Car insurance and cat D

ellives

MSE forum at its best here - many thanks one and all.

Still not sure what I should do though?

Tell them if asked or tell them anyway?

vaio

Well, the regulator is clear, if they don’t ask you don’t need to tell them.

I’d throw all the details into the comparison sites (follow http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/insurance/compare-cheap-car-insurance) and see what happens

And then, just to be on the safe side and for a hassle free life, ring the cheapest couple and see what they say about CAT C/D cars

dacouch

Which is basically what I wrote, perhaps I should have made it clearer that it is subject to a clear question / statement being made by the Insurer regarding the information they are asking about.

With the case of the person of the written off car with Swift they would be entitled to avoid the policy as their website has a clear question / statement that you have to acknowledge that they do not accept written off vehicles. So assuming their website was the same when he took out cover they could have avoided the policy. This is irrespective of whether the non disclosure was unintentional.

The vast majority of Insurers have no problems with previously written off cars so don't ask about them so this is not an issue with them.

The rules are changing shortly which mean if it was unintentional and / or the question is not clear then the Insurer cannot avoid the policy irrespective of whether they would have accepted the risk had they known the correct information.

vaio

I’d say that the reason the FOS say a clear question must be asked and answered is just to stop insurers trying to avoid paying claims by relying on exclusions tucked away in the small print (or dusty corners of the web site.)

I’d argue a “statement” doesn’t do it, if it’s a material fact they need to ask a clear question, Swiftcover don’t which I suspect is why they backed down in the previous case as soon as they where threatened with the FOS.

dacouch

The Ombudsman is very good and is very customer focused, he does see things in a "Whats fair basis" so does tend to err on the customers side if there is any doubt.

Insurers are able to issue Statement of Facts which do not require a customers signature, these are perfectly acceptable to the FOS providing they are clear. The Swift policy uses one of these and it is pretty clear they do not accept.


Here is part of the statement you have to physically click to accept and proceed with the current Swift website.

What we can't cover
We do not insure certain types of vehicle
By accepting this insurance you confirm that none of the following applies to the vehicle you are insuring:
It has been previously written-off or scrapped (including where the vehicle log book identifies that the car has been previously damaged or repaired or an HPI database check identifies the vehicle as Category A, B, C or D write off).
The policyholder or their spouse, partner, parent or child is not registered keeper and legal owner.
It is worth more than £60,000 for new customers and more than £75,000 for renewing customers.
It is a caravan, commercial vehicle, motor home, motor bike, import, kit car, classic car, custom car, limousine or wedding car.
It is modified to improve performance or change handling.
It is left hand drive.
It is used for diplomatic, emergency services or military purposes.
It has a "Q" plate.
It is used to carry passengers for profit or used for trade, delivery, hire or as a pace car


The above would in my opinion be more than enough for Swift to avoid a non disclosed written off vehicle irrespective of whether it is unintentional or not (On the current rules)

vaio

Even if Swiftcover “statement” does meet the FSO “clear question” requirement then surely me unknowingly insuring a CAT D would fall under the FOS “innocent” misrepresentation category (claims have to be paid as normal) rather then the “inadvertent” (which might allow them to avoid)

“innocent
Customers act in good faith if their non-disclosure is made innocently. This may happen because the question is unclear or ambiguous, or because the relevant information is not something that they should reasonably know. In these cases, the insurer will not be able to ‘avoid’ the contract and (subject to the policy terms and conditions) should pay the claim in full……

inadvertent
A customer may also have acted in good faith if their non-disclosure is made inadvertently. These are the most difficult cases to determine and involve distinguishing between behaviour that is merely careless and that which amounts to recklessness. Both are forms of negligence.

Inadvertence occurs when the customer unintentionally misleads the insurer. This can occur just by failing to read and check the questions and answers thoroughly enough. When this happens there is no breach of the duty of utmost good faith…….

……Where there has been inadvertent non-disclosure or misrepresentation, we expect insurers to rewrite the insurance. This should be done on the terms they would originally have offered if they had been aware of all the information. In some cases this may result in a proportionate payment; in others it may result in no payment at all. This is because the inadvertently-withheld information would, if disclosed, have led to the firm declining the application altogether…….”

rossocorsa

how do swiftcover define a 'classic car' then? I thought that was pretty much undefinable