Car insurance woes

vaio

mikey72 wrote: »

......Maybe it's tme to make them start sending everything signed for, to stop them abusing the system.

dunstonh wrote: »

......Stick another 15% on current premiums then.......

Average car insurance premium £920

Average number of letters sent per policy 5

Additional cost of signed for delivery on those £5

Predicted premium increase to cover that additional cost £138

Sounds about right to me (for the world of insurance)

mikey72

lisyloo wrote: »

Unfortunately this is the law (and for reference I don't like it).
If the police send you a notice of intended prosecution and you don't receive it then you can be prosecuted.
I believe this has been tested in law.
The assumption is always that if it has been sent then it has been received (unless of course you had some evidence it wasn't actually sent).

Well if the assumption is if it's on file, it must have been sent, and if it's been sent it must have been received, (and I certaintly agree part 2 is true) I sure everyone can have the letter on file that would have been sent refusing the offer of auto renewal, even if they also believe the insurers letter wasn't received in the first place either.

It seems perfectly reasonable in that case to (re)send (another) copy.

vaio

lisyloo wrote: »

Unfortunately this is the law (and for reference I don't like it).
If the police send you a notice of intended prosecution and you don't receive it then you can be prosecuted.
I believe this has been tested in law.
The assumption is always that if it has been sent then it has been received (unless of course you had some evidence it wasn't actually sent)......

I think the law is that letters claimed to have been sent are deemed to be delivered in the absence of evidence to the contrary. This evidence is generally a witness statement from the intended recipient saying “I didn’t receive it”. Then it’s down to who the judge believes and traditionally the courts have tend to believe organisations over individuals when considering “lost in post” claims.

In this case it seems the same has happened to both the letter to the OP and the letter to the breakdown company which shifts the probabilities considerably.

lisyloo wrote: »

.....I would like to see this for some things (cancellations/prosecutions) and I wouldn't have any objection to a couple of quid on the premium.
15% sounds a lot even if a staff member has to physically go to a post office.

The idea that an insurance company would send a member of staff to the post office with the post seems unlikely to me, I’d guess they would be produced in some bulk mail warehouse on an industrial estate somewhere but hey, for a 15% premium hike I’d expect it delivered on a silver salver by a footman in a morning suit

lisyloo

I sure everyone can have the letter on file that would have been sent refusing the offer of auto renewal

AFAIK the law works both ways (it's called presumption of service or something like that).
However personally I prefer NOT to have to prove it in a court of law and therefore I either get a free proof of posting or pay for recorded delivery as appropriate to avoid that situation.
It has saved me at least once when I could prove I returned some items on approval.
It is interesting to know the law but who wants to use their paid holiday to be in court? or have to pay court fees? Much better to cover yourself IMO. Personally I don't find I spend a lot as it's only warranted a few times a year.
But essentially, yes consumers can use the presumption of service (or whatever its' called) argument against companies.

In this case it seems the same has happened to both the letter to the OP and the letter to the breakdown company which shifts the probabilities considerably.

I agree, which is why I added the bit about (unless you have evidence to the contrary).
However there are a number of assumptions here. Just because a breakdown company sent someone out does not mean they didn't get the letter. Their system might have been down or they might not have processed the cancellation letter at that time (shortly afterwards).
But I do agree the probabilities can be shifted by evidence.

The idea that an insurance company would send a member of staff to the post office with the post seems unlikely to me

I don't know the details but it certainly might mean the items have to be treated differently from the normal automated systems and hence have costs above the post office charge.
But I agree 15% is too high. I think that was an "off the cuff" figure and just pointing out that there will be some costs involved, which no doubt everyone will moan about even though they want the service.

dunstonh

Additional cost of signed for delivery on those £5

Predicted premium increase to cover that additional cost £138

Sounds about right to me (for the world of insurance)

You havent factored the extra time involved in preparing the recorded post and the delivery to the post office. Currently, the process would be highly automated but that would turn it into a manual one.

I based my figure on a £400 premium. So, maybe less if used against a higher figure then it would be less. However, it would be a noticeable amount. Especially when it is only a tiny minority of people that it will gain from it.

thenudeone

Is this what you meant?

Interpretation Act 1978

7 References to service by post.
Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression “serve” or the expression “give” or “send” or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/30/crossheading/interpretation-and-construction

The wording suggests that this only applies where an Act of Parliament requires a document to be sent. Presumably this also applies to rules contained in Statutory Instruments enacted under an Act.

Not sure whether there is any case law which extends the allows senders to rely on the proof of posting when it applies to documents required under non-statutory Ts&Cs?

vaio

Yep, that’s it. As you say, that applies to statutory stuff but I’m guessing a judge is going to apply the same general rules to any other dispute involving a “lost in the post” claim.

The problem is that lots of insurance contracts give them rights based on them posting a letter to me whereas my rights depend on them receiving a letter from me. That imbalance is something that should be addressed.

On cancellations and similar “serious” matters I’m inclined to agree with Lisyloo, they shouldn’t take effect until the letter has been provably received by the policy holder (which implies signed for)

mikey72

vaio wrote: »

Yep, that’s it. As you say, that applies to statutory stuff but I’m guessing a judge is going to apply the same general rules to any other dispute involving a “lost in the post” claim.

The problem is that lots of insurance contracts give them rights based on them posting a letter to me whereas my rights depend on them receiving a letter from me. That imbalance is something that should be addressed.

On cancellations and similar “serious” matters I’m inclined to agree with Lisyloo, they shouldn’t take effect until the letter has been provably received by the policy holder (which implies signed for)

I've never actually had a problem, but I do tend to send correspondence with a reference to a phone call, and request confirmation.
However, the contract only requires you notify them normally, and exactly the same rules apply. Once posted, it's notified. The inference that your rights are changed to them having to recieve the letter is only claimed by insurers, it doesn't make it true.

lisyloo

That imbalance is something that should be addressed.

I am not sure that's true legally.
It may be what insurers try to imply though.

I agree with Mikey - just because insurers say you don't have this right or that doesn't make it true.
Of course it's a big hassle to force things legally so I try to be pro-active/pragmatic and spend the occassional 75p (although I tend to have this knack of not having insurers that auto-renew).

lisyloo

Not sure whether there is any case law which extends the allows senders to rely on the proof of posting when it applies to documents required under non-statutory Ts&Cs?

Just for info/interest, the situation where I used proof of posting was for sending back goods on approval. These were not my goods and were sent to me under a "contract of bailment" and belonged to the sender, therefore I was not responsible for providing compensation should they be lost using the providers carrier (Royal Mail).
In this case prrof os posting was sufficient and free but importantly I did my legal research before choosing how to cover myself.
I haven't researched but probably you're right and it's not good enough for documents.

When the company cynically reported the goods missing (as expected) I referred them to my legal research and proof of posting.