Car insurance wants £26,260.00.

tbourner

We know that as far as the insurance is aware the father is the owner and registered keeper as this was put on the form by the OPs sister. Truth is the OP is the registered keeper and therefore the policy is void. Nothing to do with main drivers, although I'm sure that's part of the reason insurance are demanding payment, it's relatively easily proven so the main issue is the incorrect registered keeper.

Parking_Trouble

The OP can either take the view they are liable for the debt and offer the insurer a repayment plan.

OR

Raise a complaint and have a chance of the insurer, or the FOS accepting it was an innocent error. A chance to avoid a very large debt.

What would you do?

vaio

Tricky one that........

Bangton

vaio wrote: »

I'd have thought that if the OP gets their finger out and reads the FOS links and does a complaint to the insurer then under the "treat the punters fairly" ethos the insurer would be honour bound to suspend legal proceedings until the FOS had adjudicated.



Is this knowledge or schadenfreudeic guess work? and that's before you consider the fact that the OP has assured us that the father is the owner

Before suggesting that I may be getting pleasure from seeing someone else suffering (which is not true) I could ask you the same question..

Insurance companies themselves tend to hold of further action until they have given a final response. From there, should they go against the customer the customer has the right to refer to the FOS and again further action is held off.

Whilst the FOS will send complaint details to a company if needed it is usually not a case handler dealing and therefore no one is actively looking at the case IYSWIM. Only after either 8 weeks or a final response do the FOS actually review the case. In other words it makes no odds whether the insured approaches the insurer or the FOS first - that initial 8 weeks stands out of fairness for the insurance company who should be given adequate time to rectify if something goes wrong.

Personally I am not assured that the father IS the owner of the car. To me it doesn't make any sense why the OP would manage to register the owner correctly but not the RK. However, regardless the RK needs to be the same person as the PH (unless spouse or partner). This isn't randomly making something up..if it were why would the insurance company now be able to void the policy and chase an o/s debt.

No one said the OP shouldn't try approaching the insurer or indeed FOS should he so wish (and believe me I WOULD before taking the advice of anyone on a forum that is clearly loaded with non-experts).

Parking_Trouble

Only the OP or her sister knows whether it was a simple mistake or ruse to get some sort of advantage (not sure what they would gain) but if it's the former it is a pretty cruel way to treat your customers.

The insurers these days hold pretty much all of the cards. The vast majority of people do not read all the T&C's and innocent mistakes are made when filling in forms.

Feels like you need to employ a lawyer to help you understand your non-negotiated insurance contract.

dld2s

I made a similar mistake when insuring a 2nd car, I insured a car in my wife's name with myself as a named driver, I also put her down as the registered keeper and owner, unfortunately I was down as RK. it was a genuine error on my part, the car had belonged to my daughter and she got a new one and gifted her old car to us as a 2nd car and had transferred it to myself as registered keeper instead of my wife.

I only noticed this when I was looking out all the documents after I had a at fault accident, i'll tell you what I had a few sleepless nights while I waited on that claim going through.


I would advise the op to get some legal advice, I did, it certainly helped settle my nerves a bit and it was worth it for that alone, I think the not knowing where you actually stand only increases the stress and worry levels of it all.


I did do what other folk have said and did dummy policy comparisons, my wife's worked in at around £6 cheaper, whether this had a bearing or not with their not being much difference I don't know, but in my case I was fortunate in that the insurance company accepted it was a genuine error

Parking_Trouble

I am sure they view it differently between spouses. The OP has a more difficult challenge because the insurer would have declined the policy with the OP as the RK and father as the owner and PH.

my_names_dave

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

Only the OP or her sister knows whether it was a simple mistake or ruse to get some sort of advantage (not sure what they would gain) but if it's the former it is a pretty cruel way to treat your customers.

The father has 9 years NCB, so the advantage is they gain a pretty hefty discount on the insurance with him being the policy holder.

Parking_Trouble

my_names_dave wrote: »

The father has 9 years NCB, so the advantage is they gain a pretty hefty discount on the insurance with him being the policy holder.

You assume the car is owned by the OP and she is really the main driver.

If you believe the OP the father is the legitimate owner, main driver and policyholder so very little advantage gained. If the father was also the RK there would be no issue.

Parking_Trouble

Here's a noddy explanation of RK and Owner

https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q743.htm