Forgot to renew insurance - where do I stand?

Quentin

More scaremongering along your original "at worst this may mean your financial ruin" thrust!

Your scenario is as likely as an insurer getting out of paying a claim on the grounds that I have exceeded the speed limit every day but not disclosed it!

Quentin

He has not been caught. There is no evidence. End of!

darich

Selden wrote: »

And there is obviously evidence, though its availability and reliability may decline with time.

If the OP never admits it, what evidence is there?

Not being awkward, but curious to know what hard evidence an insurance company could use in a court to sue if necessary.

vaio

Selden wrote: »

I hope this doesn't happen, but let's say that the OP takes out a policy without disclosing that he has been driving for six months without insurance. Shortly afterwards he has an accident for which he is to blame. His insurer becomes aware of the gap in cover, and avoids his policy for non-disclosure. It nevertheless has to pay a TP claim of, say, £350,000. So it then sues the OP to recover its outlay. Sues - in a court, where the law applies and the FOS guidance is irrelevant.

Selden wrote: »

The FOS does not make law. It is not even a regulator. Best practice is to follow the guidance it issues, but there is no obligation on insurers to do so. This is why reform is needed - to bring the law into line with best practice.

I thought compliance with the FOS rulings was compulsory as far as businesses were concerned, consumers still have the opportunity to reject the FOS findings and go to court but if the consumer accepts the ruling then the company have to comply.

If the company doesn’t pay then the award is recoverable through the courts as a debt, so the court will not re-visit the facts of the case, it’s just about enforcement.

See http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000008_en_19#pt16 & http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060014_en_6#pb12-l1g59 which lays out the statutory basis and powers of the FOS.

As you say they don’t make law but they were set up by the people who do make the law under the legislation above.

I’d be very surprised if a court overturned a FOS ruling. Courts are generally reluctant to interfere with voluntary arbitration and would be even more reluctant to interfere with the proper decisions of a statutory body like the FOS. I suppose they could examine whether the FOS had somehow exceeded its powers or scope.

Reading a bit more I’m actually impressed at the powers parliament has given the FOS, they are really very wide ranging and powerful.

On the determination side s228(2) says “A complaint is to be determined by reference to what is, in the opinion of the ombudsman, fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.”....... Which allows then to move outside the strict letter of the law “to fair and reasonable in all the circumstances”

On the awards side s229(2)b says “a direction that the respondent take such steps in relation to the complainant as the ombudsman considers just and appropriate (whether or not a court could order those steps to be taken).”...... Which actually gives them more power than a court has and, once an award has been made, it is directly enforceable by injunction.

vaio

Selden wrote: »

......Well in Roselodge v. Castle [1966] 2 Lloyd's Rep 112 underwriters gave evidence that if a man scrumped apples at the age of 17 and then lived a saintly existence for the next 50 years, the scrumping would still be disclosable and would render him uninsurable for a policy against theft!

Yep, but since that 1966 case (and the 1928 case quoted earlier) the law has progressed and the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and the setting up of the FOS means that neither of those decisions would be repeated today

LittleMissAspie

How much is the NCD actually worth? Could you say you have no NCD? It would be partially, if not totally, offset by the fact you haven't paid anything for 6 months. But if you already have the policy maybe it is too late.

lisyloo

Not being awkward, but curious to know what hard evidence an insurance company could use in a court to sue if necessary.

Business expense claims.
MOTs or services done at a garage.
A bump that was not previously reported (they have 6 years).
CCTV cameras

I don't think these are likely but if there was a big claim and resources were available then I don't think it would be rocket science for private investigators.
or have I been watching too much TV?