Do I have any course of appeal? Car insurance

lee1985

I have been insured with the same insurer for 3 years now and my mum's boyfriend is a named driver on the policy. I am the main driver and always has been, my mum's boyfriend is a named driver since his car is a company car which he can't always rely on for private use. To be fair, he has actually never drove my car anyway, not that I can/it needs proving.

Anyway, he never told me he had any speeding convictions when I insured him, and recently he was made redundant and has bought his own car and taken out his own insurance with a sister company (declaring his points).

A few weeks later they wrote to me saying I now owe them another £350 which they have backdated saying that there was a discrepency with the policy details, obviously they've cross-checked his details and found that basically because the points were not declared on my policy on his driver record, that the extra is now due.

I will fight everything I can not to pay this. The insurance comes to an end in two weeks and I have already moved insurer anyway. I already have my proof of no claims despite the policy not ending for another 2 weeks and this has already been shown to my new insurer.

I cannot afford an extra £350 and if he would have told me he had points in the first place I would have not put him on the insurance, so it is a misunderstanding from all directions.

Additionally, had he have made a claim, the insurance would have been quick to refuse the claim when they found this out, however despite there never being any course of action they would still like to claim the money - I don't think so. Hardly ethical.

Totally understand the tough approach and the "it's your fault" replies I would expect to get which is perhaps right, but I am stubborn and will stand my ground if I am given an inch, and I will not this go. Because if it was the other way around, they wouldn't let it go would they. The insurance is nearly up, there have been no claims (which would have been rejected anyway) so they can shove their extra money. If there would have been a claim and I would have needed to pay up for it to be assessed, or they would have rejected a claim because of this, then fine, I would have held my hands up.

I was made bankrupt 2 years ago anyway, so they should never have even offered me monthly payments, and considering they are being paid from my other half's account because I don't have a bank account - it is needless to say I have cancelled the extra payment.

Will obviously pay it if I absolutely have to, but will even take this as far as the ombudsman if I have even an inch to stand on, let alone a decent case. I guess I don't really have a leg to stand on, but there are still some people out there who would fight things just out of principle in the hope that someone nice will understand (there are nice people out there) - and I am one of those people.

warwicktiger

Sorry, not what you want to hear, but you are guilty of non-disclosure, ignorance is no defence.

lee1985

It's fine.

In my eyes I would take a fairly simple view.

People can say what they like on insurance policies, they can even lie deliberately out of their !!! if they like.... no worries at all.
But when it comes down to a claim, the insurer simply refuses and keeps the premium - end of. The insurer wins, by still only ever paying out for valid claims. The monies they make for invalid claims - well that's just profit, and the own fault of the person.

So I sit and think fair enough I had an "invalid" policy, it would have been on my back had there have been a claim, because the insurer would be laughing, and yep it would have been my fault, whether I knew or not!

But there wasn't a claim - so they can shove wanting the extra money for a policy which has pretty much been and gone. They would have won, but they didn't, so there is no need to have the extra money, so it's a win:win situation for them. We'd have cancelled your policy BUT we still want the extra money. Ha. No.

Might be the wrong say to see it that way - but we're all different aren't we.

In the end, the insurer will always win unless the details are perfectly accurate, which is how things should be...

InsideInsurance

Because they accept it was accidental they have given you the opportunity to correct the mistake by repaying the underinsurance amount.

If you dont pay then of cause they can void your insurance and if you think that £350 is a lot for 3 years of an undisclosed speeding conviction wait until you see how much extra it'll cost your for having had a voided policy. This will stay with you for life and potentially impact your other classes of personal insurance.

If you blame your step father for not telling you and you were adding him as a favour to him why not get him to pay?

Faith177

They wouldn't have necessarily refused a claim they may have just asked you to pay the ap either out of the claim settlement amount or before they dealt with the claim.

vaio

Have a read of http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/46/46_non_disclosure_insurance.htm

you need to be arguing (via a complaint & FOS if necessary) that your non disclosure was "innocent"

Having said that, I do feel that as you've had the cover then you should pay for it as long as the £350 is an true reflection of the extra you would have paid had they know the truth.

Might be worth running some dummy quotes with & without the points as £350 does seem on the high side for a speeding conviction but I guess that depends on your total premium. If £350 extra is what it should have cost then I think you should pay it, if the points only add a significantly lower figure then I'd argue it on the innocent disclosure and unfair grounds.

What you must avoid is them cancelling your policy so if they won't budge then you need to pay it and reclaim via complaint/FOS later.

Stay away from the bankrupt/monthly payments/OH account stuff as it's irrelevant

starrystarry

vaio wrote: »

Might be worth running some dummy quotes with & without the points as £350 does seem on the high side for a speeding conviction but I guess that depends on your total premium. If £350 extra is what it should have cost then I think you should pay it, if the points only add a significantly lower figure then I'd argue it on the innocent disclosure and unfair grounds.

The OP said "speeding convictions" so it sounds like it's more than your bog standard 3 points.

real1314

lee1985 wrote: »

I have been insured with the same insurer for 3 years now and my mum's boyfriend is a named driver on the policy. I am the main driver and always has been, my mum's boyfriend is a named driver since his car is a company car which he can't always rely on for private use. To be fair, he has actually never drove my car anyway, not that I can/it needs proving.

Anyway, he never told me he had any speeding convictions when I insured him, and recently he was made redundant and has bought his own car and taken out his own insurance with a sister company (declaring his points).

So, the person you chose to include on your policy is the one that caused this problem.

A few weeks later they wrote to me saying I now owe them another £350 which they have backdated saying that there was a discrepency with the policy details, obviously they've cross-checked his details and found that basically because the points were not declared on my policy on his driver record, that the extra is now due.

Seems pretty fair - you've had the cover, so you should pay the fee it should have been.

I will fight everything I can not to pay this. The insurance comes to an end in two weeks and I have already moved insurer anyway. I already have my proof of no claims despite the policy not ending for another 2 weeks and this has already been shown to my new insurer.

If they cancel your no claims (as it could be deemed invalid) and you fail to tell the new insurer you will be setting up a new set of problems

I cannot afford an extra £350 and if he would have told me he had points in the first place I would have not put him on the insurance, so it is a misunderstanding from all directions.

It's not a mis-understanding in the direction of the insurance company at all. It's a "mis-understanding" between you and the b/f

Additionally, had he have made a claim, the insurance would have been quick to refuse the claim when they found this out, however despite there never being any course of action they would still like to claim the money - I don't think so. Hardly ethical.

They'd have paid out on any third party liability for a start; also on anything where his non-declaration was not pertinent to the cause.

Totally understand the tough approach and the "it's your fault" replies I would expect to get which is perhaps right, but I am stubborn and will stand my ground if I am given an inch, and I will not this go. Because if it was the other way around, they wouldn't let it go would they. The insurance is nearly up, there have been no claims (which would have been rejected anyway) so they can shove their extra money. If there would have been a claim and I would have needed to pay up for it to be assessed, or they would have rejected a claim because of this, then fine, I would have held my hands up.

I was made bankrupt 2 years ago anyway, so they should never have even offered me monthly payments, and considering they are being paid from my other half's account because I don't have a bank account - it is needless to say I have cancelled the extra payment.

Will obviously pay it if I absolutely have to, but will even take this as far as the ombudsman if I have even an inch to stand on, let alone a decent case. I guess I don't really have a leg to stand on, but there are still some people out there who would fight things just out of principle in the hope that someone nice will understand (there are nice people out there) - and I am one of those people.

You've little chance with the ombudsman. You should be directing your anger and your threat of action at the person who caused this: your mum's b/f.

Tell him you are going to sue him for the cost if he doesn't pay. He is the party at fault, not the insurer. :cool: