Direct Line cancels insurance, in fear of a big debt arising

Crabman

artbaron wrote: »

I don't believe them. Get someone else to ring them up and quote for the exact same model of car with a strut brace. If they refuse insurance I'll send you a coconut. If they don't refuse then it appears they're refusing to pay out on false pretences, so make of that what you will.

+1.

OP (that's you cocobrice ) if you look at the Ombudsman's case studies you may be able to see how the Ombudsman looks at these issues:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=financial+ombudsman+case+studies+insurance+disclosure

That's just a google search I've done - if you have time then it's worth looking through their case studies to see whether there are other cases that apply to your circumstances.

JQ.

artbaron wrote: »

I don't believe them. Get someone else to ring them up and quote for the exact same model of car with a strut brace. If they refuse insurance I'll send you a coconut. If they don't refuse then it appears they're refusing to pay out on false pretences, so make of that what you will.

I had a modified car insured with Direct Line 4 years ago. It was a car I used for trackdays and they permitted a roll bar, harness, bucket seats and an induction kit. But as soon as I mentioned I was looking at tweaking the suspension, they said they would no longer insure the car. They were very clear they would not touch a car with non standard suspension. As such I waited until renewal, changed insurer and carried out the mods - front and rear strut braces and new dampers.

dacouch

rs65 wrote: »

I think the difficulty you will have is that no-one fits a strut brace for safety reasons. Why did you fit it?

Often it's not the effect (If any) a modification makes to a car, the Insurer is often more worried about covering the type of person who would modify their car.

Richard53

This thread has got me thinking. I have a few modifications to my bike (all practical, like 12v power outlet, tool tube, extra marker lights, panniers, i.e. not performance parts). I have never declared them to insurers. I expected that anything that took the value of the bike over the insured value would not be covered. In fact, apart from the panniers, I wouldn't even bothe claiming. I think I have based my non-disclosure on a vague recollection of a proposal form many years ago that said only performance modifications needed to be declared, and I have kept this in the back of my mind ever since. That could be a big error.

I now realise that it is unlikely, but possible, that my insurers could behave like Direct Line have here, and leave me not only without cover, but responsible for other people's damage as well.

I'm going to check my policy details and if necessary get in touch with them as soon as I get home. Thanks to everyone who has contributed to the thread.

OP, I have a lot of sympathy for your position. It's clear to most that it is a genuine oversight or mistake, but unfortunately insurance companies, especially in the current eceonomic climate, are far fom being charitable bodies. I am also puzzled as to why you fitted the brace to a mild family car in the first place. I have always assumed that people who fit strut braces were people who used their cars for track days, or wanted people to think they did. I can see why it scares the insurance industry off.

dacouch

Motorbike Insurers are often more sympathetic to modifications.

Give them a call

Quentin

Richard53 wrote: »

I now realise that it is unlikely, but possible, that my insurers could behave like Direct Line have here, and leave me not only without cover, but responsible for other people's damage as well.

I'm going to check my policy details and if necessary get in touch with them as soon as I get home. ......

If they tell you "no problem", then ask them to confirm you have notified the mods. (We see lots of posts where telephone conversations with insurers service centres over significant matters "cannot be traced" in the future resulting in bad consequences)

fivetide

Richard53 wrote: »

This thread has got me thinking. I have a few modifications to my bike (all practical, like 12v power outlet, tool tube, extra marker lights, panniers, i.e. not performance parts). I have never declared them to insurers. I expected that anything that took the value of the bike over the insured value would not be covered. In fact, apart from the panniers, I wouldn't even bothe claiming. I think I have based my non-disclosure on a vague recollection of a proposal form many years ago that said only performance modifications needed to be declared, and I have kept this in the back of my mind ever since. That could be a big error.

.

I hope you aren't insured with Bennetts - They'd invalidate you for having a sticker:

http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/News/newsresults/General-news/2011/November/nov1711-top-bike-insurer-says-no-more-than-three-mods/

You should declare these mods. The insurance is based on risk. With panniers your bike might actually be at a higher risk of theft because most stolen bikes are broken into bits and yours has more saleable parts than one without panniers etc. Therefore, you could imagine your premium might increase. Even if it doesn't, you are leaving yourself open to exactly this sort of issue.

cocobrice

Crabman wrote: »

+1.
OP (that's you cocobrice ) if you look at the Ombudsman's case studies you may be able to see how the Ombudsman looks at these issues:

...Sorry can't post links as a new user...

Thanks for the link Crabman. Very helpful.

cocobrice

rs65 wrote: »

I think the difficulty you will have is that no-one fits a strut brace for safety reasons. Why did you fit it?

I don't know really. I guess I was "lucky" to walk into Halfords and find that on the reduced shelf. Told it looked cool. It took 10 min to fit and that's how it happened...

I guess we all make silly mistakes, when younger. Now I would never do that again. I've learned my lesson, but it appears to be a very expensive way to know.

This is why I think this is a very harsh punishment for what happened. I simply wasn't aware of the consequences, as I think other people would easily get caught out in a similar way.

Whatever the final outcome does not seem it is going to play in my favour...

It feels that the insurer can just get out of the situation relatively easy. Where is they don't really do much to ensure they are aware of all little details, they can later play in their advantage. And there is no compassion to the customer.

It makes you seriously doubt if the policy is there to protect you and others around or money in someones pocket. Once punished, I tried 7-8 insurers and they would not insure me. Makes me feel worse than a criminal and it has had a big effect on work and family relationship. I don't have a long standing record of criminal offences or anything like that. I just want to get on with my normal life... Let me pay a fine, increased future premiums etc...

It is bad isn't it? The insurer needs us all - "the customer", but it offers an unfair agreement in some way.
* It is illegal to drive without an insurance and that is fair.
* It is illegal to own a vehicle without an insurance that is not declared off the road... so it is not just about the driver, but make sure you pay insurance tax on all vehicles.
When "the customer" makes a mistake he/she is put against the wall in such way that leads to a desperate situation that can easily result in more unlawful action...

No wonder the UK has the highest or one of the highest number of uninsured drivers in Western Europe... If it carries on like that I don't know where it is going to end.

dacouch

You need to read the following link and see what classification you come under. I would guess it would be "Inadvertent" which means the Insurer would rewrite the policy to the basis they would have done if you had declared the omitted information.

What this means is they work out what they would have done and then apply any increased excesses, terms or increases in premium had they known the information at the start of the policy. It also means that had they known the information and would not have offered cover had they known about the strut then they can void the policy eg treat the policy as if it never existed. Although they will need to pay any valid third party claims but will normally come after you to reimberse them.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/46/46_non_disclosure_insurance.htm

Just like any other business, an Insurer is entitled to chose what type of customers they deal with. If they do not want to cover customers with engine struts then they are perfectly entitled to providing they ask clear questions regarding modifications.

You asked DL about the issue when you first took out cover with them so were aware it was a modification and could potentially affect the cover.

Why did you not declare it to them on the subsequent times you took out cover with them?

If you can prove you asked them initially it may help your case on the subsequent policies you took with them especially if you declared it to other companies you dealt with (Which I assume you did not).

It should be remembered that an Insurer is entitled to change their acceptance criteria for modifications for new customers which you would have been had you gone elsewhere and then come back to DL

You need to send them a short, concise and polite letter by recorded delivery headed "Official Complaint" which they will have to properly investigate. Should you still not be happy after receiving their response you can then take it to the Ombudsman.

In my experience (I have not connections with DL) they are a fair company who abide by the rules. If they would not have covered you had you declared the information then you have no case. However if they would have covered you then you have a case.