Wrong reg - a crime? BEWARE

Dangermac

dacouch wrote: »

Which would not be a problem with a decent Insurer who would investigate the situation and if they were satisfied it was an honest mistake would rewrite the policy on the correct basis with any adjustment in premium to be paid.

It's difficult to comprehend why an Insurer (Even one as bad as Hastings) would feel it justified to cancel / void a policy due to a customer insuring the incorrect car. Even if they do not feel it warranted to correct the Insurance to the right vehicle the OP has not done anything to the warrant voiding or cancelling a policy.

The mistake was 100% innocent - that is clear.

I do, however, suspect that the majority of insurers would take the same route as the current insurer.

DM

felix345

Thanks for your thoughts. I would like to add that the only reason I mentioned it was the same make/model is that the mistake came from using the go compare website which already had the reg number, make & model in. I never typed in the wrong reg I just saw a reg I guess I recognised and didn't realise it was my old reg. I don't blame Hastings for cancelling the insurance, that's not really the issue, they immediately sold me a new policy. I do have a problem with them cancelling it from the 4th but telling the police they had cancelled it from Saturday. I cannot believe it right that people who make honest mistakes should be treated as criminals & I do think the insurance companies have some responsibility to help you ensure you've submitted the correct info, you know, over above just sending you an e-mail link to your docs with a 3 week shelf life. These days we all get so much junk there it is simply too easy to miss. Believe me I won't again. I've asked around at work & it appears many people have had a similar error in the past but haven't been treated like this.

dacouch

Dangermac wrote: »

The mistake was 100% innocent - that is clear.

I do, however, suspect that the majority of insurers would take the same route as the current insurer.

DM

I've seen similar situations a few times, I also had plenty more where customers have failed to advise an Insurer when they've changed car.

I've fixed all with a call to the Insurer and a letter of explanation and possibly evidence of the mistake eg copy of log book for current car showing the change over date.

Back dating cancellation of the policy is a big no no, their own policy contractual obliges them to give seven days notice in writing which they obviously have not done.

Should they have an issue with the matter they should investigate it properly to work out whether the non mistake was "Inadvertent" etc and then rewrite the policy. Should they feel the mistake was not "Inadvertent" they should be voiding the policy from inception and refunding the premiums unless they feel the OP acted deliberately.

I cannot see how an Insurer would come to the conclusion that assuming the OP has not sold the car to a complete family member eg a third party that they have acted "Deliberately" as the OP would not benefit from it, in fact quite the opposite.

As I mentioned before, they should investigate the matter properly.

I think a complaint to the Ombudsman could result in a ruling against Hastings along with compensation.

starrystarry

dacouch wrote: »

Which would not be a problem with a decent Insurer who would investigate the situation and if they were satisfied it was an honest mistake would rewrite the policy on the correct basis with any adjustment in premium to be paid.

It's difficult to comprehend why an Insurer (Even one as bad as Hastings) would feel it justified to cancel / void a policy due to a customer insuring the incorrect car. Even if they do not feel it warranted to correct the Insurance to the right vehicle the OP has not done anything to the warrant voiding or cancelling a policy.

I don't think the insurer has voided this contract. It is void, full stop. There was a mistake as to the subject matter of the insurance contract, therefore in law it is void. It's the difference between a void contract and a voidable contract. This one wasn't voidable, it was void. It never existed.

dacouch

starrystarry wrote: »

I don't think the insurer has voided this contract. It is void, full stop. There was a mistake as to the subject matter of the insurance contract, therefore in law it is void. It's the difference between a void contract and a voidable contract. This one wasn't voidable, it was void. It never existed.

If they're saying the policy never existed why would they cancel the policy from the 4th Feb rather than avoid it from inception?

It either never existed in which case refund the premiums or they correct the mistake. If they decide to cancel they cannot pick a day in the past and cancel it from them, they have to give the OP seven days notice as per the policy

starrystarry

dacouch wrote: »

If they're saying the policy never existed why would they cancel the policy from the 4th Feb rather than avoid it from inception?

It either never existed in which case refund the premiums or they correct the mistake. If they decide to cancel they cannot pick a day in the past and cancel it from them, they have to give the OP seven days notice as per the policy

Agreed, they've made a shambles of it. Sounds like they're not saying it's void, they're treating it as voidable. I think they're wrong but would stand corrected if there are any legal eagles out there. I'm going off what I learned from studying insurance law, but I don't claim to be expert (passed the CII exam by one point :-) )

dacouch

Wipry wrote: »

DOC? Might they have had to pay a third party claim during the time on cover?

Not really as the DOC is not valid if...

"Your insurer will not indemnify you where the insured vehicle specified in the current Schedule, which forms part of the
Policy, has been disposed of or has become the subject of a total loss"

Dangermac

dacouch wrote: »

I've seen similar situations a few times, I also had plenty more where customers have failed to advise an Insurer when they've changed car.

I've fixed all with a call to the Insurer and a letter of explanation and possibly evidence of the mistake eg copy of log book for current car showing the change over date.

Back dating cancellation of the policy is a big no no, their own policy contractual obliges them to give seven days notice in writing which they obviously have not done.

Should they have an issue with the matter they should investigate it properly to work out whether the non mistake was "Inadvertent" etc and then rewrite the policy. Should they feel the mistake was not "Inadvertent" they should be voiding the policy from inception and refunding the premiums unless they feel the OP acted deliberately.

I cannot see how an Insurer would come to the conclusion that assuming the OP has not sold the car to a complete family member eg a third party that they have acted "Deliberately" as the OP would not benefit from it, in fact quite the opposite.

As I mentioned before, they should investigate the matter properly.

I think a complaint to the Ombudsman could result in a ruling against Hastings along with compensation.

Where insurers issue a blanket certificate, it is fairly easy for them to backdate changes of vehicles, because in theory they would be liable anyway by virtue of the blanket certificate.

Because personal insurances tend now to involve specified certificates, I would suggest that it is highly unlikely that insurers would backdate a change of vehicle.

However, to be fair, if you are more involved with Privater Car insurance day-to-day, then maybe you have a better current handle on this, but I have to say that I would be extremely surprised.

I havent fully read the issue surrounding the cancellation, but it does seem that the insurer may well have acted outside their contractual obligations.

However, I would recommend caution before you get the OP's hopes up with regards to the FOS reinstating the policy and issuing compensation, because frankly, I doubt that is going to happen. The OP insured the wrong vehicle, and the insurer acted on bona fide instructions.

If the Police/CPS proceed with the prosecution/conviction, the OP will have the IN10 Code on his licence before the FOS get round to adjudicating on this case.

DM

felix345

:TThanks to all of you for your comments. we sent a formal complaint letter to Hastings & they have reinstated the insurance & therefore the police have stopped their action too. Many thanks for the advice - I don't think my complaint would have been so successful without your advice. Thanks

spacey2012

The police were on a sticky wicket as case law exists which judged that police do not have any authority to "convince" any insurance company to cancel anyone's insurance as it falls outside the data protection exception limits of information they can request.