Uninsured Driver Claim on my policy

Parking_Trouble

magpiecottage wrote: »

In which case it seems to be for Elephant to prove the offence, not for the OP to prove his sister's innocence.

So I would go down the complaint route.

What would be the basis for the complaint and what should the OP ask for?

Unfair condition in the contract?
Sister did not TWOC therefore condition cannot apply?
The claim is fraudulent?
Elephant have not applied due diligence to the claim?
All of the above?

caezar

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

What would be the basis for the complaint and what should the OP ask for?

Unfair condition in the contract?
Sister did not TWOC therefore condition cannot apply?
The claim is fraudulent?
Elephant have not applied due diligence to the claim?
All of the above?

Actually, that's a good question. Does anyone know how I would go about it if I decided to go via the complaints route? What would be the basis for such a complaint?

Quentin

Their complaints procedure will be set out in the policy.

Complain on the grounds they are being unfair to you.

magpiecottage

The purpose of a complaints procedure is to make sure the firm has a means of dealing with complaints fairly, not to put hurdles in the way of customers.

The FSA defines a complaint as :

"any oral or written expression of dissatisfaction, whether justified or not, from, or on behalf of, a person about the provision of, or failure to provide, a financial service or a redress determination, which:
(a) alleges that the complainant has suffered (or may suffer) financial loss, material distress or material inconvenience; and
(b) relates to an activity of that respondent, or of any other respondent with whom that respondent has some connection in marketing or providing financial services or products, which comes under the jurisdiction of the Financial Ombudsman Service".

Incidentally, I think that any attempt to force a complainant to use a non-geographic phone number to complain would be a breach of FSA Rule 1.3.1A R which says, "These procedures must ensure that a complaint may be made free of charge." whilst rule DISP 1.3.2G says "These procedures should:

(1) allow complaints to be made by any reasonable means; and

(2) recognise complaints as requiring resolution."

With that in mind, an e-mail or a fax now will be treated as having been received on Tuesday (the next business day) and the eight weeks start running. Keep the fax receipt/copy e-mail, though. Fax is better if you have a fax modem because you have proof of receipt.

Parking_Trouble

Not very prominent on the Elephant site but this is their complaints process

http://www.elephant.co.uk/policyDocs/eleComplaints.pdf

Current Elephant T&C's

http://www.elephant.co.uk/policyDocs/EL51%201111%20Policy%20Book.pdf

They are probably going for this General Exceptions clause.

"You will not be covered for any liabilities you may have for any of the following:
1. Any accident, injury, loss, theft or damage which happens while your car is:
• taken or driven without your consent by a family member, spouse, partner or a person who normally lives with you "

Establish with Elephant exactly why they are pursuing you personally for the £14k. Ask them to send you ALL details of the claim.
Don't volunteer any more information about the incident until you know Elephants position and you have taken legal advice.

Not worth sending in a complaint until you have all the facts and can establish exactly what you wish to complain about. I am sure it will be on the lines that your sister did not take or drive the car without your consent. If the police don't think she is guilty of TWOC'ing then why should Elephant see it any different, hence the need to report the incident to the police.

thenudeone

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

They are probably going for this General Exceptions clause.

"You will not be covered for any liabilities you may have for any of the following:
1. Any accident, injury, loss, theft or damage which happens while your car is:
• taken or driven without your consent by a family member, spouse, partner or a person who normally lives with you "

I've never heard of such a clause before (and will now be checking my policies even more carefully!)

It would be very interesting to see whether such an exclusion clause would pass the "fairness" test required by the The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/2083/contents/made

Quentin

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

..... I am sure it will be on the lines that your sister did not take or drive the car without your consent. If the police don't think she is guilty of TWOC'ing then why should Elephant see it any different, hence the need to report the incident to the police.

The sister did twoc - passengers are as guilty as the driver!


So the OP will be a brave man to report this to the police!

dacouch

thenudeone wrote: »

I've never heard of such a clause before (and will now be checking my policies even more carefully!)

It would be very interesting to see whether such an exclusion clause would pass the "fairness" test required by the The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/2083/contents/made

All the EUI group eg Admiral, Elephant, Bell etc do as do a large portion of the cheap and not cheerful Insurers.

It's why we asked the OP who their Insurer is

Parking_Trouble

Quentin wrote: »

The sister did twoc - passengers are as guilty as the driver!


So the OP will be a brave man to report this to the police!

That is for the Police/CPS/Court to decide.

The T&C's don't necessarily equate with the legal definition which we covered earlier in the thread.

Parking_Trouble

thenudeone wrote: »

I've never heard of such a clause before (and will now be checking my policies even more carefully!)

It would be very interesting to see whether such an exclusion clause would pass the "fairness" test required by the The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/2083/contents/made

I believe it is unfair.

It leaves the policyholder or named driver open to unlimited liability. I am not worried about the uninsured being pursued but the purpose of insurance is to indemnify the named drivers against loss and these companies just keep adding more stuff to avoid paying out.

I believe Elephant/EUI's obligation under the Road Traffic Act is factored into the premiums and pursuit of policyholder/driver for recovery of the TP costs is just a way of bumping up revenue and profits.

Can't find where this has ever been tested in court. Otherwise I am sure these EUI companies would just issue court proceedings rather than elongated process of issuing threats and demands.

In this case the OP is being pursued for £14k for something they were not involved in other than trapped by an exclusion buried in page 15 of the T&C's. No damage to any vehicles but what looks like a typical PI claim, possibly settled pre-medical. What have Elephant/EUI done to validate or minimise the claim.

You really need to employ a lawyer to read the T&C's and advise you before signing up to an insurance policy these days. :mad: