91 Days to State "NO MOT, NO PAYOUT"

sabretoothtigger

I havent read the whole thread but no mot is a big doozy and the insurance response is typical. Of course they dont want to pay you.

If you fight then maybe you can prove the worth of the claim, proof will help here. So paperwork on condition, servicing and so on.

You need to construct a viable case, unfortunately you're in a land of lawyers now and you not one of them which makes it a sharkpool to you


Once you construct a viable and reasoned case they may be more interested in paying you something. In my opinion as a layperson I think its possible to prove worth but my opinion is worth what it costs pretty much


MOT is not a reason to invalidate insurance as such, its the road worthiness of a car. Its obviously harder to prove without it, its a grey area. You have no agreed worth I presume so drop any attitude towards them, most of these are just people at a desk

Just keep calm and start assembling a neat file. Once you get a nice thick bunch of proof insurance assessors probably will not want to bother arguing any more nevermind court time (you must at least expect that as possible) and make a reasonable offer, your in the wrong so be grateful.

See parkers for valuation, phone dealers asking prices & they may fax you. Collect adverts for similar cars in that condition and so on.

Try a forum called five-o and if your very polite they may help you out. It has alot of off duty peoples who may feel like giving some advice or not

When I sued a bank, they told me I was wrong up until the week before the case.
Also I sent a data protection act claim into them (for more paperwork in your favour), that costs £10 I think

junkimunki

QUOTE=Wig;36651071]An insurance policy cannot be nullified because of a breach of condition unless that breach of condition caused or contributed to the claim. There's no way that no MOT can cause a claim so you are wrong on this. And you will be shown to be wrong hopefully when the OP comes to tell us all what the outcome was when this is all over for his son. There is also the other thread pointed to by Mcjordi and numerous other examples on the internet.
Reduced payout - yes but only to what the car is actually worth, they cannot reduce the value of the car. The car without an MOT has got a value, whatever that is they will have to pay.
No payout - no way.

P.S. I would have the car independently valued.

And If the storage yard sold/took parts off the car without authorisation of salvage from the insurer. Then OP has a claim against the insurer who are liable especially as Zenith admit that the yard is their agent and they admit that the vehicle should not have been tampered with, any contract you had was with Zenith it would be for Zenith to recover their losses from the salvage yard.

• Letters asking for suitable compensation/replacement value & fitting,
• followed by letter of official complaint and that non satisfaction will result in an ombudsman referral
• followed by ombudsman complaint if needed

P.S. I was with a broker once (ONCE!) and in the event of a claim the jumped up little pr!#k point blank refused to return my calls. That was my first and last year of insurance through that broker and I would never use another broker. They and the insurer were so useless I ended up withdrawing the claim and I dealt with the third party insurer myself to receive a full settlement.

Always go direct to the insurer yourself for a quote and to buy the policy.[/QUOTE]
:A My thanx to you but actually I am his Mother not his father,and yes its true what they say "A mothers love is unconditional " gets even worse when you know that they are point blank being ripped off, thats when the daggers and swords come out to play lol lol

junkimunki

pgilc1 wrote: »

+1

This is my understanding too. The 'insurance companies must pay' clause only applies to third parties.

I would say driving what sounds like a heavily modded car without being absolutely certain the insurance company is aware of this AND driving with no MOT is hardly a good way to generate any goodwill on the part of the insurer.

:pThe Subaru is not a heavily modded car as you so put it, and if you had taken the time to injest what had been stated you would have noticed that I have all documentation to prove that they were informed of the modifications "Brembo Brakes and callipers" and that it had a Cat 1 alarm fitted in Jan 2007, but since the change between brokers of which we were not informed, having looked through insurance papers have found that according to the schedule no alarm at all is fitted, and on checking further, it is not his policy No: being quoted upon their letters.

As for driving with no MOT, as previously stated this was an oversight on my sons part [To err is human, we all make mistkes] who quite readily at the first communication stated this to brokers who later confirmed to Zenith /GHL, that this information was not passsed to them "this is quite clearly what must have happened " concerning the Modificatios == increase in value = increase in premium"but no extra services given so why the hefty increase in the premium he was paying.

junkimunki

Hi again:
I did forget to [to err is human, we all make mistakes] mention another important issue that I would appreciate clarifying if anyone has the ability to: I noticed that when his renewal came for this year from the same brokers :
NCB, BEEN REDUCED TO 1yrs ,this means that "Zenith/GHL "not only continued to collect the last 5 months pmts/they have reduced his NCB by 2yrs , leaving him with 1yrs NCB which he gained from his previous insurers "Norwich Union", this now means from the inception date of his insurance May 2006 Zenith/Ghl have taken bac His NCB earnt whilst insured by them, they stated that all cover ceased on the epxiry date of the MOT Dec 2009 and as they did not payout the claim what right have they to take his NCB from him.

As for the last 5 months premium that was taken for no services rendered,why must this be taken up with the broker,whereby it was pointed out to me by GHLs claims operator " I refer you once again to the wording in the contract" whereby he has marked for my perusal the following: "YOU can cancel this policy by giving us 7 days notice in writing , providing there has been no claims in the current period we will refund part of the premium as below 8 mts of ins no refund. er excuse me but I did not cancel the policy , they di and quite clearly from the wording they r resposible for retuning my premiums not the broker.

as it is stated directly above his highlighted paragraph "We or our intermediary/service provider "may cancel this policy by sending you 7 days notice to your last known address,
I SUSPECT THAT THEY HAVE CLEARLY BREACHED THE CONDITONS OF THEIR OWN CONTRACT MORE THAN ONCE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

dacouch

You jut need to send in an official complaint and if they do not see sense then go to the Ombudsman.

I forgot to mention in my earlier post that the Insurers are entitled to settle the claim on a value of the car not having an mot which is normally the "Trade" value of the car

mcjordi

custardy wrote: »

Im not talking about insurance
the OP seems to think that what they are describing proves something about intent and MOT
so since my car has never missed an MOT.I can now not bother and say oh it was an honest mistake guv as i never missed one before?
The OP posts as if her son has sainthood status through running a car and keeping a clean licence

yeah i get you now lol.. blonde moment

Quentin

sabretoothtigger wrote: »

MOT is not a reason to invalidate insurance as such, its the road worthiness of a car. Its obviously harder to prove without it, its a grey area......Just keep calm and start assembling a neat file. Once you get a nice thick bunch of proof

Proving roadworthiness has nothing to do with the MOT.

It is not up to the policyholder to prove his vehicle was roadworthy!

leoren

Hi hope I can help a little.

Caps and bold used to try and make this a little easier to follow.

When an insurance contract is formed an insurance broker acts as agent to the insurer (zenith) and insured (your son) at different times and stages of the contract.

When your son called the broker to advise of the lack of MOT, the BROKER is acting as agent for the INSURER, not as agent to your son.That is to say, your son telling the broker about lack of MOT is the same as if he had told the INSURER directly about it. The real gem is that in this scenario the BROKER is the INSURERS appointed agent, which means that the INSURERS MUST ratify what the broker has advised you. More simply, the BROKER has promised something on behalf of the INSURER, the INSURER must honour it regardless of weather they would have made the same promise themselves.

More or less same thing with the salvage yard, they're the INSURERS agent not your. Making their mess the INSURERS problem not yours.

I know this has been quite well covered but I think it could do with repeating:

No MOT = No insurance - this time I am shouting WRONG. EVEN IF IT SAYS SO IN THE POLICYWORDING, SCHEDULE, CERTIFICATE and is signed in virgins blood on a full moon on 29th of February following a blood sacrifice to the insurance gods.

Re breaching their own T&C's, you (not specifically you but Joe public in general) have no chance of being able to follow every if but and maybe of the contract. Thats why there are so many if buts and maybe's. Insurance law is based on who won the last case on the matter and who wins? Well that will be whoever can afford the most expensive lawyer, and who is that normally? The insured (you and me) or the multi national insurance companies? I think it might just be the insurance companies, it also makes it easier for them to win if there are so many if buts and maybes that only a judge can decide if something is or is not covered. It's because of this we have ended up with the FSA.(not that their much help either but thats another topic). So save your sanity, do not try to understand the T&Cs. Act dumb if they refer you to clause this that and the other. If you feel you must address their point say in writing that it's not clear and you want the FSA to take a look. Don't get draw on a tit for tat this paragraph says this and that one says that. Ideally though, take a leaf out of their book and completely ignore what they have said and send a letter advising your complaint has not been resolved and you expect them to advise you of a satisfactory resolution within the next 7 days.

NCD reduced, this is because of they claim that they've not paid. NCD is reduced by the underwriting department and in nearly every insurance company it takes ages for claims to tell underwriting to reinstate it. A quick call to your insurance broker should get it sorted out but ask them to get proof in writing from the insurance company.

Paying for insurance even if there was no cover.....it's not as simple as it seems. Although they were not covering the impreza (sorry if spelling is wrong) if your son had driven someone elses car on the 3rd party driving other vehicles extension on his certificate and had an accident, his insurance company would have to pay out for any 3rd party person injury claims. I'm not saying this is how it should be, or that he used the cover but this will be one of the excuses they use for continuing to take payments.

Next steps:

Data protection act requests for information
Someone made and earlier suggestion to put in a data protection request to the insurer. It's a great idea but don't stop there. Do the same to the broker as well and anyone else you think might have information you can use. Salvage company maybe? Recovery low loader company as this might be different. Recovery company should have given you son a sheet showing where the damage to his car was. If he still has copy great - keep it safe but if not get a copy through dpa request to low loader truck people.

Complain to everyone
You can use the same letter more of less, just change who it's addressed to. Put in the letter your complaint, what you expect them to do about it and by when you expect them to do it. Send them all recorded delivery so you have proof of when they received it. You have lots to complain about but in your position I would keep the financial issues (decision not to pay and theft of parts) separate from all the other issues you have had. This way you should get a faster resolution to this part. Bulk it in with the time taken, poor communication ect ect and they will need to investigate it all before giving you their final response.
My hit list for who to send complaints to (a separate letter to each even if their in the same office in the same building):
Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of insurance company - you should be able to get this from their website. Address it to them by name and mark it PRIVATE and CONFIDENTIAL, that way it might get to them before some lacky opens it.
Chief Claims Officer (CCO) of insurance company - as above
Chief Underwriting Officer (CUO) of insurance company - as above
Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of insurance company - as above
Chief Operating Officer (COO) of insurance company - as above
Chief Marketing Officer - as above
Anyone else on their website that you think might get things moving.

Same to the brokers advising them that as they are Zeniths agent you expect them to sort this out. Once again send it to the top man. If they're a chain of brokers send complaint to head office and local branch.

Next the regulators:
Write to them, they all have websites. Phone numbers given on those I have to hand.
The Financial Ombudsman (FOS) 0845 080 1800
Financial Services Authority (FSA) (+44) 20 7066 1000
Any industry body the broker is a member of. Most likely ABI 020 7600 3333 or BIBA 0844 77 00 266. It normally showes on the brokers headed paper which they are a member of.

Dont wait for the broker and/or insurance company to come back to you. Write to the big boys now and tell the insurer and broker that you are doing so.

Follow up everything in writing and keep copies of everything
Lastly keep a log of every call you make, every person you talk to and get names and phone numbers. Follow up every call with a letter or at very least an email saying "my understanding of my telephone conversation with xxxx at time date is ......... if I have misunderstood any point please advise me in writing within the next 7 days clarifying the issue. ........"

Sorry this is such a long post but I hope it helps. Please forgive any poor spelling, grammar or punctuation I'm tired but still wanted to help.

Lastly, I'm not someone who has "apparently" heard any of this. I have an insurance related qualification, have been an underwriter and claims handler in general insurance and more recently work in the audit team of a very large multinational insurance company. So if someone better qualified wants to come shoot me down in flames go ahead, but if their knowledge is just from some "bloke in the pub" don't waste mine or anyone elses time.

Love to you all BOYRACERS and SUNDAY DRIVERS alike x

bigjl

Sadly things of value going missing in sakvage yards is par for the course, and has been for years, especially if they thought it was getting scrapped.

When I had a garage we used to get offered parts and stereos all the time by the recovery truck bloke, the name they used then escapes me, but they when bust and got bought over and I believe they are now called OnTime, not a small company.

I think it is worth the OP's time in getting the ombudsman involved, my dad did this in 1989, after getting a derisory offer for my mums 13 month old car, which I may or may not have rolled into a field, ahem.

The loss adjuster had offered £4000 less than new value on a car that would have been replaced with new if crashed 4 weeks earlier, eventually got £4700, original offer £3000.

To put this into context my dad had worked for this very large insurance company for 18 years at this point, always been insured by them, both family cars, house insurance, emdowment policies and life insurance.

The insurance company is just trying it on, as far as they are concerned why not, unless the OP makes a stand and takes it to the regulatory body they will lose out, as far as the insurance company goes it is just more potential profit.

vaio

The company have (I think) eight weeks from the receipt of a "official compliant" to respond. Until they have done this the regulator (FOS) won't look at it.