void insurance disclosure

fiscalfreckles

My elderly father got muddled when switching insurers for his home cover lately and did not disclose a prior claim (genuine mistake, he thought it had happened more than 5 years ago.)
The company has since found out & voided the policy. They say that he has to declare this when taking out new insurance.
He has asked me to help him, so that he doesn't mess up again, does anyone know how much of an obstacle this is going to be in getting cover? I'm worried everyone will reject him, or would they just charge more?
I am talking to the original company to see if they will agree to simply cancel the policy instead of voiding (& effectively blacklisting my Dad!) but they haven't been very sympathetic so far.
The other thing I wonderd is, could we apply in Mum's name or are the records held with respect to the property?
Not trying to fiddle anything, just trying to help them out!

dunstonh

does anyone know how much of an obstacle this is going to be in getting cover?

It will be significant if you are using online sites. They like to cherry pick and non-disclosure is bright red flag they dont like.

I am talking to the original company to see if they will agree to simply cancel the policy instead of voiding (& effectively blacklisting my Dad!) but they haven't been very sympathetic so far.

It appears the company are treating it as intentional non-disclosure rather than unintentional. This may or may not be fair. If, at the point of application, the claim he failed to disclose was relatively recent (a couple of years) or a major claim (the sort you dont forget) then it is probably fair that it is classed as intentional. If it was a small claim and more than a few years ago (at point of application) then the FOS are more tolerant of errors and would expect insurers to be. The FOS publication give a few good examples (mainly on motor but the principle is the same and reflects what I said here)

The other thing I wonderd is, could we apply in Mum's name or are the records held with respect to the property?

That would just be giving even more non-disclosure and making it worse.

Quentin

As it is at the moment, the voided policy will cause problems - few (if any) off the peg insurers will be preptred to quote. See if a local broker (not swinton) can help getting cover with this problem.

As far as getting cover in your mother's name, this won't help, as the question asked is usually along the lines of "have you or anyone to be covered by the policy ever had a policy voided/cancelled"

fiscalfreckles

OK, thanks. Didn't really think using mum's name would help!

So, assuming that the original insurer will not change their mind, we either have to contact the FOS to challenge the decision, or proceed and disclose it to future insurers? Will we be asked directly "have you had a void policy?" and is there an opportunity to clarify at that point that it was an unintentional non-disclosure?
I can't believe that they are going to be sympathetic but maybe a broker will know who would be.
I want to get on with it though, as their home is currently un-insured.

Bravehearted_2

The FOS can't challenge the decision - it was a correct decision (tantamount to fraud by misrepresentation).

Try local brokers - you need to be prepared to accept the higher premiums.

TSx

You can argue on the basis it wasn't fraudulent or reckless misrepresentation (it was just a mistake). This will depend on how recent and large the claim is - whilst it is reasonable that you may forget a £29 freezer food claim 4 years ago, you're very unlikely to forget your whole house burning down last year.

If it was just a mistake, the FOS would expect the insurer to not void the policy (and just collect additional premium due) provided that they would have insured the policyholder if they'd known about the claim. Most insurers will cover someone with a single claim, providing it is low value & not subsidence, flood or liability.

You can fight it but whether you'll be successful depends entirely on how reasonable it would be to forget the claim.

edit: wrong link - the later version of the advice is here - look at the inadvertent non-disclosure section.

fiscalfreckles

It was a broken window about 4.5 years ago, Dad thought it was over 5 years ago (as that was the question). He didn't check - lesson learned, I suppose.
The silly thing is, I remember it was hardly worth claiming for at the time, by the time he'd paid the excess, wasn't a big claim at all.
What a muddle.

Quentin

If you are sure this is the only claim they are on about, then it is worth appealing their decision in writing (you say in the OP they haven't been sympathetic "so far" - but does this mean they have "rejected" an appeal, or fobbed you off on the phone? Any "complaint" needs to come from the policyholder, make sure it is headed "complaint", then go down their complaints procedure if it's not upheld)

dacouch

Bravehearted wrote: »

The FOS can't challenge the decision - it was a correct decision (tantamount to fraud by misrepresentation).

Try local brokers - you need to be prepared to accept the higher premiums.

I'm guessing you're not aware how the Ombudsman treats non disclosure

Freckles have a read of these links

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/1/non-disclosure.htm

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/46/46_non_disclosure_insurance.htm

vaio

I'd have thought that if the FOS rules on treating punters fairly mean anything at all then a decision to void the policy of an elderly policy holder for getting confused about whether a small broken window claim was 4.5 or 5+ years ago will get turned over once someone with an ounce of common sense looks at it.

Dangermac

Bravehearted wrote: »

The FOS can't challenge the decision - it was a correct decision (tantamount to fraud by misrepresentation).

Try local brokers - you need to be prepared to accept the higher premiums.

I suggest you stick to your day job, sonny.

The FOS draw a real distinction between intentional (or reckless) non-disclosures and innocent non-disclosures.

Your advice to the OP is really poor, and would let the poor chap think that there is no hope. Actually, I would suggest that there is a good chance that the decision can be overturned. I have personally intervened a few similar cases and have been successful.

DM