Gutted - insurance

kilobite

I agree with rs65... this one accident, especially given the circumstances as described, would not normally lead to cancellation by reputable insurer. They don't suddenly decide not to do business with someone unless there are other underwriting factors.

Insurers are not in a habit of throwing business away and again, given the circumstances, they would have requested additional premium. In other words, if they knew the full and true facts from the start, would they have quoted? If the one accident puts the proposer in the 'No Quote' category then fair enough but, more than likely, the case would have been subjected to more premium than originally quoted.

I think rs65 is also correct that the ombudsman does in differentiates between different types of non-disclosure. I know it's not the same thing but my neighbour last year had his home claim declined following a burglary. The reason was that he had originally disclosed he had British Standard Locks on his doors. He thought they were but unfortunately they were not. Anyway, to cut a long story short, the case went to the ombudsman who overturned the insurers decision.

The reason why the claim was overturned was because the break-in was through his kitchen window so the locks on the doors would not have prevented the incident. The insurers paid out but they also got some additional premium (it wasn't much) because the locks weren't up to standard. They said, quite rightly, if they had known the true facts at quotation stage, they would have still provided cover but the premium would have been slightly more.

dacouch

kilobite wrote: »

I agree with rs65... this one accident, especially given the circumstances as described, would not normally lead to cancellation by reputable insurer. They don't suddenly decide not to do business with someone unless there are other underwriting factors.

Insurers are not in a habit of throwing business away and again, given the circumstances, they would have requested additional premium. In other words, if they knew the full and true facts from the start, would they have quoted? If the one accident puts the proposer in the 'No Quote' category then fair enough but, more than likely, the case would have been subjected to more premium than originally quoted.

I think rs65 is also correct that the ombudsman does in differentiates between different types of non-disclosure. I know it's not the same thing but my neighbour last year had his home claim declined following a burglary. The reason was that he had originally disclosed he had British Standard Locks on his doors. He thought they were but unfortunately they were not. Anyway, to cut a long story short, the case went to the ombudsman who overturned the insurers decision.

The reason why the claim was overturned was because the break-in was through his kitchen window so the locks on the doors would not have prevented the incident. The insurers paid out but they also got some additional premium (it wasn't much) because the locks weren't up to standard. They said, quite rightly, if they had known the true facts at quotation stage, they would have still provided cover but the premium would have been slightly more.

Your friends Ombudsman decision is not really about non disclosure.

There are a few Insurers who routinely or randomly check the CUE database and who then cancel the policies of people whom omitted to disclose or in some cases incorrectly disclose. These Insurers appear to have taken the stance no to cover people who do not disclose the correct information

kilobite

BillJones wrote: »

How so? They decided that they did not want to do business with someone, wrote to tell them so, and stopped charging them for the service.

The OP very likely did get the letter, but may have assumed that it was junk. They also saw payments stopping, so should have seen that way that the policy had been cancelled.

Hi Bill,

You're probably right but please remember (you can Google this yourself)...

The postal service revealed it sends 40,000 letters, parcels and packages on average to its National Return Letter Centre every day. Some of the correspondence is likely to be important documents.

Staff try to trace the sender or the intended recipient but failed deliveries are then shredded. Any valuable goods are auctioned, with Royal Mail keeping the proceeds.

The figures, released after a Freedom of Information request, showed almost 15 million items were sent to the centre in Belfast for destruction last year.

The number of undelivered items has dropped since 2010/11 when there were more than 18 million failed deliveries.

It means one in every 1,000 piece of post is neither delivered not returned, and faces being shredded

I used to work in the post room for a large office and everyday we had to give around 20 items back to the postman as they were not addressed to us.

It's about time that Government agencies, Insurers start using recorded delivery as standard as I'm hearing more & more that important documents are not being received and they all can't be lying.

All the best!

kilobite

dacouch wrote: »

Your friends Ombudsman decision is not really about non disclosure.

There are a few Insurers who routinely or randomly check the CUE database and who then cancel the policies of people whom omitted to disclose or in some cases incorrectly disclose. These Insurers appear to have taken the stance no to cover people who do not disclose the correct information

You're right dacouch... but before they cancel they usually contact the insured to request an explanation. I don't know about other insurers but Norwich Union do exactly what you say but only cancel on the serious stuff (they wouldn't have quoted in the first place). The rest of the time, they just get more premium.

bennettp23

Smithers37 wrote: »

Why is the advice here to pursue a FOS complaint? I get that the OP made a mistake, but it is THEIR mistake, not the insurers. The previous insurer would have been able to state what the type of claim was, and (probably did by way of a renewal notice) so I don't see how this is anyone's fault but the OP's.

It is my wife's policy.
The renewal quote did not state whether the accident was fault or non fault.
I did in good faith think the accident was non-fault and was never told anything different. No paperwork from LV was ever received saying this. My ignorance for thinking it was non-fault as she was not to blame. This is such a small detail, on a £900 claim I am sure it would not have added much to the premium with 5 years no claim discount on a £400 total premium - I would have just paid the extra if I had seen the letter.

If I read correctly, I have to wait four weeks for the final response from RAC before I can complain to the FOS?

Quentin

8 weeks.

It's a drawn out affair if you need to escalate.

Pincher

I had a cancellation because I reported a minor incident, and did not even claim. It was a wing mirror clipping, and my mirror was not even broken, but I reported it to AVIVA, because you are supposed to. No claim was made by either side as far as I know.

I got the next insurance from First Direct, which is just some other insurance company rebranded. Three months into the policy, they call me up to say they are cancelling because I did not list the wing mirror mirror clipping.

Even when it's clearly no fault, and the other insurance company pays up, it's a claim, so my premium still shoots up.

They don't run an insurance company for your benefit. Ideally, they just want to have a premium rate Claims line to an answering machine that says NO; after selling you building insurance for five minutes.

bennettp23

Pincher wrote: »

I had a cancellation because I reported a minor incident, and did not even claim. It was a wing mirror clipping, and my mirror was not even broken, but I reported it to AVIVA, because you are supposed to. No claim was made by either side as far as I know.

I got the next insurance from First Direct, which is just some other insurance company rebranded. Three months into the policy, they call me up to say they are cancelling because I did not list the wing mirror mirror clipping.

Even when it's clearly no fault, and the other insurance company pays up, it's a claim, so my premium still shoots up.

They don't run an insurance company for your benefit. Ideally, they just want to have a premium rate Claims line to an answering machine that says NO; after selling you building insurance for five minutes.

I feel for you Pincher. Some of their actions seem punitive and one sided.

At least they telephoned you though! None of this would have happened if the RAC had. I think it is a reasonable expectation given the magnitude of cancelling someones insurance.

mills705

The Rac like many big names are brokers and act to arrange insurance for you with the info you give them.
Did the Rac tell you apart from the cancellation letter if they requested an additional premium? If so then ignoring this letter could lead to cancellation.
Where I work we would get an email from their underwriters department informing us of a cue claim. They might have arranged insurance online and bypassed our systems search. We as a broker then write to you the policy holder asking for an explanation as to why the incident was not declared properly and charge you the ap. if we receive no response a 7 day letter would be issued a few weeks later.

Obviously complain about it however you might find you need to complain to the underwriter rather than Rac as they will act on the underwriters decisions