Insurance pay out u-turn: can they do it?

GHW

Bit of a long story but any advice is welcome.

My car was recently stolen after the keys were lost in the street.

After a long (2month) process, involving 2 hours of interviews with the insurer's investigating agency, they finally agreed to pay out. We found this out via a phone call; one to my wife, and one when i called back myself. On both occasions we were told that VW (who we leased the car off) would be paid off (£15k) and we would get the remaining £3k of the insurers £18k valuation. They decided to pay out without receiving the police report, on the evidence collected by their investigator.

A week later and still no cheque, I called them, to discover that before the cheque was sent they cancelled the payment, as the day they told us they would pay, they received the police report, and there was 'new information' they wanted the investigators to interview us about again. So now there's probably another 3 weeks or so of worry before we find out if they will pay up.

Given that all their calls are supposed to be recorded, can I press for payment on the basis that the phone call was legally binding?.

Any advice gratefully welcomed. Thx

shaun_from_Africa

GHW wrote: »

Given that all their calls are supposed to be recorded, can I press for payment on the basis that the phone call was legally binding?

Irrespective of the call being recorded, if new evidence or facts came to light before the money was paid out, I can't see that the insurance company have done anything wrong.

Do you have any idea what this new information might be?

It's possible that they have caught the person who stole the car and what they stated when being questioned differers from something that you said.
Nothing will happen now until you have been interviewed again, so the quicker you can arrange to get this done, the quicker it will all be finalised.

GHW

The new information is apparently in the police report. However I had a copy of this and there is nothing in there that we haven't told them in more detail already.

My point is if they have told you they are paying out, surely they should honour that? Whatever happened to being good to your word. If i did that to my clients I would expect to never work for them again, let alone attract new clients.

The interview is arranged for monday but clearly my concern is they are looking to wriggle out of paying.

wealdroam

I would go as far as saying that even if they had already paid you when they discovered new information that meant they have paid you too much or they should not have paid out at all, they would be correct to try and recovery money from you.

GHW

Oh well. Still total shysters if you ask me.

pinkshoes

GHW wrote: »

Oh well. Still total shysters if you ask me.

Given you dropped the keys in the street, then presumably it only took someone (opportunist thief) to press the unlock button and see which car flashed?

In which case, I see why they're not keen on paying out!

Was the car recovered?

neilmcl

GHW wrote: »

Oh well. Still total shysters if you ask me.

What, for not paying out over your negligence!

GHW

Wow what a nice community here, so pleased I signed up.

unholyangel

GHW wrote: »

Whatever happened to being good to your word.

People realised its easier to get rich trying to use every loophole available to their advantage. Sad, but true.

GHW wrote: »

Wow what a nice community here, so pleased I signed up.

Not sure why you'd say that.

Many insurance companies wont pay out when the actual keys are used - because then there has likely been a breach in the policy holders duty to take reasonable care. It may not be very compassionate, but at the end of the day they're a business, not a charity.

Just the same as many banks refuse to refund on charges that are made (even fraudulently) if the PIN is used.

Duty of care is something ingrained into us here on consumer rights board - since we deal with legalities of situations more than emotional/moral stance on situations.

If you think that was rude though, no idea what you'll think of some of our less subtle regulars :rotfl:

GHW

I made the remark because i post a legitimate comment asking if what my insurance company has done is ok, and get !!!! takers. Come on, be a grown up. Just cos you're online, doesn't mean you can forget your manners.

And sorry, my wife lost her keys. Getting the kids in the house, carrying stuff, I'm sure no one here has ever dropped anything. Why get !!!!!! about it?

My insurance policy states they do not need to pay out if the keys were in or on the car. They were neither. They've investigated it and established those facts, and were willing to pay on that basis. The police report established nothing new and I'm suspicious of this uturn.

And you're right. They are a business. One I paid my money to, to look after me when my car was stolen and and make a claim within policy. Of course I am emotional about it, I don't have £15k to hand to pay off the car. That's why I take out insurance...

unholyangel

GHW wrote: »

I made the remark because i post a legitimate comment asking if what my insurance company has done is ok, and get !!!! takers. Come on, be a grown up. Just cos you're online, doesn't mean you can forget your manners.

And sorry, my wife lost her keys. Getting the kids in the house, carrying stuff, I'm sure no one here has ever dropped anything. Why get !!!!!! about it?

My insurance policy states they do not need to pay out if the keys were in or on the car. They were neither. They've investigated it and established those facts, and were willing to pay on that basis. The police report established nothing new and I'm suspicious of this uturn.

And you're right. They are a business. One I paid my money to, to look after me when my car was stolen and and make a claim within policy. Of course I am emotional about it, I don't have £15k to hand to pay off the car. That's why I take out insurance...

There was only really one remark that I would class as perhaps a little blunt (in other words could have perhaps been sugarcoated). But on the flip side, if we are all adults, then why is sugarcoating necessary?

Not trying to get on at you about it and sorry if it feels like that. Just asking you to try and look at it from a different perspective. We have no emotional investment in your turmoil. Isnt it possible you're more sensitive than usual given the circumstances and that you do have an emotional investment?

Basically the insurance company are probably taking the viewpoint its easier to delay a genuine/accepted payout than payout wrongly on a claim and have to try and recoup.

Have they actually said the police report contained new information, that it may contain new information or that the report is the new information?