Barclays Missold Home Insurance

Chill

Hi!
I have a friend who has been sold home insurance by Barclays, but she doesn't actually own a house. She is renting, and didn't realise that it isn't her responsibility to insure the house. She has now asked Barclays to cancel it, and they are trying to charge her £26 cancellation fee. Should she have to pay this as they shouldn't have sold it to her in the first place? Anyone have any advice?
Much appreciated!

~Brock~

Is it buildings or contents insurance?

Catspajamas

This sounds strange as I'd guess if she was getting buildings insurance they would ask questions about cost and that sort of thing and quickly find out she was renting? If they have miss sold her buildings insurance I would definitely complain a lot!
However she does need to have contents insurance as the owner does not cover the tenants personal possessions, only the building. Check which one she has before cancelling!

Chill

She was under the impression it was buildings insurance, so I've asked her to check through the paperwork. Perhaps she is the one who is mistaken, as like you say, the application process should have brought to light the fact that she didn't own a house! I'll let you know what she comes back with.

Oscar_The_Grouch

This is an "insurable interest" issue. In basic terms, you should be the owner of (or person responsible for) the house before you can insure it. Your friend had no insurable interest.

What this means is that if there had been a claim, Barclays (well, Barclays are the broker, so the insurer) would have had no obligation to pay out - the contract would have been declared void as it would breach the various contractual and gambling laws of the UK.

I would be tempted to speak to Barclays and say that on the basis that your friend had no legal or contractual right to enter into the contract of insurance, Barclays should refund the full premium paid without any deduction. They will argue that the cancellation fee is in their "terms of business" sent when the policy was taken out, but you can argue that as there was no legal contract, their terms of business do not apply.

BenL

How did your friend buy the policy?

If she did it on the website it is classed as a "non advised" purchase and therefore cannot be mis-sold.

FlameCloud

If you renting you do have an insurable interest in the building because you would almost certainly be held responsible for accidental damage to it. This is what Barclays would probably try and claim.

Treacle1983

as an ex barclays insurance staff member, and having worked in insurance for 8 years.

I can safely say that as a renter of a property it will normally state on your tenancy agreement that you are liable for insuring the contents of the property and normally the carpets. The landlord by law has to have building insurance.

Whether it has been mis-sold or not is not really important as she can get the full amount back if it is for buildings cover. All she needs to do is inform them and send a copy of the tenancy agreement. She will then get a full refund.

If she still wants to persue the whole mis-sold thing: ALL CALLS ARE RECORDED. the date and time's will be easy to find on her record and calls are kept for 5 years. So a complaint can be raised and the matter looked into.

If she took out buildings and contents - then as the contents is/was needed the refund would be for the buildings only.

Chill

Thank you everyone so much for your help. It was very much appreciated!

Dangermac

[
The landlord by law has to have building insurance.



What law is that exactly?