'Fault' insurance claim resulting in loss of annual premium

fred7777

Ok alternatively:

Driver A buys £600 insurance in Jan 2012.
In Feb 2012 he has an accident costing £500 and cancels his policy getting a refund of £550
Or to put it another way insurance company A gets paid £50 and pays out £500 loosing £450

Driver B buys £600 insurance in Jan 2012.
In Nov 2012 he has an accident costing £500 and cancels his policy getting a refund of £100
Or to put it another way insurance company B gets paid £500 and refunds £500 loosing £0

So this is that alternative and it isn't "fair" either.

Except that the insurance company publish full policy terms and conditions which all customers can examine before purchasing the policy. It's fair to impose those terms once they have been agreed to.

farmerboy

In response to your fictional scenario, then Yes I do think its fair. In actual fact I think that if you have an at fault accident your insurace should end and you have to renew. take this example:

Driver A pays £500 for 12 months insurance, has 4 accidents costing the insurance company iro £6000, his renewal comes in at £1000 due to the claims history.

Driver B pays £500 for the same 12 month period but has no accidents, cost the ins co nothing but his renwal comes in at £600 due to the actions of Driver A and others like them.

How is that fair? If insurance was cancelled after a at fault accident then Driver A would have probably paid well over £2000 for the 12 months and Driver B might actually see a reduction in his policy renewal

As for your actual situation, you may have a case of miss advice, but good luck in trying to prove it. Think you'll end up putting it down to expierience

farmerboy

fred7777 wrote: »

Ok alternatively:

Driver A buys £600 insurance in Jan 2012.
In Feb 2012 he has an accident costing £500 and cancels his policy getting a refund of £550
Or to put it another way insurance company A gets paid £50 and pays out £500 loosing £450

Driver B buys £600 insurance in Jan 2012.
In Nov 2012 he has an accident costing £500 and cancels his policy getting a refund of £100
Or to put it another way insurance company B gets paid £500 and refunds £500 loosing £0

So this is that alternative and it isn't "fair" either.

Except that the insurance company publish full policy terms and conditions which all customers can examine before purchasing the policy. It's fair to impose those terms once they have been agreed to.

But neither would happen as you wouldn't get any refund if you had to claim. Its just down to chance as to when you have an accident.

fivetide

K-Lye wrote: »

Thanks cte1111. That is pretty much what I am trying to do at present. Fingers crossed they'll reinstate without too much of a fight.

Basically, you messed up rushing to cancel.

As cte1111 said and as you were informed you buy a 12 month policy which you have used, hence the lack of refund. However, that policy is still in force. You've paid for 12 months, you get twelve months.

If you had asked for it to be suspended for a bit while you got a new car the insurer may have done that and you'd have simply transfered the remainder of your policy to your new car but you cancelled instead.

It's not different to changing your car mid-policy. You bought 12 months, you get 12 months. You have not and are not being short changed.

The only fly in the ointment is if you get a car that is dramatically different to the old one (so the underwriter wants more money, which can happen if you change cars even without a crash) and of course there might be admin fees to pay as well.

K-Lye

fred7777 wrote: »

Ok alternatively:

Driver A buys £600 insurance in Jan 2012.
In Feb 2012 he has an accident costing £500 and cancels his policy getting a refund of £550
Or to put it another way insurance company A gets paid £50 and pays out £500 loosing £450

Driver B buys £600 insurance in Jan 2012.
In Nov 2012 he has an accident costing £500 and cancels his policy getting a refund of £100
Or to put it another way insurance company B gets paid £500 and refunds £500 loosing £0

So this is that alternative and it isn't "fair" either.

Except that the insurance company publish full policy terms and conditions which all customers can examine before purchasing the policy. It's fair to impose those terms once they have been agreed to.

Quite so but I would argue that the Insureres being big business (as opposed to indivudal drivers) have the responsibility to mitigate this risk through fair policy. Currently this is not the case and to excuse them is akin to saying well the Banks are excused for "misselling" PPI.

K-Lye

farmerboy wrote: »

In response to your fictional scenario, then Yes I do think its fair. In actual fact I think that if you have an at fault accident your insurace should end and you have to renew. take this example:

Driver A pays £500 for 12 months insurance, has 4 accidents costing the insurance company iro £6000, his renewal comes in at £1000 due to the claims history.

Driver B pays £500 for the same 12 month period but has no accidents, cost the ins co nothing but his renwal comes in at £600 due to the actions of Driver A and others like them.

How is that fair? If insurance was cancelled after a at fault accident then Driver A would have probably paid well over £2000 for the 12 months and Driver B might actually see a reduction in his policy renewal

As for your actual situation, you may have a case of miss advice, but good luck in trying to prove it. Think you'll end up putting it down to expierience

Again.. this is a calculated risk to Businesses and they account for these things in varying their premium prices, no claims, etc. It is not right they apply unbalanced policies unfairly penalising one driver over another when there is absolutely no basis in differetiating between the two in the example (other than 'when' they have their accident).

K-Lye

fivetide wrote: »

Basically, you messed up rushing to cancel.

As cte1111 said and as you were informed you buy a 12 month policy which you have used, hence the lack of refund. However, that policy is still in force. You've paid for 12 months, you get twelve months.

If you had asked for it to be suspended for a bit while you got a new car the insurer may have done that and you'd have simply transfered the remainder of your policy to your new car but you cancelled instead.

It's not different to changing your car mid-policy. You bought 12 months, you get 12 months. You have not and are not being short changed.

The only fly in the ointment is if you get a car that is dramatically different to the old one (so the underwriter wants more money, which can happen if you change cars even without a crash) and of course there might be admin fees to pay as well.

You might have missed my earlier post but I did indeed discuss this with them and cnaceled under their advice - they did not inform me I would lose my premium. Had I been aware I would not have cancelled so this forms the basis for my challenge back to them.

If they do not reinstate my policy then I will effectively have to pay twice for my insurance this year. Refer to the example - as Driver A how can I not be getting short changed? Even if I had cancelled this knowingly - it does not change the fact that Driver A is unfairly penalised in realtion to Driver B.

K-Lye

LET ME REITERATE...

The "fairness" I allude to is NOT in relation to Driver versus Insurer.

I am referring to the fairness between Driver A and Driver B.

Why is this such a hard concept to grasp?

fivetide

K-Lye wrote: »

LET ME REITERATE...

The "fairness" I allude to is NOT in relation to Driver versus Insurer.

I am referring to the fairness between Driver A and Driver B.

Why is this such a hard concept to grasp?

I didn't see you had called them and been advised to cancel, on that basis, they should re-instate because they should have told you that you did still have a policy and to add a new car when you get one.

However! Both drivers, A and B bought a product and used it. You do not get a refund on something you have actually used. Neither driver should cancel. Since you wrote that scenario, I assume you have actually realised that and the scenario is only a reflection of one possible outcome amongst many.

Why is that such a difficult concept to grasp?

K-Lye

fivetide wrote: »

I didn't see you had called them and been advised to cancel, on that basis, they should re-instate because they should have told you that you did still have a policy and to add a new car when you get one.

Agreed and hopefully it'll get somewhere.

fivetide wrote: »

However! Both drivers, A and B bought a product and used it. You do not get a refund on something you have actually used. Neither driver should cancel. Since you wrote that scenario, I assume you have actually realised that and the scenario is only a reflection of one possible outcome amongst many.

Why is that such a difficult concept to grasp?

The point is that this scenario is unfair and should they reject the reinstatement of my policy then I will very much be in this situation.

How can it be fair that potentially I should have to pay twice for my insurance in one year compared to a scenario where had this incident happened 6 weeks prior I would not?