Home Insurance - Wrong Address, Refund due?

TheMac

OK dunstonh so we get to the root of this now then - I should have included "may" in my first post regarding whether or not we've been covered. That was an error on my part in the language I used. Its was a simple ommission, its not a compleltely different version as you've tried to suggest.

I don't think an expert in finance or insurance can state if I'm covered or not. Its a legal document and would require legal process in my view, I guess I may have been in the wrong place all along!

I believe the insurance company would say - you were covered. But there's no real evidence of that in the policy, in fact quite the opposite, where it speaks of the address in the schedule. Quite literally it was not the correct address. That is the issue, regardless of blame. With the important question of - would they have paid out if I had claimed? Gypsy doesn't believe this to be relevant, unbelievably.

I haven't contacted anyone about it yet.

TSx

TheMac wrote: »

Eh? The house is still physically on the same street...it didn't decide to upsticks and walk across to the more plush estate 10 miles down the road! Lets say the address was "Site 366 Sesame Street"...it should have been "131 Sesame Street". Its still Sesame Street mate. Why would the premium go up? Does anyone else "grasp" this "common sense"? You got me there. 1-0 to you eh. :T

You don't think its relevant to pay for something and receive....nothing in return? I'll give you my paypal account...I'd happily let you pay me and you'll get jacksh1t in return. Nonsensical! :rotfl:

And you speak of "common sense"?

Which is exactly how the FOS would view it - if there was only one Site 366, sesame street and one 131 Sesame Street and they can be unambigously linked together, then clearly it is the same property. It's just an alias. Can't you see the common sense in that?

Insurance is generally a case of paying for nothing, it's only if you need to make a claim that you 'get something back', to be honest, I think it is irrelevant and a waste of time to chase this up, it's passed.

What I can say from a professional point of view is that as a claims handler, I've come across issues like this before and never seen a claim turned down on these grounds.

TheMac

TSx wrote: »

Which is exactly how the FOS would view it - if there was only one Site 366, sesame street and one 131 Sesame Street and they can be unambigously linked together, then clearly it is the same property. It's just an alias. Can't you see the common sense in that?

Insurance is generally a case of paying for nothing, it's only if you need to make a claim that you 'get something back', to be honest, I think it is irrelevant and a waste of time to chase this up, it's passed.

What I can say from a professional point of view is that as a claims handler, I've come across issues like this before and never seen a claim turned down on these grounds.

I can see the sense of course, but that was not the point our learned friend the gypsy was making. He was talking about the premium going up for some ridiculous reason.

In terms of paying for nothing, I don't agree. I'm paying for cover. If that cover doesn't materialise when I need it most - even a refund in the premium would not cover the cost of any serious damage, you should know that. However, thanks for the last bit.

dacouch

TSx wrote: »

Which is exactly how the FOS would view it - if there was only one Site 366, sesame street and one 131 Sesame Street and they can be unambigously linked together, then clearly it is the same property. It's just an alias. Can't you see the common sense in that?

Insurance is generally a case of paying for nothing, it's only if you need to make a claim that you 'get something back', to be honest, I think it is irrelevant and a waste of time to chase this up, it's passed.

What I can say from a professional point of view is that as a claims handler, I've come across issues like this before and never seen a claim turned down on these grounds.

The obvious evidence that you are correct, is that it's common practice for new builds / properties the Post Office has not allocated addresses / post codes. For Insurers / Brokers to suggest to customers as has happened with the OP for the plot number to be entered (I have even seen property next to number 15 High St etc). As the Insurer suggested this to the OP he was obviously covered at the start and they would need to carry on covering even when the official address changed.

As you rightly point out the Ombudsman used common sense and as the plot number relates to a specific address. The Ombudsman would rule in favour of the customer and the Insurers would know this.

*Scarlett

I'm assuming that during the 5 years that you were insured with the company you received policy documents and renewal notices addressed to "366" as this was the address they had on file even though the house was now "131". So it could be proven that "366" and "131" are the same address if you are getting your mail and correspondence from them. So I would say on this basis your insurance cover would have been valid.

Probably the time to have addressed this matter was when you got the permanent house number and to have let the insurer know about this. The onus is always on the customer to let the insurer know about any changes.

I realise that many people don't think about these things or they are overlooked and because you were probably still getting correspondence from your insurer it didn't occur to you.

This situation is probably a lesson to tell the insurer about any change of circumstances as soon as possible - many things will not affect your policy but it's better to be sure.

raskazz

This is one of the most ludicrous threads that I have read in a long time. Home insurance is not my speciality but it is clear that you would have been covered, as long as all other material information is correct and you can demonstrate that the plot number became the current house number (which would be a very simple matter).

Whoever told you that you would not have been covered was talking out of their rear.

Even it we for a moment assume that you had not technically been covered, as is is your duty to keep the insurer aware of the correct risk address, the insurer does not have to void the policy - the policy would be voidable at the insurer's option; and as a policyholder you have no right to mandate the insurer to actually void the policy and return premiums to you.

njj74

Just wondered what the outcome of this was, curious