Do you HAVE to cancel car insurance

DCFC79

If you dont cancel and you want to end it after 1 year then remember to cancel it accordingly

pastra

raskazz wrote: »

Personal lines? Does that include motor or is that simply a slippery way of saying 'household' but implying that you also deal with motor? Any CII qualifications, specifically including Motor Insurance units?
.

It includes motor, I have all relevant qualifications to do my job and don't feel the need to state i hold some CII qualifiactions. I am guessing you have the "certificate in insurance" :rotfl:

raskazz

pastra wrote: »

It includes motor

In that case I am shocked that an insurer has employed someone in a technical role who possesses so little technical knowledge.

pastra wrote: »

I have all relevant qualifications to do my job and don't feel the need to state i hold some CII qualifiactions. I am guessing you have the "certificate in insurance" :rotfl:

So that's a 'no' then. I did start off with the Certificate as it happens (with an average of 93%, including 100% in one of them), although I subsequently passed the Diploma (including unit 765 which incidentally is an Advanced Diploma unit in Motor Insurance) and am progressing through ACII.

I don't know why you are apparently treating the Certificate with such derision - it clearly contains material which has thus far eluded yourself. In fact I would recommend that you take some CII courses. Then you actually might know what you're talking about.

axomoxia

BeenieCat wrote: »

I was under the impression that if you drive another car on your policy, that car still has to be insured by someone else anyway. So it's kind of irrelevant if the subject car exists or not as it wouldn't be valid anyway for that reason.

Not according to mine (More Than). It states my driving other cars dosn't apply if I am securing the release of a vehicle siezed by government or public authority that does not have an existing policy. Other than that here is no requirement that the vehicle is insured under another policy, only that it is not owned by me or my partner, and I have permission from the owner to do so.

To return to the original question, there is nothing specific stating that I must actually own the car - there is a requirement to maintain it, does that count?

Andy

raskazz

axomoxia wrote: »

Not according to mine (More Than). It states my driving other cars dosn't apply if I am securing the release of a vehicle siezed by government or public authority that does not have an existing policy. Other than that here is no requirement that the vehicle is insured under another policy, only that it is not owned by me or my partner, and I have permission from the owner to do so.

To return to the original question, there is nothing specific stating that I must actually own the car - there is a requirement to maintain it, does that count?

Andy

You're right, the More Than policy wording is one of the few which does not specify this. Obviously one would also have to check the wording on the certificate also.

If the More Than policy does not stipulate on the certificate that driving other cars is contingent upon you being in possession of the specified vehicle then you are covered to drive other cars as long as the other conditions are met. They may try to reject any claim on the basis that the policy no longer has any subject matter but they would not be able to do so - there is a case called Dodson v. Dodson Insurance Services which confirms this.

axomoxia

I've just done a quick check - both RAC and Quik-fit do not require there to be another insurance policy in force when using DOC cover. However you do need to own the car for the RAC to cover you. Although you could just leave it moldering on the drive if it expires.....

I didn't see anything to say "notify us if you dispose the vehicle". There is certainly a long list of things they insist you tell them about....

cjgoodsell

Ok... This has gone on for a while...

I have a question.... Why would anyone want to "insure" something that they no longer have?

To me makes perfect sense to cancel the policy... Would be ideal if the insurer would be able to suspend policies but not many people do that and insist (underwriters) on policy being cancelled!

Quentin

cjgoodsell wrote: »

I have a question.... Why would anyone want to "insure" something that they no longer have?

1) Depending on the admin/cancellation charges involved, and the length of time till renewal it is sometimes cheaper to let the policy continue than to cancel it.

2) If you keep the policy running, and haven't made any claims, then your NCD will get another year added if the policy is kept alive till expiry.

pastra

raskazz wrote: »

You're right, the More Than policy wording is one of the few which does not specify this. Obviously one would also have to check the wording on the certificate also.

If the More Than policy does not stipulate on the certificate that driving other cars is contingent upon you being in possession of the specified vehicle then you are covered to drive other cars as long as the other conditions are met. They may try to reject any claim on the basis that the policy no longer has any subject matter but they would not be able to do so - there is a case called Dodson v. Dodson Insurance Services which confirms this.

That is the point I have been trying to make

Quentin

pastra wrote: »

That is the point I have been trying to make

No, that is not the point you have been misinforming everyone about. This is what you actually posted that caused others to put you right:

pastra wrote:

You wont be able to write on a cert that you offer that cover and then make exclusions in the policy wording. If there are restrictions to the third party liability it must be on the cert of insurance.

You claim you are fully qualified to give us this advive.

Your reliance on your "qualifications" is flawed, and we should all remember when reading posts here the MSE warning on every page:

Anyone can post so always exercise caution when acting on info