car insurance cancellation charge

vaio

Yep, as I said then…

vaio wrote: »

……….so you handing over the keys and waving off the buyer doesn't count as "caused or permitted"? That's an interesting argument (but on one I'd like to bet my house on)

In a wider note and even assuming you are right about causing or permitting, if you fail to cancel your policy on a car you’ve sold and as a result your insurer gets hit with a large s151 claim I’d say you can be pretty sure they are going to come after you for the money as losses occasioned as a result of your breach of the insurance contract.

Edited to add: A Cornhill policy I have to hand has a condition: If the law of any country in which this policy covers you say we must pay a claim which we would not normally have paid, we are entitled to ask you for these payments.

If LV end up £200k out of pocket because you didn’t keep to the terms of your policy and cancel it do you seriously think they will let it pass rather than setting their well qualified and expensive lawyers on to it? (having first run a background check to see what your house is worth)

If my insurance company breach any of the terms resulting in a cost to me then I (and you) would expect them to pay those losses. Same principle works the other way too.

sujman

BAA1 wrote: »

Still think it is worth the risk ?

Well, that's my whole question. Is it is a real risk or just scarmongering tactics? I'd be interested to learn of reallife examples where a person was sued for £000's for not cancelling insurance.

I am guessing not!

Only concern I have is since I am moving onto a company car scheme, what happens to my no claims build up if I ever had to insure privately again? Will/can LV do something to spite me?

mikey72

vaio wrote: »

Yep, as I said then…


If LV end up £200k out of pocket because you didn’t keep to the terms of your policy and cancel it do you seriously think they will let it pass rather than setting their well qualified and expensive lawyers on to it? (having first run a background check to see what your house is worth)

If my insurance company breach any of the terms resulting in a cost to me then I (and you) would expect them to pay those losses. Same principle works the other way too.

The cornhill one you quoted is so vague it's unenforceable.
And yet again, I didn't cause or permit anyone to drive. My right to do so ended when I sold my car.
Where does it end?
If you sell your car to me, and I let my mates drive it, are you still responsible for causing or permitting them to drive?

If it's stolen off me, out of my locked garage, are you still going to lose your house?
If you scrap it, and someone steals it from the disposal company, have you still caused or permitted, even when you believed it was to be broken up or crushed, and have a receipt to say so?

vaio

Ok, ignore the causing or permitting bit, would you not agree that if your insurance company breaches one of the terms of your policy and that breach causes you a loss then the insurance company should cover that loss?

And, doesn’t it then follow that the same logic applies the other way round?

mikey72

vaio wrote: »

Ok, ignore the causing or permitting bit, would you not agree that if your insurance company breaches one of the terms of your policy and that breach causes you a loss then the insurance company should cover that loss?

And, doesn’t it then follow that the same logic applies the other way round?

I just re-read my t&c's and I have no clause at all that states I need to cancel, or inform then if I sell my car. It does refer all the way through to "your car", apart from a similarly vague clause

"Our right to get back what we have paid

If, under the law of any country this policy covers you in, we have to make a payment which we would not otherwise have paid under this policy, we may recover any claim payment from you or from the person who the claim was made against."

And under this policy, if it was still my car, they would have to pay third party claims, so not telling them would make no difference if they have to pay if it was no longer my car.

vaio

if they are the only insurer on the car then they have to pay, even if you have sold the car UNLESS you have cancelled the policy.

I'm really surprised that your policy doesn't include a term about notifying them if you sell the car, who's the insurer?

mikey72

vaio wrote: »

if they are the only insurer on the car then they have to pay, even if you have sold the car UNLESS you have cancelled the policy.

I'm really surprised that your policy doesn't include a term about notifying them if you sell the car, who's the insurer?

I posted about them a few days ago, Axa, and CSIS. CSIS specifically want to know if you change your car, to ensure cover on the new car, but no mention if you just sell it, or the need to cancel.

I may have missed it, but I can't remember seeing it in any policy I've ever had to be honest.

mikey72

As to having to pay, they do anyway.
MIB will pay if there is no insurance in force, and my insurer is obliged to support them.
Statistically, my insurer will pay out the same sort of percentage for people who haven't cancelled, as they will to support MIB payments.

vaio

"if the registered keeper or owner of your car changes"

from csis policy page 46

http://www.csis.co.uk/_assets/files/PFS01009DPolicy%20Wording.pdf

hcb42

vaio wrote: »

if they are the only insurer on the car then they have to pay, even if you have sold the car UNLESS you have cancelled the policy.

I'm really surprised that your policy doesn't include a term about notifying them if you sell the car, who's the insurer?

That makes it even more unfair that someone who has paid 12 months in full, then gets stung with an admin charge for what is essentially 2.5 minutes work in a call centre, and a small amount of post handling

vaio wrote: »

"if the registered keeper or owner of your car changes"

from csis policy page 46

http://www.csis.co.uk/_assets/files/PFS01009DPolicy%20Wording.pdf

THis actually states any refund may be subject to a charge, not "we will charge you over and above the 12 months premium"

I understand (although despise) the argument of an admin fee for changes, but if customers are paying significantly more than their 12 month premium because of an admin fee, it does seem a little warped.