Bike stolen and torched

biscuit1_2

Almost makes a mockery of having insurance, in so much that you take it out assuming that should somthing un-towards happen especially through no fault of you own that your vehicle will be replaced, clearly not the case as it now looks like from say £1200 they will take £450 excess then £300 still to pay on the policy leaving £450 to replace a £1400 bike that some !!!!! decided to nick

nobbysn*ts

biscuit1 wrote: »

Almost makes a mockery of having insurance, in so much that you take it out assuming that should somthing un-towards happen especially through no fault of you own that your vehicle will be replaced, clearly not the case as it now looks like from say £1200 they will take £450 excess then £300 still to pay on the policy leaving £450 to replace a £1400 bike that some !!!!! decided to nick

The excess you're stuck with. If they do take the remainder of the premium (they shouldn't really) they should then transfer the remainder of the policy onto a new bike. But they can charge a fee, but at least you won't have the monthly payments outstanding. But you're right, insurance companies don't lose.

tberry6686

It may be they will allow you to transfer the policy to another bike but there will probably be a time limit for you to do that. If it is one of the insurers that end the policy when a total loss claim is made then they are correct to deduct the rest of the years instalments from the payout. This is because the insurance policy is for a year regardless of how you pay. Allowing you to pay monthly is just a way of permiting people to spread the cost of insurance, rather than have to pay it all upfront.

The only way to get back the full value from your sons insurance company would have been to have had a zero excess and have paid the full premium up front.

Whether they will allow you to transfer the policy to another bike will be down to to the insurers terms and conditions. It's highly unlikely the FOS will tell them to transfer the policy to another bike if their T&C's say that they will end the policy on a total loss claim.

nobbysn*ts

tberry6686 wrote: »

It may be they will allow you to transfer the policy to another bike but there will probably be a time limit for you to do that. If it is one of the insurers that end the policy when a total loss claim is made then they are correct to deduct the rest of the years instalments from the payout. This is because the insurance policy is for a year regardless of how you pay. Allowing you to pay monthly is just a way of permiting people to spread the cost of insurance, rather than have to pay it all upfront.

The only way to get back the full value from your sons insurance company would have been to have had a zero excess and have paid the full premium up front.

Whether they will allow you to transfer the policy to another bike will be down to to the insurers terms and conditions. It's highly unlikely the FOS will tell them to transfer the policy to another bike if their T&C's say that they will end the policy on a total loss claim.

No, the FOS have made previous rulings on it. The insurer should allow transfers. Hopefully someone has the link, if not I'll have to have a search for it.

tberry6686

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

No, the FOS have made previous rulings on it. The insurer should allow transfers. Hopefully someone has the link, if not I'll have to have a search for it.

As far as I can remember, when the FOS have ruled against the insurer on this, it has been where it was not stated in the T&C's that the policy would end on a total loss. IF the FOS had already ruled that insurers could not do that then why would they continue to do so ?

Quentin

No "ruling" but an "expectation"


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


See S17:


When an insurer declares a vehicle a write-off, we expect it to offer a consumer the option of bringing a replacement vehicle onto the insurance policy so that the remainder of the policy term can be used. Depending on the make and model of the replacement vehicle, an additional premium may be required by the insurer. This should be calculated on a pro rata basis for the remainder of the policy term.

nobbysn*ts

I think it would be fair to assume, if the FOS expect the insurer to do it, and they don't, they may have more to say on the matter.

tberry6686

looks like my memory isn't as good as I thought it was then.

Quentin

tberry6686 wrote: »

As far as I can remember, when the FOS have ruled against the insurer on this, it has been where it was not stated in the T&C's that the policy would end on a total loss. IF the FOS had already ruled that insurers could not do that then why would they continue to do so ?

You seem to be suggesting that insurers don't try it on??


They do though.


eg. See the "respected" names who still try it on and put in their policies that no MOT means no insurance (eg M + S, RAC etc) despite clear direction on this from FOS.


They know that if the policyholder argues they won't get away with it, but are prepared to try it on, and no doubt get away with it when dealing with a policyholder who meekly accepts it as it says so in the policy.

dacouch

tberry6686 wrote: »

As far as I can remember, when the FOS have ruled against the insurer on this, it has been where it was not stated in the T&C's that the policy would end on a total loss. IF the FOS had already ruled that insurers could not do that then why would they continue to do so ?

The FOS changed their guidance on this late last year so there are probably no published cases on this, prior to that they stated that Insurers generally cancel a policy upon writing a vehicle off