non-discclosure, payment default etc - especially as the OP will have evidence from the DVLA as to the circumstances surrounding the loss of licence and could request confirmation from the current insurer in writing as to the reasons for cancellation.

Of course the solution you suggest is one that the more bespoke insurers could accommodate very easily (it's something I would do in probably less than a minute for one of my policyholders who found themselves in the same position, if the risk was appropriate to it and had been held with us for a reasonable amount of time) and even some of the more flexible direct style insurers. However, the 'one-size fits all', 'pile 'em high sell 'em cheap', insurers probably won't touch this kind of thing. Indeed many insurer's IT systems simply do not even provide the flexibilty to add endorsements which could cater for this kind of scenario.

Quote

WHEN THREADS GO BAD

raskazz wrote: »

Indeed many insurer's IT systems simply do not even provide the flexibilty to add endorsements which could cater for this kind of scenario.

How on earth do you know that?

I worked for a direct insurer for six and a half years and excluding the policyholder from driving was a piece of piss.

There's demonstration of some excellent knowledge by raskazz and mattymoo here, but it's largely one presumption after another. Cancellation charges? Short term rates?? Loss of NCD??? Even the gender of the OP!!!!1111

I hope the OP can separate the good "info" in this thread from the presumptive toss.

:j

raskazz

Quote wrote: »

WHEN THREADS GO BAD


How on earth do you know that?

I worked for a direct insurer for six and a half years and excluding the policyholder from driving was a piece of piss.

Er, because I used to work for an insurer whose IT system could not accommodate such a change and know of at least one other whose systems can't cope with it. I didn't say 'all', did I? I said 'many'. Are you engaging in, er, 'presumptive toss', perhaps?

Quote wrote: »

There's demonstration of some excellent knowledge by raskazz and mattymoo here, but it's largely one presumption after another.

Loss of NCD???

Mattymoo actually said 'loss of additional NCD' which is clearly correct - if the current policy is cancelled then the OP will not have earned any additional NCD for the time spent on cover since inception/the last renewal and will have to start earning an additional year afresh under a new policy. 'Presumptive toss' from yourself or a lack of reading comprehension skills?

Quote wrote: »

I hope the OP can separate the good "info" in this thread from the presumptive toss.

So do I after your last contribution.

pedro123456

I have to agree Quote, more to the point it is also concerning to me, he we have (presumably) a lady needing help and guidance.

Tweedle Dee and Tweedle dumb turn up and have a conversation between themselves making reference to :

“underwriting criteria which you unfortunately no longer fit”, “should receive a pro-rata return”,” short rate terms”, “disclose this cancellation mid term”.” narrow acceptance criteria,” sense from a technical underwriter”, “bespoke insurers could accommodate very easily”, “add endorsements which could cater for this kind of scenario”.

IMO they need to be taught the basic skills of communication.

To top it of - “OP - is there a forum similar to MSE for epilepsy sufferers?” , how disrespectful is that?

And of course there is a site for this lady’s condition.

http://www.epilepsysociety.org.uk/Homepage

And yes there is a forum she could maybe get direction from

http://www.epilepsysociety.org.uk/Forum/

So don’t just sit there keeping each other company help the lady, it aint rocket science.

The worlds gone mad.

Ps don’t copy/paste the above, he has me on ignore (thank goodness)

Theoretically it may manifest itself to induce Rasazz to a possibley “asphyxiate” on his “light early morning refreshment” somewhat prematurely.
This in turn may induce an emetic effect on himself and possibly rendering much needed nutritional sustenance to be devoid all over his Argos pine table. :rolleyes:

dacouch

Raskazz has a point, I have worked for a direct company before and they would not have been able to delete a policy holder so in any case where the policy holder could not drive they would simply not be able to offer cover so would ask for the policy to be cancelled. There are quite a few companies I have dealt with as a broker who would not be able to delete a policy holder so would also ask for the business to be cancelled / replaced with another Insurer.

The advice from Pedro to speak to the Epilipsy Society is a good idea as they will almost certainly have experience of their members having their licences restricted as its fairly common. There is a "Disability and Dosh" thread on MSE, it could be a good idea to post on there are there may be some MSE members that can help

pedro123456

I can only suggest what I know about dacouch, my overall point to these 2 is, “communicate effectively” at a level that’s both respectful and understandable by kittykitten, and or anyone else etc. I aint questioning their knowledge just their basic communication skills and apparent rudeness.