Car with small dent in door written off!!! Help!!!

thenudeone

nightjar wrote: »

The body shop later phoned her back to say that the repairs would cost £800

.....

The body shop manager then said that he could repair the damage for £500 (not via the insurers)

Is it any wonder that insurance premiums are going through the roof when everyone involved in a claim wants to make as much money as possible, way in excess of anything reasonable??

Quentin

thenudeone wrote: »

Is it any wonder that insurance premiums are going through the roof when everyone involved in a claim wants to make as much money as possible, way in excess of anything reasonable??

When garages quote for insurance companies, they normally use different rates than for non insurance clients.

Maybe the repair to the insurer's specification may include using manufacturer's parts rather than cheaper options, and the insurer will want a discount to reduce the final bill.

mikey72

thenudeone wrote: »

Is it any wonder that insurance premiums are going through the roof when everyone involved in a claim wants to make as much money as possible, way in excess of anything reasonable??

I think insurers must be aware of this by now.
So they question is why do they support it?

A cynical part of me thinks maybe if the insurer pays the £800 from the underwriters pool, and get the "referral fee", "commision" or the percentage discount refunded in a lump sum at the end of the year from their preferred repairer, it goes straight onto the profits, but they can still point to the great "loss" they're making from paying out the £800 originally, not the £500 they have paid in reallity, after "commision"

A bit of smoke and mirrors again, and suddenly the overall company profit is a very selctive loss in one small area of the business.

thenudeone

nightjar wrote: »

but in the meantime the insurers have now told my wife that the vehicle is uninsured. This is despite my wife telling the insurers that she wanted to withdraw the claim.

The insurers have no right to cancel a policy without giving the notice required in the policy's terms and conditions (often it's 7 days) unless there is a total loss claim. Until she agrees to having any work done, a claim hasn't actually been made.

She should contact the insurers immediately and tell them in no uncertain terms that she does not wish to make a claim, and that since she has not received the required notice, then legally the policy is still in force. She should also register a complaint.
This should be confirmed with a fax or recorded delivery letter.

Your wife should keep the certificate with her whenever she drives, until this is sorted out.

Quentin

thenudeone wrote: »

Your wife should keep the certificate with her whenever she drives, until this is sorted out.

No!!!

She would be driving uninsured until this is "sorted out"

The insurer has cancelled the cover, so the certificate is worthless, and she shouldn't drive without new cover being confirmed.

thenudeone

Quentin wrote: »

No!!!

She would be driving uninsured until this is "sorted out"

The insurer has cancelled the cover, so the certificate is worthless, and she shouldn't drive without new cover being confirmed.

The insurers can only cancel cover if the terms allow them to. No court will accept anything other than that. They can scream " your policy is cancelled" from the rooftops but if the terms and conditions do not allow that, they would just lose in court.

The certificate is vitally important because as long as a certificate is produced at the time AND the court is satisfied that the policy is valid, then a seizure by the police would be deemed unlawful (regardless of what the database says or what the officer believed)
See this case:

Pryor v The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police, [2011] EWCA Civ 749

http://www.casecheck.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=1184&EntryID=17385

System

thenudeone wrote: »

The insurers can only cancel cover if the terms allow them to. No court will accept anything other than that. They can scream " your policy is cancelled" from the rooftops but if the terms and conditions do not allow that, they would just lose in court.

The certificate is vitally important because as long as a certificate is produced at the time AND the court is satisfied that the policy is valid, then a seizure by the police would be deemed unlawful (regardless of what the database says or what the officer believed)
See this case:

Pryor v The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police, [2011] EWCA Civ 749

http://www.casecheck.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=1184&EntryID=17385

That may all be true, but if the insurance company has cancelled the policy on their system and updated the MID then the police could stop the car and have it towed / crushed before the OP had the chance to prove anything in a court.

So the prudent thing to do would be :

1. Check the MID to confirm if the car is listed as insured - Link to check if on MID : askMID
2. If not on MID get on the phone to the insurance company and do not let them off the phone until they have re-instated the policy

Further thoughts....

Thinking about this situation, it goes to show that the new legislation that covers "Continuous Insurance" has not been fully thought through. The insurance industry should have been told, as part of the legislation, that they cannot simply cancel a car insurance policy until the policy holder has had the chance to arrange for the car to be taken off public road or land and SORNed and informed the insurance company that they have completed their responsibilties under the new legislation, only then should the insurance company be allowed to cancel the policy.
Should the policy holder want to dispute the company's reasons for cancellation, then again the insurer should not be allowed to cancel until after the full complaint process has been exhausted, including completion of the FOS complaint process. Otherwise, the policy holder may be forced to break the new continuous insurance legislation through no fault of their own.