Home Insurance - Wrong Address, Refund due?

TheMac

Hi,

We're currently in the process of switching our mortgage to another bank. We've just been told that the address on our Home & Contents Insurance is wrong, and in reality we haven't been covered for 5 years. This was because our house was a newbuild and we had a site number. So all correspondence and documents relating to the house were in the site number i.e 366. It took about a year but our 'real' number became 131.

I'm wondering would be entitled to a refund because we've actually been paying for home insurance for nothing. They've been taking our money but we're supposedly not covered.

Any advice on this is greatly appreciated!

Thanks, Mac

lisyloo

If you have been told you've not been covered for 5 years, then I would ask for a refund.
Do you know who you spoke to and the date and the time? (so recordingscan be pulled if necessary).
If you have it in writing then fantastic.

Did the documents say "plot 366" or just 366 acaca Avenue?

I have a feeling that if you ask for a refund you will be told that the person you spoke to was wrong.

So what evidence do you have that you would not have been covered?

TheMac

Thanks for the response. Basically when we bought our house we pretty much took the advice of the bank at the time and they handled all paperwork etc including setting us up for home insurance. I'll have to check the wording but it would have said "Site 366". The only reason we know about this is because the girl at the other bank that we're switching mortgages to informed us that it was the Site number down rather than the actual 131 address. She is a bit of a jobsworth (bit of a newbie, everything by the book) - so she has said that technically we haven't been covered all this time. I'm guessing if we made a claim against address 131...they would say its not on their system. We have even switched home insurance a few times. We were with Norwich Union, then Zurich. We've been switching mortgages every 2 years for the last 6 years when it was built.

Responsiblity may well lie with us though (?), I'm not sure. But we were pretty much sold the insurance by the bank, who should look after it for you. But in a nutshell, we've been paying - but if we ever tried to make a claim we would be told that address is not covered, instead the phantom Site 366 would be covered.

EDIT: Sorry, we're still with Zurich currently

TheMac

Bump: Any insurance experts on the forum able to help with this? Cheers

lisyloo

So you've been told by someone at your NEW bank that your old bank wouldn't have covered you?
Franky she has no authority to say that and I think she's talking rubbish.

You should make sure the address is correct now, but if you want 5 years of premiums back on the basis of gossip from a competitor then you need to jsut forget it.

jonesMUFCforever

With what you explained in post 1 A) your insurance company would have covered you as this kind of thing happens all the time If they did become obtuse I'm pretty certain the Ombudsman would back you C)why should you have 5 years free insurance?
SO in my opinion you have no claim for any refund - have a look yourself at insurance comparison sites and go through sites like Quidco to make some cashback.

TheMac

I think you've misunderstood. It's not a question of me getting free home insurance for 5 years. Its a question of me paying for it for 5 years and not being covered i.e. in that time if I made a claim...would they have wriggled out of it on a technicality like this? In my view its very likely that any insurance would, that's what they do. So that being said the real question is - why should I pay for 5 years without being covered?

lisyloo

Its a question of me paying for it for 5 years and not being covered

But you would have been covered. This sort of situation occurs all the time.
You are relying on what a low level employee at a competitor has told you and taking it as gospel.

would they have wriggled out of it on a technicality like this?

They could have tried but there is an indpendent and free ombudsman and I'm sure it would have gotten sorted.

In my view its very likely that any insurance would

What is that view based on?
Have you had a professional opinion or just the low level clerk from a competitor?

why should I pay for 5 years without being covered?

You would have been covered. That's the flaw in your argument.
If you don't believe us then make a complaint and ask for your money back and see how far you get.
I would be interested to know how you intend to PROVE you would not have been covered (and the bank clerk of the competitor said so, doesn't carry any weight).
But go ahead and ask for it back if that's what you want to do. I am firmly of the opinion that you will get nowhere.
They will simlpy say they would have covered you and if necessary provide evidence of covering similar situations.

TheMac

This isn't going quite how I'd anticipated. I was asking for help and explaining my predicament. I'm not here to say I was covered or was not - basically that is the question that I seek an answer to. This business with the competitor - she has nothing to gain. The bank is the Northern Bank. I switched from Santander. The insurance is with Zurich - not either of these banks. It was mentioned as a "Do you know you haven't technically been covered for home insurance for the last 5 years?" "No, how come?"..."It's the wrong address".

I agree that it would be difficult to prove that we haven't been covered. I don't agree that we were definitely covered by the same token though!

lisyloo

I was asking for help and explaining my predicament. I'm not here to say I was covered or was not - basically that is the question that I seek an answer to.

And you've had two opinions that you were indeed covered.
The plot number identifies the house and if an insurer tried to claim otherwise then there is a FREE and independent ombudsman who would force them to play fair.
Sorry if that's not what you want to hear.

This business with the competitor - she has nothing to gain.

That's doesn't mean she's correct.

"It's the wrong address".

From the information you gave in post#3 I would say it's not the wrong address.
It's simply identified by a plot or site number rather than a house number.

I agree that it would be difficult to prove that we haven't been covered.

Well legally that's what you have to prove if you want to win the case and get your money back.

I don't agree that we were definitely covered by the same token though!

What's your evidence?
If you don't agree then state your case and perhaps others will give their opinions of your evidence.
So far all I've see is that a clerk said your address was wrong.
I say it wasn't wrong it was merely identified by plot number and not house number from your own information.

So on what else is your case based?

If you disagree then go ahead and make a formal complaint and ask for your money back.
You don't need lots of people agreeing with you in order to do that.

shelly

TheMac wrote: »

I'm not here to say I was covered or was not - basically that is the question that I seek an answer to.

Surely the only people who can answer that question are your past insurers? Can't you call them and ask what would happen in your situation...i.e your docs say plot number but you now have a house number, what would happen if a claim was made.

I must admit, on reading this thread, my first thought was why hasn't anyone in the last 4 years (your bank or you yourself) had the insurance details updated to show your house number rather than plot number?