Sheilas wheels - anyone else had problems? or policy cancellation?

Dangermac

sarahgail wrote: »

Further to my previous post - I am trying to establish if this has happened to anyone else???

We had our building and contents insurance with Sheilas wheels.
We were unfortunately burgled earlier this year and obviously submitted an insurance claim (it's why you pay it!!). SW sent a loss adjustor to the house who stated that due to the size of the house, we were probably under insured so we had to detail the value of everything in the house. It turned out we are under-insured by 50% which was a genuine surprise to us.

We expected SW to pay a reduced amount to us for the theft and increase our premiums, however we have now, eventually, received a letter from them stating that they have voided our policy due to the fact we were under insured and they will refund the premiums we have paid to them since we took the policy out.

This means that we will get no pay out and are currently without insurance. (The letter was sent normal mail - what would have happened if god forbid our house had burned down before we got the letter?! Would we actually have lost everything?)

So in short, someone came into our house, took our things, put us through emotional turmoil and now the insurance company are making us out to be the criminals, are not paying us a penny for the loss and will now probably make it very hard/expensive for us to get alternative insurance.

Can they do this?

Has this happened to anyone else?

Thanks

It might be worth having a word with the FOS (Financial Ombudsman Service) tecnhical helpline - 020 7964 1400

They can give you some guidance (informally) over the phone.

This seems like a complete mistake, and I am personally embarrassed that my industry would act in such a way.

No need for the insurer to take such action. Surely, application of average would be punative enough.

Keep fighting.

DM

SandC

sarahgail wrote: »

You should go around your house and value everything in it, room by room - I bet you will be shocked! I can honestly say we were gobsmacked! and I would bet that a high percentage of the country would be in the same boat - so are insurers mis-selling to us all???

No, as I said in your other thread, this year my contents are covered for £50k and that is the standard default amount by my insurer which is plenty for me. Last year it was £75k.

I've always checked this as some years ago they always asked you to provide the figure rather than them offering you one to start with. Many insurers offer a figure that will cover the majority.

Whilst I agree their stance on what to do regarding your under insuring is suspect, there is no doubt that you didn't really read the terms and consider whether the amount you were insured for was adequate. You certainly will not be the only ones caught out by how they do this though, unfortunately T&Cs which you have agreed that you have read and understood by virtue of taking out the policy, cover them for this. What matters is how they deal with it and it is this that you should complain about, not the process.

sarahgail

Dangermac wrote: »

This whole case shows why you have to be so careful if you decide to buy insurance direct. Who's going to fight your corner if it all goes wrong.

DM

What is the alternative to going direct?

warehouse

Publicise it everywhere.

Based on what I've just read above, I wouldn't touch Sheila's Wheels with a bargepole, and I'll make sure all my friends and family aren't insured with this bunch of cowboys either, car or home, and if they are I will point them this way.

What an absolute joke of a company. I hope you get it sorted ASAP O.P., but don't give them any peace.

sarahgail

Thanks!

I know, it's unreal.

I actually work for a bank and Treating Customers Fairly is huge at the moment - obviously in light of the bank charges cases and the mis-sold insurance cases and so on. I don't really see how this is different? Obviously it's my fault I didn't have high enough cover, but it was never flagged to me - similar to the way that some people weren't made aware that PPI was optional, or that people were charged for going overdrawn - but surely the insurance companies have some sort of responsibility to their Customers for fair treatment and so on?

I hope that insurance is the next "bank charges" issue and that companies like Sheilas Wheels get ripped to shreds.

I don't quite know how to go about publicising it? I plan to write to SW, then take it to FOS and possibly watchdog - maybe a newspaper? I guess the first step is contacting SW and seeing what they say and taking it from there.

Thanks

FlameCloud

Dangermac wrote: »

I completely disagree. This is simply an innocent mistake. I wouldnt mind betting that 75%+ of the UK is under-insured. It is simply a question of extent.

Sure, the policyholder should be penalised. That's why insurers apply 'average' to their claims.

Apologies, I was not aware you were aware of the exact circumstances of the op and her underwriting declarations. I dont either, but then again I havent said if either side is completly correct.

From the insurers point of view, the op has had at least two occasions to notify them that the sum insured is woefully inadequate (when taking out the quote and being asked to read through policy on receipt) and done nothing about it. How would you react?

Not all insurers have sufficient wording within their policy books to support the application of average (one major one mentions nothing at all about what would happen).

Whenever I get dragged back into smaller claims- i.e. 5/6 visits a day for a week it is very rare to have more than one case of underinsurance on contents in that time, and it gets less and less as insurers move to block sum insured (i.e. straight £100,000 for example) or unlimited, so your estimate of 75% of the UK being underinsured is a complete exageration.

FlameCloud

sarahgail wrote: »

I hope that insurance is the next "bank charges" issue and that companies like Sheilas Wheels get ripped to shreds.

Are you aware that the banks won the case?

Given that you have no idea of the underwriting numbers involved with your insurers it is possible that the sums insured are ok for their target market in the majority of the time. As has been mentioned it is your responsibility alone to ensure you have correct cover assuming you are not buying it under advice.

Dangermac

FlameCloud wrote: »

Apologies, I was not aware you were aware of the exact circumstances of the op and her underwriting declarations. I dont either, but then again I havent said if either side is completly correct.

From the insurers point of view, the op has had at least two occasions to notify them that the sum insured is woefully inadequate (when taking out the quote and being asked to read through policy on receipt) and done nothing about it. How would you react?

Not all insurers have sufficient wording within their policy books to support the application of average (one major one mentions nothing at all about what would happen).

Whenever I get dragged back into smaller claims- i.e. 5/6 visits a day for a week it is very rare to have more than one case of underinsurance on contents in that time, and it gets less and less as insurers move to block sum insured (i.e. straight £100,000 for example) or unlimited, so your estimate of 75% of the UK being underinsured is a complete exageration.

er, I can only comment on the circumstances as described above - which I have done.

With regards to your rebuttal of my 75% figure, let me rephrase. I suspect that 75% of the UK (where a specific sum insured has to be declared) is under-insured.

With respect, you have no way of knowing whether someone is under-insured or not, unless you go room-ro-room, working out the figures exactly. I suspect that, if you did, the vast majority of people (who declare a specfic sum insured) would be very surprised at the new-for-old reinstatement cost.

Let's face it, this OP was fairly 'low hanging fruit' for the Loss Adjuster - £15,000 sum insured on a 4 bedroomed house. Not exactly difficult to spot.

However, if the sum insured was £40,000 or £45,000 against a true new-for-old figure of £50,000 - you arent seriously trying to tell me that Loss Adjusters would have immediately spotted this.

Furthermore, with TCF (Treating Customers Fairly) in mind, there are a few areas that concern me:

- This seems like a clear case of innocent mistake, therefore, is the 'nuclear' option by the insurer fair?

- Should the insurer have made more effort to flag that £15,000 of cover on a 4 bedroomed house {assuming that they knew this} seems inadequate

- Should the OP have their insurance record tarnished forever, because of an innocent mistake. They are now classified as having either tried to make a fraudulent claim, or having misrepresented the facts.


I can only go on the facts presented. With respect, so can you. On the face of it, in my view, this seems very unfair.

DM

Dangermac

FlameCloud wrote: »

Apologies, I was not aware you were aware of the exact circumstances of the op and her underwriting declarations. I dont either, but then again I havent said if either side is completly correct.

From the insurers point of view, the op has had at least two occasions to notify them that the sum insured is woefully inadequate (when taking out the quote and being asked to read through policy on receipt) and done nothing about it. How would you react?

Not all insurers have sufficient wording within their policy books to support the application of average (one major one mentions nothing at all about what would happen).

Whenever I get dragged back into smaller claims- i.e. 5/6 visits a day for a week it is very rare to have more than one case of underinsurance on contents in that time, and it gets less and less as insurers move to block sum insured (i.e. straight £100,000 for example) or unlimited, so your estimate of 75% of the UK being underinsured is a complete exageration.

er, I can only comment on the circumstances as described above - which I have done.

With regards to your rebuttal of my 75% figure, let me rephrase. I suspect that 75% of the UK (where a specific sum insured has to be declared) is under-insured.

With respect, you have no way of knowing whether someone is under-insured or not, unless you go room-ro-room, working out the figures exactly. I suspect that, if you did, the vast majority of people (who declare a specfic sum insured) would be very surprised at the new-for-old reinstatement cost.

Let's face it, this OP was fairly 'low hanging fruit' for the Loss Adjuster - £15,000 sum insured on a 4 bedroomed house. Not exactly difficult to spot.

However, if the sum insured was £40,000 or £45,000 against a true new-for-old figure of £50,000 - you arent seriously trying to tell me that Loss Adjusters would have immediately spotted this.

Furthermore, with TCF (Treating Customers Fairly) in mind, there are a few areas that concern me:

- This seems like a clear case of innocent mistake, therefore, is the 'nuclear' option by the insurer fair?

- Should the insurer have made more effort to flag that £15,000 of cover on a 4 bedroomed house {assuming that the knew this} seems inadequate

- Should the OP have their insurance record tarnished forever, because of an innocent mistake. They are now classified as having either tried to make a fraudulent claim, or having misrepresented the facts.


I can only go on the facts presented. With respect, so can you. On the face of it, in my view, this seems very unfair.

Dangermac

sarahgail wrote: »

What is the alternative to going direct?

Through a broker