Car Insurance & Redundancy: Warning!

mikey72

Quentin wrote: »

It can't be an "expectation", just a "hope"!

It is the customer who has changed the goalposts in this instance, not the insurer.

When insurers cancel because they have decided to pull out (or whatever), then they do give full pro rata refunds, but these circs are different.

Instead of steaming in with a written complaint, it might be more productive for the op to appeal to a manager, explaining the circs and seeing if some goodwill can be gained (maybe in exchange for staying with them).

Though we are talking bisl here!

I think all my insurance t&c's have pro rata refunds when the insurer cancels.

raskazz

Quentin wrote: »

It can't be an "expectation", just a "hope"!

It is the customer who has changed the goalposts in this instance, not the insurer.

It can be an expectation because where a mid-term amendment is requested which the insurer cannot accommodate, the FOS expects the insurer to cancel pro-rata.

In this case, the insured has merely advised of the change in occupation (which they are obliged by policy terms to do) - the insured is not the one requesting cancellation - the insured wanted the policy to continue - the insured is only cancelling because the insurer is compelling them to. As the insurer is compelling the insured to cancel it is the cancellation terms that they would have to follow that should apply - i.e. pro-rata.

raskazz

Hoxy_Hoggins wrote: »

I didn't move the goalposts of my own choosing. I rang to comply with the conditions of the policy and inform of change. That I've lost 4 months / £100 of cover with no real refund is the issue. I don't drive any less well just because I'm not working at present.

My prime concern is that this may haunt me because insurers seem to need to know if you've ever "had a policy declined, CANCELLED, or special conditions imposed?" Any advice on this would be welcome as, despite requesting a callback at 5pm today from a manager at BISL to clarify this point, it has yet to happen... I don't want this hanging over me - what has happened here is bad enough without being penalised forevermore for something which is not my fault.

TIA.

Has the insurer formally exercised their right to cancel the policy in the manner in which the contract stipulates (normally 7 day recorded delivery letter to the policyholder's last known address)? If not, then you have not suffered an insurer cancellation.

If they have done this then you would be wise to phone future insurers to check that this is acceptable to them. Unless their underwriters are mentally deficient then this should not be an issue at all.

olly300

Hoxy_Hoggins wrote: »

I didn't move the goalposts of my own choosing. I rang to comply with the conditions of the policy and inform of change. That I've lost 4 months / £100 of cover with no real refund is the issue. I don't drive any less well just because I'm not working at present.

My prime concern is that this may haunt me because insurers seem to need to know if you've ever "had a policy declined, CANCELLED, or special conditions imposed?" Any advice on this would be welcome as, despite requesting a callback at 5pm today from a manager at BISL to clarify this point, it has yet to happen... I don't want this hanging over me - what has happened here is bad enough without being penalised forevermore for something which is not my fault.

TIA.

If they don't phone you then you are going to have to send a recorded delivery letter to their complaints department in the policy booklet they gave you.

Some insurers will attempt to phone you back in a reasonable amount of time if you do this while other insurers will pretend they didn't receive your letter, hence the need for using recorded delivery to send it.

movilogo

This shows that you need contact your insurer as little as possible.

Quentin

movilogo wrote: »

This shows that you need contact your insurer as little as possible.

Not really the best policy.

Insurers generally will check you out closely in the event of a claim.

Had the OP failed to contact his insurer, then subsequently been involved in a claim (maybe involving a third party), then the insurer would have been able to void the claim (on the grounds that had they known the truth, they would not have been covering the OP).

So no payment for any damage to his car, but worse, as any money paid out to the third party they would then chase the OP to repay to them!

thenudeone

raskazz wrote: »

In this case, the insured has merely advised of the change in occupation (which they are obliged by policy terms to do) -

I don't think the policyholder has, he's just lost his job. His occupation hasn't changed (yet), he's just unemployed. As long as he doesn't move into one of the high risk occupations (pub landlord, journalist, model, etc) it's unfair to e treated in this way IMO. Certainly worth pursuing.

Spiderham

thenudeone wrote: »

I don't think the policyholder has, he's just lost his job. His occupation hasn't changed (yet), he's just unemployed. As long as he doesn't move into one of the high risk occupations (pub landlord, journalist, model, etc) it's unfair to e treated in this way IMO. Certainly worth pursuing.

It's a change of employment status though, so they have to declare it and the insurer may deem that in itself as being a higher risk.