Car insurance issue

dacouch

airtool wrote: »

ZOZO23 states that the sister is the fiesta legal owner and also the policy named main driver.
Where the payments are coming from is totally irrelevant unless they can prove that she was not the actual physical main driver?.And how they would go about proving that if they lived close to one another i just do not know since both were named to drive the vehicle on the policy .

Where the instalments are coming from and / or whose account the money to buy the car are certainly highly relevant when investigating a suspected fronted policy

Zozo23

I see the different views people have on this. Surely the fact that me and my sister have been on the same policy on the older car previously as well as now has to have a bearing on the outcome. I totally understand that the premium being paid by me makes it seem like I use the vehicle more but that just isn't the case.

Car was only used if/when one of us had to pop out.

We just want to know where we stand with this, as we are being accused of something we haven't done. Been reading on the ombudsman site about fronting and those cases seem to be fairly obvious, I.e private license plate in sons name.

The insurance premium we were paying for the vehicle was still high, something we took into account, so it wasn't a way of trying to get a cheaper quote for myself or my sister.

dacouch

Who drove the car immediately before it was stolen and what were they using it for eg shopping trip, work etc

Zozo23

I drove the vehicle last. Took my parents to the local supermarket and then overnight the vehicle was taken.

Cpu2007

I agree with airtool. Yes that fact that payments have gone through your account makes it suspicious, but only in the eyes of the insurance companies. You, even if not the named/main driver, policy holder etc. might have paid for the car or insurance for different reasons, personals/financials or any other. This doesn't give them the right to blame you for fronting; obviously they can because at the moment you are falling under their domain but what I would suggest you to do is to take this matter further.
Contact an ombudsman, explain them the situation and emphasize the fact that they insurance is trying to blame you for fronting on the basis that you have paid for the insurance/car, regardless of the fact that your sister uses the car most of the time and is the main driver,policy holder.

in_my_bumble_opinion

You should fight this to the end. Be consistent, polite, clear and concise in all your submissions to the insurers and/or the ombudsman and I believe you will win through in the end.

Zozo23

Thank you for the replies everyone it is appreciated. I have sent off the statement they asked for (even though they have this already), so we will wait for their answer.

It is just very annoying that you do everything by the book and in the end you get shafted by these companies. People getting paid for fake injuries/accidents is ok, but when they get a genuine case they refuse to!

I will update in due course.

Thanks

dacouch

Cpu2007 wrote: »

I agree with airtool. Yes that fact that payments have gone through your account makes it suspicious, but only in the eyes of the insurance companies. You, even if not the named/main driver, policy holder etc. might have paid for the car or insurance for different reasons, personals/financials or any other. This doesn't give them the right to blame you for fronting; obviously they can because at the moment you are falling under their domain but what I would suggest you to do is to take this matter further.
Contact an ombudsman, explain them the situation and emphasize the fact that they insurance is trying to blame you for fronting on the basis that you have paid for the insurance/car, regardless of the fact that your sister uses the car most of the time and is the main driver,policy holder.

Do you mean this Ombudsman?

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/7/july-innocent-non-disclosure.htm

Cpu2007

dacouch wrote: »

Do you mean this Ombudsman?

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/7/july-innocent-non-disclosure.htm

yes, that's the ombudsman I was referring to.
I don't say that ombudsman decisions are always right or fair but I do also believe that many times,when their decision is wrong is not because they are trying take one side instead of another but probably because wordings,statements used by the policy holders put them in a position where they have to reject their claim.

The case studies shown in the link you've provided mostly show clear signs of fronting and most importantly a situation where the policyholder verbally stated things that prove fronting: for e.g

Mr H admitted that he had taken out the policy in order to reduce the premium by using his no claims discount, but he argued that his son was the main user of the car

.

Both the son and Mr L had told the insurer that the son was the main user.

etc.

On the other hand what the OP stated in this thread is completely different and regardless of the fact that some users on here are calling what the OP did as fronting, their opinion is based simply on assumptions and not what they OP stated.
The OP might have lied but I have expressed an opinion on the grounds of what the OP stated, which I don't believe to be fronting.

Obviously the OP has to understand that the matter is serious and you will have to make sure what you say to the insurance and/or ombudsman is accurate and doesn't leave any gap for ambiguity.

dacouch

Cpu2007 wrote: »

yes, that's the ombudsman I was referring to.
I don't say that ombudsman decisions are always right or fair but I do also believe that many times,when their decision is wrong is not because they are trying take one side instead of another but probably because wordings,statements used by the policy holders put them in a position where they have to reject their claim.

The case studies shown in the link you've provided mostly show clear signs of fronting and most importantly a situation where the policyholder verbally stated things that prove fronting: for e.g

.

etc.

On the other hand what the OP stated in this thread is completely different and regardless of the fact that some users on here are calling what the OP did as fronting, their opinion is based simply on assumptions and not what they OP stated.
The OP might have lied but I have expressed an opinion on the grounds of what the OP stated, which I don't believe to be fronting.

Obviously the OP has to understand that the matter is serious and you will have to make sure what you say to the insurance and/or ombudsman is accurate and doesn't leave any gap for ambiguity.

Your penultimate post stated that the finance was only suspicious to an Insurer.

The Ombudsman's rulings show the Ombudsman also takes into account along with other factors.

You seem to have overlooked Mr D

"Mr D, a police officer who had taken early retirement on medical grounds, took out motor insurance for his new car. He stated that he owned the car and that his family did not own or use any other car. His adult son was named as a driver.

Two days after Mr D took out the insurance, the car was stolen. On investigating the claim, the insurer learnt that the purchase receipt was in the son’s name, as was the finance agreement and the direct debit mandate for the premium payments. The personalised registration number corresponded with the son’s initials. When questioned, both Mr D and his son agreed that the son’s old car had been sold in part exchange towards the purchase price. They did not dispute that Mr D also had another car."

Similar case to the OP's although I assume the OP does not have a personal plate and / or that their sibling does does not also own a car.

Although Mr D's son traded in his car for the car in question which in effect the OP did with theirs.

The Ombudsman will take into account the car purchase and finance in the OP's name as these are highly relevant. They will also take into account any other relevant factors when deciding on the case.

It certainly is worth the OP going down the Official Complaint route and then the Ombudsman but by no means is it a cut and dry case that the Ombudsman will rule in their favour.