Why has my insurance almost doubled because I did not sorn my vehicle?

MarkyMarkD

The OP didn't simply have a "misunderstanding" of not returning proof of NCB. They also clearly failed to notify the insurer of their change of address which is also a material matter. It's not surprising the policy was cancelled.

If the insurer had viewed it as an immaterial misunderstanding, they would have allowed the policy to be reinstated once the "misunderstanding" was resolved.

talulah25

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

The OP didn't simply have a "misunderstanding" of not returning proof of NCB. They also clearly failed to notify the insurer of their change of address which is also a material matter. It's not surprising the policy was cancelled.

This is exactly what I was thinking!

What I'm struggling to understand OP is why did you insure a new car at your old address if you obtained it whilst in the process of moving??

Also...the term 'misunderstanding' is being banded about, not REALLY a 'misunderstanding' though is it?! The policy was rated on 2 years NCB, proof of which was not provided. The insurance company would have been required under the Road Traffic Act to give 7 days notice before cancelling a policy, this notice would have been issued to the address the policy was rated on which OP no longer resided at.

This is, as above post says, failure to disclose a material fact, not a 'misunderstanding'!

raskazz

Quentin wrote: »

If he can get a letter stating they cancelled his policy due to a misunderstanding, and that he need not consider it a disclosable matter when getting quotes elsewhere, then he would certainly be protected!

It would depend upon how the letter was used.

Were to OP to take out a policy with a new insurer without disclosing the cancellation, it doesn't matter what the letter from another insurer says - there is still a failure to disclose a fact that is material to the new insurer. The old insurer cannot determine what has to be disclosed to the new insurer - apart from matters set out in law eg convictions under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.

Anyway this is probaly all moot - no insurer that I know would write a letter stating that any cancellation was immaterial to a future insurer. Purely because if the new insurer found the previous cancellation undisclosed, and deemed it unacceptable, the insurer who had issued the letter would be on the end of a complaint that could be unlimited in costs (e.g. if the new insurer was voiding the policy due to non-disclosure and attempting to recover TP payments).

Quentin

Although I do agree with everything you say, there are occasions (not necessarily this one, and it was of course me who originally alerted the OP to the trouble he is now in with a cancelled policy to disclose), when a policy is cancelled and a mistake has been made.

When the mistake has been realised, then the insurer responsible will concede that the cancellation was in error, and is "expunged".

Thus the affected policyholder (with evidence that the cancellation was in error) need not answer "yes"!

So far in this case, all we know is that the OP feels the cancellation is not discloseable as it came as a result of a "misunderstanding", and I have suggested a route for him to take to ensure he appreciates the situation, otherwise it does look that he will continue to mistakenly keep answering "no" till it catches up on him!

talulah25

Quentin wrote: »

Although I do agree with everything you say, there are occasions (not necessarily this one, and it was of course me who originally alerted the OP to the trouble he is now in with a cancelled policy to disclose), when a policy is cancelled and a mistake has been made.

When the mistake has been realised, then the insurer responsible will concede that the cancellation was in error, and is "expunged".

Thus the affected policyholder (with evidence that the cancellation was in error) need not answer "yes"!

So far in this case, all we know is that the OP feels the cancellation is not discloseable as it came as a result of a "misunderstanding", and I have suggested a route for him to take to ensure he appreciates the situation, otherwise it does look that he will continue to mistakenly keep answering "no" till it catches up on him!

If this is the case, and for some reason the original insurers were to concede, would the most straightforward route for OP not be to ask said insurers if they are willing to take the risk on their books once again?

Quentin

Were this the case, some folk would not want to continue doing business with an insurer who had messed them round!

talulah25

Quentin wrote: »

Were this the case, some folk would not want to continue doing business with an insurer who had messed them round!

Hmmm OK, think we're getting away from the fact it is actually OP's fault that the policy was cancelled! Let's not kid ourselves, or OP for that matter, that this is likely to be resolved in his favour!

The only reason for my second comment was that I realised my first post on this thread was not so helpful to OP pointing out something that in hindsight he (hopefully) can see to be true. My line of thought was that insurance companies tend to be more on the lenient side if they are the last known insurers, then they can be absolutely certain of the underlying reasons for the cancellation and certain that there will be no backlash in the future...no?