We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
The Forum is currently experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
91 Days to State "NO MOT, NO PAYOUT"
junkimunki
Posts: 23 Forumite
:mad:
Hi to everyone Newbie ere
I have been reading your forum with the greatest of interest, and was hoping that there is someone on here who can advise me as to what I should do next.
I Have a Son who is 28yrs old in October, he purchased a "Subaru Imprezza" in March 2006, at the time he was only 24yrs old and his Insurance Company at the time N.U. stated that they did not insure under 25's on the vehicle he had bought .
They did however as a gesture of goodwill insure him on the Subaru for the last couple of months left to run on his insurance.
I put a search in on the net to get a quote for fully comp insurance for my son on the scooby.
I came across a broker "Express Insurance" who found me a quote with a Company called "Zenith" , his policy began in May 2006,and he has stayed with them every year since, the only difference is that the broker he first used , has been replaced with another broker called "Motor Direct".
Since the change of brokers he has been plagued with a vast amount of admin mistakes that were being made by these brokers, he did have quite a lot of modifications done on the car for which I have positive proof of informing the previous brokers.
However the present brokers state that they were never informed of these from the previous brokers.
In April 2009 the renewal quote despite admin mistakes by the bucket load, was taken and Fully comp insurance continued with "Zenith" at this time my son should have had 4yrs NCB.
He has always paid for his insurance by way of a hefty deposit to the broker and then monthly pmts by DD taken from his bank,
this method was still being used for the policy he renewed for 2009/2010.
However on Friday 12th Feb 2010, on his return from work he had an accident whereby his car could not be driven, so was brought bac to his home address by way of a low loader provided by his insurance/broker/company.
There were no other cars involved in the accident it was simply a case of human error by himself.
He had notified broker/company of the accident Re: low loader called out.
However on checking the documents for his car he noticed that the MOT had expired on Dec 21st, this was a complete oversight as downloaded information will be able to prove, he immediately told the broker of the expired MOT, and was told that it would not matter but could result in a slightly lower payout if the car was classed as a write off.
TO cut a long story short; vehicle was left for at least 2weeks before it was collected and taken to a "Secure salvage unit" awaiting an assessors report.
He received letter asking for required documentation for vehicle, and upon telephoning broker because of lack of communication from themselves and the company re vehicle and accident, was told by the broker that he had not informed them of any modifications upon the vehicle.
I have the proof needed for this, but when my son explained that I did have proof of informing previous broker was told that the previous broker had not passed that info over to them, onus being on both brokers, my son sent a letter stating what he had confirmed to them.
No Communication from broker/ company meant my son or his girlfriend as then was constantly having to phone for information and progress of his claim, having informed the broker of the expired MOT during the first phone call he was constantly told not to worry and that the company would still pay out but would be a lesser amount.
He was offered an amount of £1500 at one point,as his car had been assessed as a category C write off, he wasn't happy at this figure cos of the amount that had been spent on the car Re: modifications but state they were not informed of this despite my proof of informing them.
In the end because of his lack of transport and it causing him problems getting to and from work he decided to accept the amount offered, he rang the broker and confirmed that he would accept the offer made to him, after another fortnight with no communicaqtion from either broker or company.
Once again he contacted them and upon the mention of no contact was told that there was nothing in the contract to say that they were forced to make courtesy calls to customers[ bombastic b*****ds]spring to mind at this, he was assured that he would receive the cheque before the end of that week.
However he then received a letter dated 14th May 2010 from "Zenith"/ GHL insurance Services, within this letter it stated that enquiries were now complete and as a result they regret to advise him that they WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DEAL WITH HIS CLAIM,under the terms of his policy.
It states under "General Conditions" that his car must be covered by a valid MOT if one is needed and in the absence of this all cover under sections 1&2 [accidental damage and fire and theft] is excluded.
As your MOT expired on 21/12/2010, you are in breach of youyr policy conditions and we will not provide cover.
I appreciate that you will be dissappointed by my decision , but hope that understand the reasons for this.
claims operations Team leader.
This letter meant that the insurance company had taken a total of 95 days [arrival of letter] to inform my son that,
"NO MOT NO PAYOUT" had been enforced by them.
The MOT had only expired by 53 days, according to the letter all cover ceased the day after the MOT expired which meant that "Zenith" had ceased all services as of 22nd December 2009, but still continued to take DEC,JAN,FEB,MAR,+APRIL'S premium from his bank account this meant that they had taken 5 months payments and not provided any services at all for the monies taken[ THEFT AND EXTORTION] spring to mind here.
No further correspondence was received from Zenith until a letter daed 26th May 2010 arrived which stated that enclosed were the documents that had been duly sent to them and they also stated that they were currently making arrangements with the salvage company for the return of his vehicle.
If no contact had been made within the next few days then my son should contact them himself regarding a return date for his car.
It also stated that the vehicle remained a cat C total loss and must be repaired accordingly before being allowed back on the road.
It meant that the car had been in the salvage yard a total of 98 days [date on letter] and had not been returned as yet.
The vehicle was returned to my son a few days after the letter arrived, as it was not driveable my son told the driver of low loader to off load his car at the bottom of the street on council hardstanding, it had been in the salvage yard above 100 days.
However a few days after he was notified that a note had been affixed to the screen of the car which stated that if the car was not removed then the council would have it towed away and apply costs to himself.
He and his father went down to the car that night and after pulling the wing away from the wheel agreed that the car should now be able to be driven the short distance to the house.
Upon trying to start the car my son said something was not right and after lifting the bonnet found that the Dump Valve had been taken [£295} which meant that the car would have difficulty running without it after more checking it was found that most of the bolts on the SS exhaust had been either loosened or removed and after cleaning noticed a crack in the passenger side of the windscreen.
Telephoned the Insurance company the next day regarding the above and stated that they had claimed his vehicle had gone to a secure salvage yard to await an assessors report , but obviously it was not that secure, he was told that he himself should take this up with the salvage company, but they would look into it.
This now meant that added to the fact my son had paid a full years premium to Zenith for no services from them for the last 5 months of his policy, he now had to find £295 for a new dump valve , the cost of a replacement screen , and monies to make the car roadworthy.
I did write a letter of complaint to Zenith/GHL, stating that the brokers were informed of the expired MOT within the very 1st phone call made to them,this however was not passed to Zenith / GHL and has been confirmed by Motor Direct themselves.
I received a reply from Zenith / GHL dated 2nd June 2010, the letter starts out : Further to my previous letter dated 30th June [ another admin error]think the letter should be dated 2nd July 2010, the policy No: quoted on all documents is not the policy No: on my sons documentation, they apologise for the excessive length of time it has taken to repudiate the claim on the grounds of an expired MOT.
Stated that because of the modifications that they were not informed of [already proven that brokers were informed of the modifications , this can clearly be seen in the hefty rise of his renewal] they had to wait to hear from the policy operations dept who then gave the go ahead for the claim to proceed, but would only pay out for a basic Subaru [Crafty , conniving b******s]minus the excess which would have amounted to an amount of
£1500.
We then requested the relevant documents, whereby we discovered that the vehicle did not have a valid MOT, we also requested an explanation as to why the car had not got a valid MOT
and instead of giving us a written explanation you wrote that you had informed the brokers of this at the onset, we contacted the brokers who did confirm this, but forgot to mention it to us.
Therefore the reason we have not been able to deal with your claim is that you were in breach of the conditions of your policy, and as for the query over the return of your premiums after cancellation of cover this will have to be taken up with the brokers.
I however refer you once again back to your policy conditions whereby it states if you cancel [my son did not cancel they cancelled] your policy after more than 8 months there is no refund on premiums and I attach the relevant page .
Moving on to the condition of the vehicle upon return to you,Zenith are unable to take any responsibility for the condition of the vehicle on the basis that the vehicle would have been disposed of had you complied with the policy conditions allowing ourselves to settle your claim, however I do appreciate your concerns over this and state that whilst it was with our agents then it should not have been tampered with in any way.
I suggest the best course of action for you would be to contact them yourselves and I will give you their head offices No:
Whilst I do appreciate your comments regarding the FSA and their information about MOT'S it is specifically written into our policy as a condition that your vehicle must have a vaklid MOT if require by LAW and as such your failure to adhere to this condition is a breach of our policy conditions and as such does not bare any relevance to the strict interpretation of what an MOT is.
Finally given the initial policy operations enquiry over modifications I do not see that Zenith delayed your claim in any way. We only communicate as and when there is a development or something is neede to progress your claim and as such I do feel the level of communication to have been satisfactory,.
I trust this clarifies our position and once again apologise for the repudiation of your claim.
After receiving the above letter from Zenith , i decided to do look further into where GHL came from and found the following information : from the FSA register " Zenith Insurance Management LTD" RH16 1DB [previous/ trading as names ] Zenith. No Longer Authorised, effective from 07/09/2005, but have paperwork documents inclusive of these details were being used 2006/2007, and a document accompanying a letter on 30th June 2010 is strictly headed "Zenith Insurance Management Ltd" complaints procedure.
Firms Name "Zenith Insurance Management UK" RH16 1LR = GHL Insurance Services UK Limited, "Zenith Insurance Management UK Limited", "Zenith Services UK Ltd" [previous/trading as names]
Authorised . Zenith Insurance plc =Zenith Insurance plc [previous / trading as names] EEA Authorised .
Can anyone explain what the above means as I understand it to mean, Zenith Insurance Management Ltd RH16 1DB should not be trading or using documentation with this information, please enlighten me.
I do hope there is someone out there that can explain and tell me what my next step ought to be, as I feel that after being insured fully comp since 2006 with the same company and after downloading the history from MOT site database which proves that it was an oversight along with all his receipts and verification of informing brokers RE: mods feel that my son has been clearly robbed of his pride and joy and also the monies to replace it much appreciated and thanx
junkimunki
:(
We have since been told that we have to take up the missing parts and damge to the car with the salvage company ourselves as the Insurance company do not want anything to do with it.
Hi to everyone Newbie ere
I have been reading your forum with the greatest of interest, and was hoping that there is someone on here who can advise me as to what I should do next.
I Have a Son who is 28yrs old in October, he purchased a "Subaru Imprezza" in March 2006, at the time he was only 24yrs old and his Insurance Company at the time N.U. stated that they did not insure under 25's on the vehicle he had bought .
They did however as a gesture of goodwill insure him on the Subaru for the last couple of months left to run on his insurance.
I put a search in on the net to get a quote for fully comp insurance for my son on the scooby.
I came across a broker "Express Insurance" who found me a quote with a Company called "Zenith" , his policy began in May 2006,and he has stayed with them every year since, the only difference is that the broker he first used , has been replaced with another broker called "Motor Direct".
Since the change of brokers he has been plagued with a vast amount of admin mistakes that were being made by these brokers, he did have quite a lot of modifications done on the car for which I have positive proof of informing the previous brokers.
However the present brokers state that they were never informed of these from the previous brokers.
In April 2009 the renewal quote despite admin mistakes by the bucket load, was taken and Fully comp insurance continued with "Zenith" at this time my son should have had 4yrs NCB.
He has always paid for his insurance by way of a hefty deposit to the broker and then monthly pmts by DD taken from his bank,
this method was still being used for the policy he renewed for 2009/2010.
However on Friday 12th Feb 2010, on his return from work he had an accident whereby his car could not be driven, so was brought bac to his home address by way of a low loader provided by his insurance/broker/company.
There were no other cars involved in the accident it was simply a case of human error by himself.
He had notified broker/company of the accident Re: low loader called out.
However on checking the documents for his car he noticed that the MOT had expired on Dec 21st, this was a complete oversight as downloaded information will be able to prove, he immediately told the broker of the expired MOT, and was told that it would not matter but could result in a slightly lower payout if the car was classed as a write off.
TO cut a long story short; vehicle was left for at least 2weeks before it was collected and taken to a "Secure salvage unit" awaiting an assessors report.
He received letter asking for required documentation for vehicle, and upon telephoning broker because of lack of communication from themselves and the company re vehicle and accident, was told by the broker that he had not informed them of any modifications upon the vehicle.
I have the proof needed for this, but when my son explained that I did have proof of informing previous broker was told that the previous broker had not passed that info over to them, onus being on both brokers, my son sent a letter stating what he had confirmed to them.
No Communication from broker/ company meant my son or his girlfriend as then was constantly having to phone for information and progress of his claim, having informed the broker of the expired MOT during the first phone call he was constantly told not to worry and that the company would still pay out but would be a lesser amount.
He was offered an amount of £1500 at one point,as his car had been assessed as a category C write off, he wasn't happy at this figure cos of the amount that had been spent on the car Re: modifications but state they were not informed of this despite my proof of informing them.
In the end because of his lack of transport and it causing him problems getting to and from work he decided to accept the amount offered, he rang the broker and confirmed that he would accept the offer made to him, after another fortnight with no communicaqtion from either broker or company.
Once again he contacted them and upon the mention of no contact was told that there was nothing in the contract to say that they were forced to make courtesy calls to customers[ bombastic b*****ds]spring to mind at this, he was assured that he would receive the cheque before the end of that week.
However he then received a letter dated 14th May 2010 from "Zenith"/ GHL insurance Services, within this letter it stated that enquiries were now complete and as a result they regret to advise him that they WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DEAL WITH HIS CLAIM,under the terms of his policy.
It states under "General Conditions" that his car must be covered by a valid MOT if one is needed and in the absence of this all cover under sections 1&2 [accidental damage and fire and theft] is excluded.
As your MOT expired on 21/12/2010, you are in breach of youyr policy conditions and we will not provide cover.
I appreciate that you will be dissappointed by my decision , but hope that understand the reasons for this.
claims operations Team leader.
This letter meant that the insurance company had taken a total of 95 days [arrival of letter] to inform my son that,
"NO MOT NO PAYOUT" had been enforced by them.
The MOT had only expired by 53 days, according to the letter all cover ceased the day after the MOT expired which meant that "Zenith" had ceased all services as of 22nd December 2009, but still continued to take DEC,JAN,FEB,MAR,+APRIL'S premium from his bank account this meant that they had taken 5 months payments and not provided any services at all for the monies taken[ THEFT AND EXTORTION] spring to mind here.
No further correspondence was received from Zenith until a letter daed 26th May 2010 arrived which stated that enclosed were the documents that had been duly sent to them and they also stated that they were currently making arrangements with the salvage company for the return of his vehicle.
If no contact had been made within the next few days then my son should contact them himself regarding a return date for his car.
It also stated that the vehicle remained a cat C total loss and must be repaired accordingly before being allowed back on the road.
It meant that the car had been in the salvage yard a total of 98 days [date on letter] and had not been returned as yet.
The vehicle was returned to my son a few days after the letter arrived, as it was not driveable my son told the driver of low loader to off load his car at the bottom of the street on council hardstanding, it had been in the salvage yard above 100 days.
However a few days after he was notified that a note had been affixed to the screen of the car which stated that if the car was not removed then the council would have it towed away and apply costs to himself.
He and his father went down to the car that night and after pulling the wing away from the wheel agreed that the car should now be able to be driven the short distance to the house.
Upon trying to start the car my son said something was not right and after lifting the bonnet found that the Dump Valve had been taken [£295} which meant that the car would have difficulty running without it after more checking it was found that most of the bolts on the SS exhaust had been either loosened or removed and after cleaning noticed a crack in the passenger side of the windscreen.
Telephoned the Insurance company the next day regarding the above and stated that they had claimed his vehicle had gone to a secure salvage yard to await an assessors report , but obviously it was not that secure, he was told that he himself should take this up with the salvage company, but they would look into it.
This now meant that added to the fact my son had paid a full years premium to Zenith for no services from them for the last 5 months of his policy, he now had to find £295 for a new dump valve , the cost of a replacement screen , and monies to make the car roadworthy.
I did write a letter of complaint to Zenith/GHL, stating that the brokers were informed of the expired MOT within the very 1st phone call made to them,this however was not passed to Zenith / GHL and has been confirmed by Motor Direct themselves.
I received a reply from Zenith / GHL dated 2nd June 2010, the letter starts out : Further to my previous letter dated 30th June [ another admin error]think the letter should be dated 2nd July 2010, the policy No: quoted on all documents is not the policy No: on my sons documentation, they apologise for the excessive length of time it has taken to repudiate the claim on the grounds of an expired MOT.
Stated that because of the modifications that they were not informed of [already proven that brokers were informed of the modifications , this can clearly be seen in the hefty rise of his renewal] they had to wait to hear from the policy operations dept who then gave the go ahead for the claim to proceed, but would only pay out for a basic Subaru [Crafty , conniving b******s]minus the excess which would have amounted to an amount of
£1500.
We then requested the relevant documents, whereby we discovered that the vehicle did not have a valid MOT, we also requested an explanation as to why the car had not got a valid MOT
and instead of giving us a written explanation you wrote that you had informed the brokers of this at the onset, we contacted the brokers who did confirm this, but forgot to mention it to us.
Therefore the reason we have not been able to deal with your claim is that you were in breach of the conditions of your policy, and as for the query over the return of your premiums after cancellation of cover this will have to be taken up with the brokers.
I however refer you once again back to your policy conditions whereby it states if you cancel [my son did not cancel they cancelled] your policy after more than 8 months there is no refund on premiums and I attach the relevant page .
Moving on to the condition of the vehicle upon return to you,Zenith are unable to take any responsibility for the condition of the vehicle on the basis that the vehicle would have been disposed of had you complied with the policy conditions allowing ourselves to settle your claim, however I do appreciate your concerns over this and state that whilst it was with our agents then it should not have been tampered with in any way.
I suggest the best course of action for you would be to contact them yourselves and I will give you their head offices No:
Whilst I do appreciate your comments regarding the FSA and their information about MOT'S it is specifically written into our policy as a condition that your vehicle must have a vaklid MOT if require by LAW and as such your failure to adhere to this condition is a breach of our policy conditions and as such does not bare any relevance to the strict interpretation of what an MOT is.
Finally given the initial policy operations enquiry over modifications I do not see that Zenith delayed your claim in any way. We only communicate as and when there is a development or something is neede to progress your claim and as such I do feel the level of communication to have been satisfactory,.
I trust this clarifies our position and once again apologise for the repudiation of your claim.
After receiving the above letter from Zenith , i decided to do look further into where GHL came from and found the following information : from the FSA register " Zenith Insurance Management LTD" RH16 1DB [previous/ trading as names ] Zenith. No Longer Authorised, effective from 07/09/2005, but have paperwork documents inclusive of these details were being used 2006/2007, and a document accompanying a letter on 30th June 2010 is strictly headed "Zenith Insurance Management Ltd" complaints procedure.
Firms Name "Zenith Insurance Management UK" RH16 1LR = GHL Insurance Services UK Limited, "Zenith Insurance Management UK Limited", "Zenith Services UK Ltd" [previous/trading as names]
Authorised . Zenith Insurance plc =Zenith Insurance plc [previous / trading as names] EEA Authorised .
Can anyone explain what the above means as I understand it to mean, Zenith Insurance Management Ltd RH16 1DB should not be trading or using documentation with this information, please enlighten me.
I do hope there is someone out there that can explain and tell me what my next step ought to be, as I feel that after being insured fully comp since 2006 with the same company and after downloading the history from MOT site database which proves that it was an oversight along with all his receipts and verification of informing brokers RE: mods feel that my son has been clearly robbed of his pride and joy and also the monies to replace it much appreciated and thanx
junkimunki
:(We have since been told that we have to take up the missing parts and damge to the car with the salvage company ourselves as the Insurance company do not want anything to do with it.
0
Comments
-
your son , was driving his car with no mot and no insurance
there was no theft or extortion by the insurance company they had reason to believe you had a valid mot certificate , you informed them you hadn't they won't pay out .
you have terms and condiditons for a reason - NO MOT No insurance No payout simples .
Slimming world start 28/01/2012 starting weight 21st 2.5lb current weight 17st 9-total loss 3st 7.5lb
Slimmer of the month February , March ,April
0 -
your son , was driving his car with no mot and no insurance
there was no theft or extortion by the insurance company they had reason to believe you had a valid mot certificate , you informed them you hadn't they won't pay out .
you have terms and condiditons for a reason - NO MOT No insurance No payout simples .
The above is wrong0 -
Zenith are an awful Insurer.
They cannot refuse to pay a claim simply because a car does not have an MOT, the Ombudsman is very clear on this matter. If the accident was caused or substantially caused by the car being "unroadworthy" then then they can refuse your own damage claim providing they can cause it was unroadworthy and the damage was caused or substantially caused by it being unroadworthy.
See section 13 of this link for evidence of this http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/motor-valuation.html#13
Also see 15, 16 and 19 which you will find helpful.
Modifications to a vehicle will often not increase the value of a vehicle so please bear this in mind when they value a car.
Have a read of the whole link which you will also find helpful.
You need to send Zenith a letter by recorded delivery with the heading "Official Complaint" (The address to send it to is in your policy). Refer them to the links I have given re them only being able to deny a claim if the car was unroadworthy AND that the unroadworthyness caused or substantially caused the damage. Also refer them to section 15 and advise them that if you do not receive satisfaction within the period they are allowed to handle the official complaint you will then refer the matter onto the Ombudsman.0 -
Dacouch is 100% correct on this. Please please please can we stop these awful pub lore posts by people who think that No MOT = No Insurance. Wrong wrong wrong.The man without a signature.0
-
there is a few threads on here which after advice from dacouch and others got the OP of the the threads payouts even with no MOT..
ill find some links..Sealed pot challenger # 10
1v100 £15/3000 -
Your son is very silly for not checking the state of play with insurance before buying a Subaru Impreza.
Sorry u feel like this but he has had the car since March 2006, paid in full by himself, has insured it fully comprehensive from day one despite the hefty premium charged by the insurance company, has paid it all himself, by working hard since he left school, he has had no other accidents since passing his test, admitted the accident was purely a case of human error, and admitted to the broker straight away that his MOT had expired.
I downloaded his MOT history Data from the website which clearly proves that the expired MOT was an oversight, and that since he purchased the car with the exception of its 1st MOT 08/09/2006 which was retested on 11/09/2006 and a pass certificate issued, has kept it in A1 condition with it passing every MOT, and only 1 advisory noted.
Having checked his odometer reading on return of his vehicle and with that stated on his download history, from 08/09/2006 up to date the car has only done 14,596 miles even though for the last year he had been using it for work EG: commuting and had not had any fines or convictions whilst owning the Scooby.:T:T0 -
junkimunki wrote: »
Sorry u feel like this but he has had the car since March 2006, paid in full by himself, has insured it fully comprehensive from day one despite the hefty premium charged by the insurance company, has paid it all himself, by working hard since he left school, he has had no other accidents since passing his test, admitted the accident was purely a case of human error, and admitted to the broker straight away that his MOT had expired.
I downloaded his MOT history Data from the website which clearly proves that the expired MOT was an oversight, and that since he purchased the car with the exception of its 1st MOT 08/09/2006 which was retested on 11/09/2006 and a pass certificate issued, has kept it in A1 condition with it passing every MOT, and only 1 advisory noted.
Having checked his odometer reading on return of his vehicle and with that stated on his download history, from 08/09/2006 up to date the car has only done 14,596 miles even though for the last year he had been using it for work EG: commuting and had not had any fines or convictions whilst owning the Scooby.:T:T
how exactly does that prove anything?
whether her didnt bother or it was an oversight
its past MOT history proves neither
running a car within the law isnt a gold medal worthy achievement0 -
Sealed pot challenger # 10
1v100 £15/3000 -
how exactly does that prove anything?
whether her didnt bother or it was an oversight
its past MOT history proves neither
running a car within the law isnt a gold medal worthy achievement
No mot as other threads have proven mean nothing.. insurers have been forced to pay out, if unroadworthlyness (is that a word lol) caused the accident then yeah they wont pay out.
As the link to the thread in my previous comment shows he was paid out even with no MOT after a small battle with the insurer..
NO MOT DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE INSURANCESealed pot challenger # 10
1v100 £15/3000 -
It sounds to me like it is the broker who has been particularly incompetent.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 350.5K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.3K Spending & Discounts
- 243.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.7K Life & Family
- 256.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards