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

dacouch

dbramley wrote: »

I would say regardless of whether they say the strut brace is a modification or not it should have had no contribution what so ever to the accident you were in. Therefore I don't think they've made the correct decision here.

Fitting different brakes, performance parts, wheels etc. could have all had a bearing. A strut brace I don't think so

It's not always whether the modification makes the vehicle more likely to be stolen or in an accident. Many Insurers form the opinion that a customer who modifies their car may drive in a more aggressive manor than a customer who does not modify their car.

If the Insurer falls into the first category and declines to offer cover for customers with struts and / or any modifications then they are perfectly entitled to void a policy when the modifications discovered.

If however they would have offered cover for the strut had it been declared and the non disclosure was not intentional then they would normally be obliged to pay a claim and not void the policy

Richard53

fivetide wrote: »

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.

I emailed the insurers and had a reply today.

Thank youf or your recent correspondence. We have notified your insurance company of the new modifications to your motorcycle, and they have advised that all is in order.

I'm keeping a copy of my letter with that attached to it along with all the other documents. Thanks to all for the advice.

I still have a lot of sympathy for the OP, but I relieved to have got this out of the way.

rev_henry

So, you originally tried to declare the strut brace, and they said 'We don't care'?
Now a few years later they've decided they do care and are voiding the policy?

So I'd say it all hinges on what questions they asked you at renewal. If they said 'have you modified it in the past year?' or 'are there any new modifications?' then you'll have a leg to stand on. If they asked 'are there any modifications whatsoever?' then less so.

I may be legally incorrect but I don't think its unreasonable to assume if you've already told them something you don't need to tell them again unless they explicitly ask.

Either way, your next step is to escalate the complaint to the FOS.

Does make me wonder how many people (mainly silly boys) are running around without cover due to their mods, unwittingly or otherwise.

Slowhand

rev_henry wrote: »

So, you originally tried to declare the strut brace, and they said 'We don't care'?
Now a few years later they've decided they do care and are voiding the policy?

So I'd say it all hinges on what questions they asked you at renewal. If they said 'have you modified it in the past year?' or 'are there any new modifications?' then you'll have a leg to stand on. If they asked 'are there any modifications whatsoever?' then less so.

I may be legally incorrect but I don't think its unreasonable to assume if you've already told them something you don't need to tell them again unless they explicitly ask.

Either way, your next step is to escalate the complaint to the FOS.

Does make me wonder how many people (mainly silly boys) are running around without cover due to their mods, unwittingly or otherwise.

Please read what's typed. The insurance company that the OP declared the mod to is a previous one and NOT Direct Line.

cocobrice

Buzby wrote: »

Could I also say, that you now MUST declare when your new insurer asks if you had any policy declined or cancelled. If you don't the new policy will also be voided - irrespective of the vehicle.

I have done so since I was aware of the decision. This has made me realise that I am not only getting three times the price now, but also 90% of the insurers will not consider providing me with a quote at all...

Part of why I think this is very harsh punishment. It is something that will not go away with the time, it will continue influencing any future insurance dealings. I am in fear every time I have to drive, what if anything goes wrong again... is hard to put up with that.

cocobrice

Slowhand wrote: »

Please read what's typed. The insurance company that the OP declared the mod to is a previous one and NOT Direct Line.

Thank you Slowhand, that is correct, it was a different insurer at the time. One other thing I have not yet mentioned, not sure if it will play in my advantage, the car has been repaired by a third insurer about 5 years ago from a damage to near side wing and bumper that happened while stationary. They did not say anything about the strut at the time. Repairs would have required lifting up the bonnet...

I don't think the strut bar had any relevance to this last accident either since it happened in straight line on a 50 mile an hour A road. I don't think it had any effect on car handling in my view, with or without seemed the same. To me it was only cosmetic.

What played in my disadvantage, I gather, both cars (hpi checked) are write off, mine sand the one in front. According to engineers report my damage at back is minimal and driver claiming he was able to stop before been hit at back. I expect to be declared at fault in the best case 70-80% if not at 100%. So it is all about the money... voiding policy guarantees transfer of liability.

The only way to look at this on the positive side as my wife said, It could have been worse, we should be grateful to still be in one piece.

I have taken legal advice on this, currently contract and correspondence are reviewed... Will keep you updated.

vaio

you really need to follow the advice given in post #32 with the possible addition of a dummy quote to find out if they would have offered cover had they known about the modification

dacouch

Please be careful with legal advice, a solicitor will normally recommend legal action and court. This obviously generates fees for the lawyer.

The Ombudsman is free and needs no legal representation.

The ombudsman is biased towards the consumer, they do not look at what the legal documents say but what is fair.

A court will not look at what is fair but what the law says and case history.

If you go to the Ombudsman and are not happy you can still go to court afterwards, if you go to court first you cannot the go to the Ombudsman.

A lawyer will normally go down the court route as it generates fees, remember they get their fees whether you win or lose.