car insurance cancellation

very_upset_lady

i am needing some help with a car insurance cancellation. Quote me happy have cancelled my insurance as I did not respond to an email asking me to complete some details.i check all my emails on my blackberry and for some reason the email they sent me went to the junk not to my inbox so I didnt see it before the cancellation email arrrived. I am not really bothered as was just going to look elsewhere for insurance and leave that company but it now appears that im uninsurable as ive had a policy cancelled. I am not a criminal and the only mistake ive made is not to check my junk emails reguarly, my quotes are now double as i am appartently such a risk. I am very upset as i have never done anything fraudelent or missed any payments, and now am viewed by other companies as such.
can cancellations be voided if due to genuine error?

huckster

This is a subject where you won't get agreement on here.

My opinion is that cancellations, voidances and refusals you have to disclose are ones where the Insurers have had an issue of non disclosure, suspected fraud, too many claims. i.e underwriting reasons, that have made the risk unacceptable to an Insurers.

I don't believe that communication or payment problems leading up to a cancellation are something that need to be disclosed. I would personally not disclose or see it as a reason to treat a customer differently. I would however, add notes as to what had happened with a previous Insurers and make sure the customer was not going to do the same. Some Insurers staff may take the view that some customers may have deliberately not returned documents to Insurers or provided missing information.

Suggest that you speak to an independent brokers near to you and they will assist you with this.

InsideInsurance

As you've found out, because you've had your insurance voided the premiums will have shot up but you must declare this voiding on ALL your insurances and you will find that most follow the same approach of refusing to provide cover or massive increases in premium.

Sometimes it is worth talking to the insurers and explaining the situation and some may be more compassionate. I have a lesser version of the problem because I have special terms applied to my Professional Indemnity insurance due to working in insurance but this is easier to get people to agree to override the automatic decision to decline or load.

I don't agree with Huckster on the payment front as clearly this is a risk to future insurers but do have sympathy on the communication issues ones. The problem is working out which people that claim they never received the comms asking for proof of NCD actually didn't receive it, which did and didn't act on it because they were going to do it tomorrow and which did and didn't act on it because they fraudulently claimed to have more NCD than they do.

huckster

InsideInsurance wrote: »

I don't agree with Huckster on the payment front

" This is a subject where you won't get agreement on here."

I did predict this.

I take the view that not everyone is trying to con the system and should all be punished. There are some very poor Insurers out there who appear to lose documentation that is sent to them. Very unfair for people to be penalised through no fault of their own. What about the recent RBS banking problems. Should people who have had policies cancelled, due to unpaid premiums caused by the RBS mess, be penalised by having to declare cancellations due to this ? I think not.

Quentin

huckster wrote: »

...I don't believe that communication or payment problems leading up to a cancellation are something that need to be disclosed.....

You are wrong to say you don't "believe" cancellations like this need to be disclosed.

Maybe this is your "opinion", and what you think should happen, but the OP is not helped by you advising no "need" to disclose (bearing in mind the far worse consequences of the non disclosure leading to a void policy after a big claim!)

huckster

Quentin wrote: »

You are wrong to say you don't "believe" cancellations like this need to be disclosed.

Maybe this is your "opinion", and what you think should happen, but the OP is not helped by you advising no "need" to disclose (bearing in mind the far worse consequences of the non disclosure leading to a void policy after a big claim!)

You don't have to restate the same opinion that you have expressed on numerous occasions. I still have not changed my mind, on this subject. Unless you can provide evidence from the FSA, FOS or ABI, I will remain of the same opinion.

By the way, I am not having a go at you. You are entitled to your views, as are other people who post to this site.

InsideInsurance

huckster wrote: »

" This is a subject where you won't get agreement on here."

I did predict this.

I take the view that not everyone is trying to con the system and should all be punished. There are some very poor Insurers out there who appear to lose documentation that is sent to them. Very unfair for people to be penalised through no fault of their own. What about the recent RBS banking problems. Should people who have had policies cancelled, due to unpaid premiums caused by the RBS mess, be penalised by having to declare cancellations due to this ? I think not.

So we don't need Paul the Octopus now we have the psychic Huckster?

I agree not everyone is trying to con the system but the challenge is working out which ones are and which ones aren't.

On the payment front, evidently if there is a failure of an independent 3rd party like the RBS issue then insurers would either be more lenient in the first place or at least reinstate the policy upon provision of evidence. Whilst insurers do vary, and many can be more strict about the first payment, for the majority we are not talking about someone who misses their payment on the 1st July and their policy is cancelled on the 2nd July for non-payment. The cycle of second attempts, chaser comms etc takes time, easily measured in weeks and more often in months.

Where it is "one of those things" where say the policyholder has become unemployed and simply cant afford the insurance but don't cancel it then the problem is that firstly the insurer loses monies by not being paid and having to go through the none payment/ bad debt cycle and so other insurers really are entitled to know this is a problem with this customer and price accordingly.

Secondly they are continuing to use a service they know they cannot pay for, back in the days of cheques being accepted its no different to those that would do their shopping and write a cheque above their guarantee limit knowing (or at least strongly suspecting) it will bounce.

huckster

Inside Insurance

Sorry for being pro consumer and pro common sense. Generally MSE is about being on the side of the consumer and not supporting unfair practices by companies.

InsideInsurance

The problem with many of these cases of "being on the side of the consumer" is that it is more about being on the side of A consumer and forcing the masses to carry the cost rather than the individual (I doubt many will realistically expect commercial companies to simply swallow the cost)

There will always be exceptions, but it is of little surprise that those insurers that charge admin fees are typically cheaper up front than those that don't. Is it fairer that those that use the service pay £50 or that everyone pays £10 irrespective of if they use the service or not?

Cancelled due to non-payment incurs costs, cancelled due to non-response costs money, investigating these cases to determine if they are accidental or intentional costs even more money and rarely would be conclusive. Should everyone be given the benefit of the doubt and we all pay an extra 5% insurance or should the small percentage impacted not be given the benefit of the doubt but a chance to appeal the decision and prove their innocence and if unable to convince both the insurer and the independent ombudsman then they alone pay a 100% loading?

Quentin

huckster wrote: »

You don't have to restate the same opinion that you have expressed on numerous occasions. I still have not changed my mind, on this subject. Unless you can provide evidence from the FSA, FOS or ABI, I will remain of the same opinion.

By the way, I am not having a go at you. You are entitled to your views, as are other people who post to this site.

But I am not stating any opinion!

When doing quotes you are asked to agree this (or similar wording):

Have not been refused car insurance renewal or had a policy cancelled

You telling the OP you don't believe they have to disclose their cancelled policy is surely your opinion on the concept of not disclosing a cancelled policy?

According to your stated "belief", the OP should not disclose her cancelled policy - but that would be a lie!

Then looking at the worst case, she follows your advice, lies, she then causes a third party an injury and finds her policy gets voided, and is subsequently bankrupted by the insurer!

huckster

Quentin

No I am suggesting that they phone Insurers or brokers to explain what happened and hope they find someone with half a brain, who will not penalise them for this issue.

Also the Insurers should not have recorded the cancellation as something which is of any concern to other Insurers. You will know, as you work in Insurance, that when a policy is cancelled, you enter the reason for the cancellation. Only certain reasons should be of any concern to other Insurers.

My first post recommended that they work with a decent local brokers. I am sure that you will agree with this.