omg can my insurance do this

Torry_Quine

Ultrasonic wrote: »

Not a full refund, but what about the 9 months of the year when she wouldn't be using the policy? Assuming she is buying a replacement car it's pretty much a non-issue though.

This comes up again and again and it is worrying how many people think that they are due a refund in this situation. The policy has been used and as such there is no right to a refund as there is nothing to refund.

dacouch

Is the £700 after deduction of excess?

Norman_Castle

1. if she doesnt accept the 700 she wont get anymore and they will just keep reducing the amount they will pay her,

The cars value does not depend on who is at fault or the amount of time taken to reach an agreement. Gather evidence to show the replacement cost of an equivalent vehicle.

Ultrasonic

Torry_Quine wrote: »

This comes up again and again and it is worrying how many people think that they are due a refund in this situation. The policy has been used and as such there is no right to a refund as there is nothing to refund.

I can certainly believe that insurance policies have this term, but to make a logical argument that there is nothing to refund in nonsense. If the policy was transferred to a second car which was then involved in another accident there would be a further claim made on the same policy. By terminating the policy early the insurance company is not exposed to this risk. What could reasonably be refunded is the cost of cover for the 9 months for which cover is no longer being provided.

The only way that the argument that there is nothing to refund holds up is if standard insurance policies are termnated on the date that any claim is made, forfeiting the cover for the remainder of the policy since the policy has been 'used'. This, of course, is not the case.

Torry_Quine

Ultrasonic wrote: »

I can certainly believe that insurance policies have this term, but to make a logical argument that there is nothing to refund in nonsense. If the policy was transferred to a second car which was then involved in another accident there would be a further claim made on the same policy. By terminating the policy early the insurance company is not exposed to this risk. What could reasonably be refunded is the cost of cover for the 9 months for which cover is no longer being provided.

The only way that the argument that there is nothing to refund holds up is if standard insurance policies are termnated on the date that any claim is made, forfeiting the cover for the remainder of the policy since the policy has been 'used'. This, of course, is not the case.

Yet again sadly someone misunderstanding insurance. Don't people realise this is what happens.

Ultrasonic

Torry_Quine wrote: »

Yet again sadly someone misunderstanding insurance. Don't people realise this is what happens.

As I said I totally understand insurance companies doing this, it makes good business sense. Your earlier post suggested this was obvious and logical, when it is not.

dacouch

Ultrasonic wrote: »

As I said I totally understand insurance companies doing this, it makes good business sense. Your earlier post suggested this was obvious and logical, when it is not.

The basic premise is you take a contract out to insure the car, the car is written off and claim paid. The contract has fulfilled it's purpose.

Some Insurers cancel the policy and some allow substitutions.

Ultrasonic

dacouch wrote: »

The basic premise is you take a contract out to insure the car, the car is written off and claim paid. The contract has fulfilled it's purpose.

I take your point. Although whether it has fulfilled it's purpose depends whether you view the purpose to be providing insurance for a year or not. Also, the bulk of the cost of the insurance for the OP was not to cover damage to their own car (due to it's relatively low value), but to provide third party cover.

vaio

Aretnap wrote: »

The price she paid for it isn't necessarily its market value, but they should pay enough to buy a similar car at a reputable dealer. Have a read at what the Financial Ombudsman says about vehicle valuations here.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/motor-valuation.html..........

yep, and the link you posted also includes......

9. vehicles recently purchased second-hand

If the policyholder only recently bought his car second-hand, we are likely to assume that the price paid was the market value, unless the insurer can provide sufficient evidence to the contrary....

Whether three months will qualify as "recently" I don't know but it's certainly what I'd be arguing if they don't make an offer the OP is happy with.


pragmatically, if the difference is only a couple of hundred quid it's likely the insurer will give in rather than pay the £500 (£700?) fee for a FOS referral.

vaio

Ultrasonic wrote: »

......Although whether it has fulfilled it's purpose depends whether you view the purpose to be providing insurance for a year or not. Also, the bulk of the cost of the insurance for the OP was not to cover damage to their own car (due to it's relatively low value), but to provide third party cover.

I agree and I'd be interested in seeing an FOS decision on it