Car Insurance- Stolen Car. MOT expired, Previous claim forgotten!! HELP

imd_2

Hi Guys

Just wondering if anyone can help. My dad is insured on his car with SAGA insurance and 4 wks ago his car was stolen from outside his house. Obviously he informed the police and insurance company etc and he has just been waiting to hear from either.

The insurance company came to take a statement and my dad informed them his MOT had expired (in April!! I know but in his older days he is becoming forgetful)
The gentlemen said dont worry and left.
They have wrote to him yesterday to inform him he had also not informed them of a claim made in December 2007 for £700. He had also forgotten to inform them of this (it was 5 years ago).

"Following notification of a claim our investigations have revealed that you have had a previous claim which was not disclosed at the inception of the policy.
In additon to this, our investigations have revealed the vehicle did not have a current MOT certificate, which is a condition of cover on our Motor Policies.
Previous claims are material facts which need to be correctly disclosed in order for acceptance of the risk to be assessed.
Had this claim been disclosed at inception cover would not have been offered as this falls outside out underwriting acceptance criteria.
In view of this, it follows that this polciy is void ab initio and is of no effect.
This means it was cancelled back to the inception date 9 sept 2012.
As a result your claim will not be paid. "
etc etc etc

I know my dad has made some fundemental mistakes and forgotten some crucial things but is there anything that can be done? I mean compared to the value of the car these things are minor. Would they not at least pay out a reduced % value of the car??

They have said this decision can be appealed but before wiriting to them I thought I would ask advise from anyone that can help?

Matthew_W

I find it hard to believe that a claim made 5 years ago and of such a low settlement would place you outside of their underwriting criteria to the point at which they would not have agreed to cover in the first instance. More likely is that they would have charged you an increased premium at inception had they been aware.

I suspect the real issue is that he did not have a valid MOT which invalidates his insurance.

imd_2

From what I have read on this forum not having an MOT does not invalidate insurance. It may reduce the amount in settlement but not make it completely null and void?

I just cant understand why a claim 5 years ago for such a minor amount can have that effect.

Perhaps I should go to the Financial Ombudsman?

FlameCloud

Go onto the insurers website and run a quote with the claim declared to see if they would have offered you a policy. If they would, then bring this up with them, all though bear in mind their underwriting criteria may have been different at the inception of the policy. The other way would be that they thought you had deliberatly witheld the information, but it does not appear they are going down this route.

The lack of a MOT would only be relevant if it was material to the claim.

raskazz

Matthew_W wrote: »

I suspect the real issue is that he did not have a valid MOT which invalidates his insurance.

It certainly does not!

Under ICOBS rules an insurer can only reject a claim for breach of warranty or condition if the circumstances of that breach caused or contributed to the loss.

As an MOT certificate has no bearning on the loss - the vehicle would still have been stolen even if it had possessed a valid MOT cert - the insurer cannot in any way use this term to repudiate the claim. Any settlement however could be reduced due to the absence of MOT as this would affect the car's market value at the time of loss.

The only basis for the insurer avoiding the policy is the non-disclosure. Does he (or any other driver under the policy) have any other claims and/or convictions in addition to the claim from December 07?

Edited to add: Their website only requests details of claims in the last 3 years - in the absence of a change in underwriting criteria, it would be impossible for a claim in 2007 to be a material fact for the purposes of underwriting a piece of business in 2011:

dacouch

When did your dad first take out the policy with Saga?

Does he have any other claims or convictions

longtimelurkersam

Get your dad to write a letter confirming that you have authority to deal with it on his behalf.

Ask them for a copy of the proposal papers then you will know for sure exactly what questions he was asked and how he answered them. Was it online or over the phone? If over the phone ask for a copy of the recording (probably need to submit a Subject access request under DPA at cost of about £10)

This is your starting point as to whether he non-disclosed and then you can look at whether any non-disclosure was material or innocent.

Push and push and go to the FOS if need be. It used to cost about £600 to take a case to the FOS and I suspect not a lot has changed from that perspective.

dalesrider

longtimelurkersam wrote: »

Push and push and go to the FOS if need be. It used to cost about £600 to take a case to the FOS and I suspect not a lot has changed from that perspective.

Just to make it clear its the Ins co that pay FOS. Not the OP.

longtimelurkersam

Oops thanks for that Dalesrider......

rs65

Definitely appeal the decision.

A current MOT is a condition of the Saga policy but has no relevance to the claim (although it may affect the value of the car).

If this policy was taken out in 2012 then a claim in 2007 is irrelevant as they only ask for 3 years. I would be surprised if a single claim would go outwith their acceptance criteria - although it is possible. A dummy online quote with slightly modified details will confirm.

It seems as if the theft occurred within a matter of weeks of the policy being incepted which no doubt places the claim under greater scrutiny.


ps He's forgotten a couple of things - are you sure he hasn't forgotten where he parked the car (sorry)

InsideInsurance

Whilst their direct website asks for the last 3 years did your father buy direct and on the website rather than going via an aggregator like Confused.com which does ask for 5 years?