Car insurance issue

Cpu2007

dacouch wrote: »

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.

I see there are similar points but I think the matter is completely different and points raised on the case details of Mr D are higher in quantity than the ones raised by the OP.

-Financial receipts,debit mandate on the named drivers (Similar on both cases)
-Mr D lied about having another car (I assume the OP doesn't have another car)
-MR D has a personalized registration number on named driver (I assume OP doesn't, however this has lower frequency)
-MR D unable to explain the use and frequency of the car by him and named driver (The OP explained that and at least to me it makes sense).

Now the only major similarity between the two cases is the financial receipts etc. Lets assume that the case of Mr D had only that issue of the financial receipts and the other issues weren't there, in that case I find it hard to believe that his case would have been rejected on that ground as it doesn't prove fronting. However if you add all those points raised (some with high relevancy and some with low), it creates a picture that suggests there might have been fronting involved; especially the fact that he couldn't explain the use of two cars etc. and he lied about having another car.


When you state the Official Complaint route, do you mean with the insurance company it self, like their complaints departments?
If so, yes I will definitely advise them to do so as this will give the insurance company a chance to look into the matter more carefully, hoping that they are honest.
However, if the case it's not in their favour, I don't think it will hurt to go to the ombudsman. It would be interesting to see the outcome of the investigation help by the insurance company to see whether to proceed for the ombudsman or not.

Zozo23

Hello again.

We have just received a decision from the insurers today (going through the complaints department) and they are sticking by what they said. They have sent a full report of what we have sent them and on what dates each decision was made.

As you can imagine we are very disappointed. However having gone through the report i have found some inconsistencies. for example when we purchased the vehicle it was registered in my dads name as he is covered for driving any vehicle (from dealership to our house) . The next day we transferred the ownership into my sisters name and took out the insurance.

on the report it says we have clearly seen that the vehicle was named in my name (brother) and taking everything else into account its his vehicle. the car was never in my name at any given time. As I mentioned before I was only paying for the premiums and the the purchase was made from my account.

We have sent them statements of my account to show this and how my sister has been making various cash deposits into my account (and still is), but their argument is that is not valid proof as it could be coming from anyone. Furthermore they have not considered anything to do with the old vehicle we are still on and how we are still using it as before.

We are going to go through the ombudsman now as its what everyone has recommended. Any ideas what the best way to go about it is? will be giving them a call tomorrow and taking it from there.

Thanks

Quentin

Zozo23 wrote: »

.....We are going to go through the ombudsman now as its what everyone has recommended. Any ideas what the best way to go about it is? will be giving them a call tomorrow and taking it from there.....

That's the best way. They will advise you over the phone how to proceed.

Official FOS advice:

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/consumer/complaints.htm

Cpu2007

yes just go through the ombudsman and if they have made some mistakes or there are inconsistencies in the insurance investigation report then try to point all these things out to the ombudsman.

Zozo23

Well im back and i bring good news (to an extent). After going through the ombudsman and having waited a year since the theft the insurers have agreed to pay out.

However today we got a call from Eldon insurance and they said we have valued everything etc the car value is fine and the excess which we have to pay is ok as well, but (this is where we need advise) they have said that we owe them the whole amount (for the year) for the premium which they will deduct from the value of the vehicle. now if you read my first post i stated that we only had the vehicle for 3 months and were paying on a monthly basis. when they voided the policy they sent out a cheque in the region of £600 which would be for the premium we had already paid.

This cheque was never cashed as advised from the ombudsman and they are asking for the whole premium.

Are we right in thinking this is wrong or are they right? i can understand that we would of had to pay the amount up until the vehicle was stolen, but seeing as how they voided the policy in the first place (yet agreed to reinstate it after the fos looked into it) which has caused us enough grief and dragged the whole thing to nearly over.

To me something doesnt seem right. would anyone know if this is the case. Any sort of information will be greatly appreciated as we just want to get this mess sorted out now.

Thanks.

forgotmyname

Its normal for the full years policy to be paid for in full in the event of any claim.

You took out a years insurance. Paid for in installments maybe but still a years cover.

If you still have the cheque then return that and they will take the balance.