VOID Car Insurance

mikey72

dacouch wrote: »

It means, if the Insurers or FOS decide it was inadvertent they will reissue the Insurance on the basis they would have originally if the correct information had been declared. This would be any changes in excess, premium etc etc.

However if they would not have accepted the OP as a client had they known about the DR10 then they're entitled to void the policy.

So either an increased premium payable, or still voided as it is now, so it's a no brainer really, the op needs to make a formal complaint, then refer it to the FOS if no joy.

Parking_Trouble

I agree with Mikey OP needs to kick off the complaints process. FOS will do that for you.

Dangermac

Ultimately, only the OP will know whether he genuinely throught that the conviction was spent after just 4 years.

These days, insurers seem very quick to void policies for innoccuous events (i.e non disclosed non-fault accident etc), however, in this case, I find it hard to have to much sympathy for the OP.

Given that common belief is that DR10's arent spent for 11 years (which actually is incorrect), I do struggle to believe that somebody thought that a DR10 was spent after 4 years.

Personally, I believe that it is more likely that the premium difference prompted the non-disclosure.

It will be interesting to see how the FOS view such a non-disclosure.

DM

MarkyMarkD

If the only consequence of "inadvertent" non-disclosure is having to pay the difference in premium, if (and only if) there is a claim, there would be no financial incentive for anyone to ever disclose anything. Surely it is for that reason that "inadvertent" must be a strict test.

As I suggested before, there is a world of difference between failing to disclose a nearly-spent 3 point £60 speeding fine, which would in many cases make no difference at all to the premium charged and very rarely result in refusal to insure, and a very significant offence which no reasonable person would forget about when buying insurance.

The FOS guidance was written in the context of trivial non-disclosure, where they felt it was unfair for insurers to simply avoid policies if there is a claim (but obviously to benefit from the premiums if there wasn't). In that situation, the bias was towards the insurers and that was unfair.

For material issues to result in rewriting the policy, and no other detriment to the non-discloser, results in a significant bias the other way and that isn't fair on the insurers (and hence, ultimately, those customers who do fully disclose).

dacouch

Hopefully it was not one of these nights he drove home

http://www.youtube.com/user/crodge25/feed

Parking_Trouble

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Then be prepared to go to court if your of repayment is not significant enough for them (in "my day" anything over 6 months for repayment required proof, failing proof we issued proceedings and the barristers used dont come cheap)

I suggest the OP gets some legal advice before disclosing any information to the Insurer.

There is no obligation to disclose anything at this stage. It will provide the insurer with information that may determine their chances of recouping some or all of the money which the OP quite rightly might not wish to give away at this stage.

If it does go to court there will be additional fees that the insurer can add to their claim should they win.
The Fast Track is used for claims £5k - £25k and it allocates one day in court according to the information on

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/ManagingDebt/Makingacourtclaimformoney/DG_195981

If the judge finds in favour of the insurer then there are other processes to enforce the judgment to get the money back. At this point the insurer has a number of options open to them, including serving the defendant with an order to disclose their finances.

As discussed earlier the OP need to go down the complaint/FOS route. The FOS are not bound by the law as such and can make decisions based on fairness to the consumer. More chance of reducing the OP's liability and getting a better outcome than going straight to court.

dacouch

Further to Mikey and Parkingtroubles posts, I believe the debt needs to be put on hold whilst it's being disputed.

It would be worth the OP posting on one of the Loans threads on MSE for advice on getting the Insurer to put the chasing on hold whilst they go through an "Official Complaint" and if required the Ombudsman. At the very least they will buy him some time

Parking_Trouble

The OP has nothing to lose and a lot to gain by submitting an official complaint and then taking it to the FOS for adjudication.

Let the FOS decide.

I doubt the adjudicator will read the posts on here to reach a conclusion.