Refused Insurance from renewal date.

leon91

I havent got access right now to the policy, though I will post what hers says as soon as I can.

Proving we made a mistake is going to be difficult.
but why would we disclose all claims paid & unpaid
if we were trying to hide other claims?

surely that makes sense to most people.

but they have re-iterated again since, that they would cover us for buildings.

Quentin

leon91 wrote: »

.........I should say aswell:

the underwriters are happy to cover the building from the renewal
not the contents.

You are lucky and may have to stay with them for ever if you cannot get this refusal to renew reversed!

Other insurers usually simply refuse to quote once they discover you have this in your history.

If renewal of the contents is imminent start now on searching for another insurer who will take you on - otherwise you will end up having her contents (and yours) uninsured!

rs65

leon91 wrote: »

Proving we made a mistake is going to be difficult.

I don't think you can prove it, as such. You need to convince them it was a mistake.

As they are offering buildings cover they clearly don't have an issue insuring your grandmother/you. It sounds like the frequency of contents claims (with a value or not) is their concern. An option might be to ask if they will offer renewal with a slightly higher excess. This should help them as they won't be involved in small claims but you would need to realise that you won't be able to make any small claims and your contribution to any larger claims will be greater. It's not a great solution but might help you out of your current situation.

2sides2everystory

dacouch wrote: »

All of the recent proposal forms from CUE members I've seen mentio they will share claims data with CUE and will check it.

Yes, my point exactly, so QED insurers have all the information they need to underwrite the past claims record before the contract starts so it is gross that they accept the premium (steal it) with no intention of paying a claim if one arises.

Is the following new information to this thread?

leon91 wrote:

... was in 2008 - december for a tv and were given £500

So was this was the elusive second previous claim you forgot to disclose?

as we have always had insurance - and made maybe 5 actual claims
( paid ) in 15 years and them being all other than the TV before 2007
its understandable how an older person could forget one.

we , likemost, would rather not use an insurance provider to claim
unless there was a significant loss

ok, the iPad wasnt much - but with it being a theft rather than just breaking
we felt it best go through the insurance.

Unfortunately there is perhaps an unusual pattern of claims emerging, leon, especially if as you say, you haven't claimed unlessthere was a significant loss. You may think 15 years is a long time but I have had home insurance for 35 years and have submitted just two modest claims - one for a camera snatch in Paris and one for a one minute burglary - cds and another camera, and no claims for the past 15 years! Oh ... and I forgot one ! (yes me too!) A modest claim for roof damage in the storms of 1989 was it?

What is still annoying is that rather than bring the matter of what they can see on the database to your attention before they accepted your business, now they are using a sledgehammer which isn't really directed at the pattern of claims history at all, it is directed at you as some kind of assumed fraudster for not telling them what they already knew.

cajef

leon91 wrote: »

was in 2008 - december for a tv and were given £500

as we have always had insurance - and made maybe 5 actual claims
( paid ) in 15 years and them being all other than the TV before 2007

That equates to three claims per year then a TV and now another claim, it is hardly surprising that with that level of claims the company on review has decided not to renew the policy.

*Scarlett

With an insruance refusal you will probably have issues getting insurance with the mainstream providers but you could try

http://www.homeprotect.co.uk/insurance-for-all/insurance-refused

2sides2everystory

cajef wrote: »

That is approximately three claims per year then a TV and now another claim, it is hardly surprising that with that level of claims the company on review has decided not to renew the policy.

Unfortunately, no matter what we think about our neighbours' propensity to claim off their insurance (yes I have met many who feel that if they don't claim back at least as much as they put in over the years then somehow they are failing themselves), I do think you may miss the point, cajef.

All that claims history information seems to have been available to the insurer via instant access databases before they accepted the contract. In any event, the reason they now give for refusal to renew is not unacceptable claims frequency, and not even that the iPad claim was a straw that broke the camels back. No, somewhat ridiculously and falsely, it is non disclosure of material fact.

They are clumsy and careless with the insured's personal data.

Sgt_Pepper_2

As we appear unable to get a straight answer out of the op is it any wonder he is having problems with the insurance company?

2sides2everystory

As we appear unable to get a straight answer out of the op is it any wonder he is having problems with the insurance company?

Oh come on Sgt P, that wasn't a very helpful comment and suggests you haven't attempted to give the OP any benefit of the doubt when you skimmed through this thread and made your judgement. What answers are not straight ?

If you are referring to whether the op is part of his grandmother's household then we were all a bit skeptical when we read the first couple of posts. Even yesterday rs65 wasn't sure about who owned the iPad and whether the policy was in joint names, but then had a rethink and realised that it doesn't really matter. Leon is part of his grandmother's household - he even has his guitars specifically noted on the policy.

A home contents policy has always extended to include members of the family living with the policyholder (wordings vary slightly between insurers but it isn't very relevant here since it has been rightly assumed from the outset that leon must live with his grandmother).

We apparently live in a new world where we are frequently told the average age of a first time buyer is 38, rents are sky high, and most people's grandchildren will now have to pay nine grand a year just for tuition fees, so the scenario here isn't so unusual even if it doesn't reflect our own comfortable ordered lives. This world is also one where it is often grandparents who "sub" the grandchildren and pay for the one-off items they need to rub along.

Grandchildren with guitars and gadgets are not excluded, especially when the household has gone to pains to specify them correctly on the insurance.

Be fair. The insurers cannot claim the high ground on this one by a long chalk yet.

dacouch

2sides2everystory wrote: »

What is still annoying is that rather than bring the matter of what they can see on the database to your attention before they accepted your business, now they are using a sledgehammer which isn't really directed at the pattern of claims history at all, it is directed at you as some kind of assumed fraudster for not telling them what they already knew.

Most companies do not cross check the database against new customers until they have a claim which it appears is what More Than have done.

It will cost the Insurer's money to access the database and for the staff costs. There are companies that check all new applications against the claims data base, some that randomly check new applications and some that wait for a claim. These will be due to business decisions as to what's most economical for each Insurer.