Car insurance not paying out

shr3k

HI Guys,

On the way to work Monday my car caught fire.

Being a bit of a Muppet I managed to put most of the fire out and stop it from spreading through the engine bay, in hindsight letting it go would have been better.

Had fire engine and police on scene quickly and the incident was resolved with little damage to the outside of the car.

Damage started from where insurance say is a coolant solonoid and as a result is an electrical fire. The resulting damage to bodywork is less than my excess so therefore is not covered.

The actual damage is multiple sensors, complete wiring loom, battery, coolant hoses, bonnet (Warped and burnt), Nearside Wing, Rocket Cover and Gasket, Maybe coilpack.

Due to most of these items being Electrical insurance will not pay out.

Any advice, is this normal and I just have to accept it?

Thanks

James

spacey2012

Send them a deadlock letter and official complaint stating you are doing this as part of the process of invoking the ombudsman process service.

TSx

spacey2012 wrote: »

Send them a deadlock letter and official complaint stating you are doing this as part of the process of invoking the ombudsman process service.

Send them a 'deadlock letter'? That makes no sense.

My understanding is that they can exclude the cause of the fire (e.g the coolant solenoid), but they should be covering anything which was damaged by the fire itself.

I'd wait to see if anyone else has better advise (motor claims is not my specialty) but the correct process for making a complaint is to inform them (written is generally acknowledged to be better, but you can do it over the phone) that you wish to make a formal complaint that they are not covering all the damage. They then have 8 weeks to respond, after which you can go to the ombudsman (which is free) who will decide if they should be covering the claim. A word of warning though, if you go down the ombudsman route, you could be waiting many months (6+) for them to make a decision.

spacey2012

A "deadlock letter" I will explain this.
It is basically a notification that both parties have failed to reach any agreement and starts a clock on the dispute.
Insurance contracts are usually to complicated to be taxed by non legal professionals.
Start the complaint process with conceding deadlock, they can investigate and break the deadlock or stick firm and allow the FSA or whatever they are calling themselves this week to read the contract legal language and see if it is water tight.
When lay people read carefully constructed contracts, they often focus in on things that are of little relevance that are placed to do just that, put you off in simple terms.
If the contract is steadfast, the FSA or what ever they are this week, will inform you of this.
However as many cases show, the contracts they stipulate often do not hold water when decoded .
It may take 6 months, it may take 12 months, but at present the OP has nothing to lose.

rs65

OP, ignore this talk of ‘deadlock letters’ and ‘official’ complaint.

Just send a letter of complaint. It is correct that they won’t pay for an electrical item that goes on fire due to an electrical fault but they should pay for resultant fire damage.

Keep it clear and succinct. Tell them what the outcome you want and if you don’t achieve that you will take it to the Ombudsman.

Just_Some_Guy

It is very standard for car insurance to exclude damage resulting from electrical, electronic, and mechanical breakdowns. So I would expect them to exclude the solenoid but to allow the claim for all the other bits, which were presumably in perfect working order until something near them caught fire. The idea is that your insurance policy is not a maintenance contract, so parts which wear out and need replacing (tires, brake pads, coolant solenoids, head gaskets, you name it) are your problem but other parts which are damaged by fire are your insurer's problem.

At this point you have some long phone calls and lots of letters ahead of you!

TSx

spacey2012 wrote: »

A "deadlock letter" I will explain this.
It is basically a notification that both parties have failed to reach any agreement and starts a clock on the dispute.
Insurance contracts are usually to complicated to be taxed by non legal professionals.
Start the complaint process with conceding deadlock, they can investigate and break the deadlock or stick firm and allow the FSA or whatever they are calling themselves this week to read the contract legal language and see if it is water tight.
When lay people read carefully constructed contracts, they often focus in on things that are of little relevance that are placed to do just that, put you off in simple terms.
If the contract is steadfast, the FSA or what ever they are this week, will inform you of this.
However as many cases show, the contracts they stipulate often do not hold water when decoded .
It may take 6 months, it may take 12 months, but at present the OP has nothing to lose.

The FSA (now the FCA) have nothing to do with consumer complaints - the financial ombudsman service deal with those.

A 'deadlock letter' isn't necessary either, there is a regulated complaints process which all companies must follow when dealing with a complaint, which includes issuing a final decision letter, at which point, the complaint can be escalated to the ombudsman.

vaio

and record any costs you incur as a result of your insurers decision as these will be reclaimable when you get the wrong decision overturned

In reality i suspect the decision you have now is the product of an inexperienced claims handler, once the complaint letter lands it will be looked at by more experienced staff and resolved quickly