Insurance Charging me £400 late reporting fee?

gunner786

I had an accident in february 2014.
Reported it to insurance by post, didnt hear anything back so rang them in may and they redirected me to their claims department. Turns out they knew nothing about it so this time i reported it "again".
Then few days later i received a letter asking me to send them a cheque of £400 as a 81 day late reporting fee.

I looked through my policy booklet and it says that i will have to pay an additional excess in the event of a claim.

I then rang them and they tried their best to convince me its a late reporting penalty and not an excess but after about half hour they agreed to put it on hold until the accident and third parties claim is investigated which they have now received.
I am uploading 2 pictures of the letters can someone tell me if they can do this and clarify if its a penalty or an excess?

Quentin

It is an "excess".


But you didn't report this late so don't pay it! (Though you were very patient to wait all that time before phoning)

pramsbottom

Surely you have breached conditions by not reporting it via the phone number as that is a condition in the policy also if you are allowed to report via post than I would assume you got and kept proof of postage to back up your position over wise you are in breach and subject to the extra excess looks like a dcl policy though.

nobbysn*ts

That clause is sufficiently different to other policies to require the insurer to make it clear in the key facts. They should be able to demonstrate that it was clear, before you took the policy, that this penalty would be imposed on you. I would complain to the insurer, and if they don't reach an acceptable agreement with you, refer it onto the FOS.

Quentin

pramsbottom wrote: »

.......if you are allowed to report via post than I would assume you got and kept proof of postage to back up your position over wise you are in breach and subject to the extra excess looks like a dcl policy though.

Ignore this.

No breach of a policy occurs because you post a letter in a postbox!

dacouch

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

That clause is sufficiently different to other policies to require the insurer to make it clear in the key facts. They should be able to demonstrate that it was clear, before you took the policy, that this penalty would be imposed on you. I would complain to the insurer, and if they don't reach an acceptable agreement with you, refer it onto the FOS.

It probably is as this is for a taxi policy, these tend to have these unusual restrictions on the cheaper policies and the companies tend to ensure they declare the unusual restrictions.

It's fairly typical for a taxi driver to not report an accident in the hope it will go away which can greatly increase the overall costs to the Insurer.

It would be well worth checking the summary of cover and any renewal documentation to ensure the clause is declared

Parking_Trouble

I assume this additional excess is to stop a claim management company for the Third Party racking up exorbitant costs before the at fault drivers insurer is aware of the accident.

Surely easier to ensure insurers talk to each other before a claim starts, assuming the drivers exchanged details.

Always sensible to get a certificate of posting or send recorded delivery for a letter that could cost you more if it doesn't arrive.

I like the phrase "you will no doubt be aware..."

The vast majority of policyholders have no idea of the potential "gotchas" in their terms and conditions.

It's not in my policy. I wonder how common it is and is it made clear when the excess is explained. It does look far more like a penalty clause to me.

Quentin

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

Always sensible to get a certificate of posting or send recorded delivery for a letter that could cost you more if it doesn't arrive. ......

Not the best advice.

There are good reasons why you should not use recorded delivery. ( eg the recipient can refuse to sign)

Proof of posting is useful, but in this thread the OP (and the rest of us) has wrongly been advised that not to get one means we breach our policies.

dacouch

Parking_Trouble wrote: »

I assume this additional excess is to stop a claim management company for the Third Party racking up exorbitant costs before the at fault drivers insurer is aware of the accident.

Surely easier to ensure insurers talk to each other before a claim starts, assuming the drivers exchanged details.

Always sensible to get a certificate of posting or send recorded delivery for a letter that could cost you more if it doesn't arrive.

I like the phrase "you will no doubt be aware..."

The vast majority of policyholders have no idea of the potential "gotchas" in their terms and conditions.

It's not in my policy. I wonder how common it is and is it made clear when the excess is explained. It does look far more like a penalty clause to me.

It's not a normal policy for a consumer, it's a policy for a taxi driver from a cheap and cheerful Insurer such as Tradex or Westminster etc. Unfortunately taxi drivers do not have a great reputation with Insurers and have a habit of ignoring accidents in the hope they go away.

It's not unusual for a taxi driver to refuse to give insurance details and in many areas they will summon other taxi drivers to intimidate the third party.

If the Insurer is not away of the accident or the first thing they hear of the accident is a call from a credit hire company the additional costs can easily exceed the £400 extra excess. If the accident is reported to them promptly and a truthful account is given to them them they can then try and keep the overall costs down by contacting the third party and arranging repairs and a replacement vehicle.

If the accident is not reported to them they cannot intervene to reduce costs and often the third party feels hard done by so will deliberately rack up the costs to get back at the fault driver

Parking_Trouble

Quentin wrote: »

Not the best advice.

There are good reasons why you should not use recorded delivery. ( eg the recipient can refuse to sign)

Proof of posting is useful, but in this thread the OP (and the rest of us) has wrongly been advised that not to get one means we breach our policies.

What do you recommend then?

Parking_Trouble

dacouch wrote: »

It's not a normal policy for a consumer, it's a policy for a taxi driver from a cheap and cheerful Insurer such as Tradex or Westminster etc. Unfortunately taxi drivers do not have a great reputation with Insurers and have a habit of ignoring accidents in the hope they go away.

It's not unusual for a taxi driver to refuse to give insurance details and in many areas they will summon other taxi drivers to intimidate the third party.

If the Insurer is not away of the accident or the first thing they hear of the accident is a call from a credit hire company the additional costs can easily exceed the £400 extra excess. If the accident is reported to them promptly and a truthful account is given to them them they can then try and keep the overall costs down by contacting the third party and arranging repairs and a replacement vehicle.

If the accident is not reported to them they cannot intervene to reduce costs and often the third party feels hard done by so will deliberately rack up the costs to get back at the fault driver

Perhaps the [STRIKE]penalty[/STRIKE] additional excess should be linked to the additional costs incurred due to late notification, limited to the £400 in this case.