Accidental missed off 3 points on named driver, will insurance payout on claim??

Dithering_Dad

This article is on today's BBC website it covers non-disclosure of information for insurance and also briefly mentions the fund that pays out if you're hit by an uninsured driver:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6285008.stm

shudder

lisyloo wrote: »

I do know that the complaints route is free

The complaints route maybe free for the client initially but it is costly for the insurers and has a knock on effect.

They take a lot of administration time and fees paid to consultants/solicitors to resolve the matter and ensure its legally correct.

How do you think the insurers pay for this? By charging customers higher premiums! (don't know of any costs for this)

Then when the matter isn't resolved to the clients satisfaction they refer the matter to the ombudsman, and how do you think this is funded? By the insurers! (all financial services firms contribute an annual % towards the costs as well as £360 per case for investigation - info as at May 2006)

As you can see to simply tell someone to 'make a complaint' without assessing the situation has a serious knock on effect to the rest of the premium payers.

You have to consider the critical point 'the company has to be at fault'.

In this case (even though its likely to be resolved ammicably) the client has failed to disclose the conviction so how can it be deemed the companies at fault?

vikingaero

It's unlikely that the insurer will refuse the claim on this basis as your wife wasn't driving - possibly a different matter if she were.

If the insurer takes the hardline then I think the FOS would rule against them and make them charge a restrospective additional premium or a % deduction from the payout.

lisyloo

The complaints route maybe free for the client initially but it is costly for the insurers and has a knock on effect.

I fully appreciate that it all has to be paid for in the long run by consumers.
But I don't agree with you that it's "rubbish" to suggest someones complains IF they are treated unfairly (which hasn't been established yet in this case).

As you can see to simply tell someone to 'make a complaint' without assessing the situation has a serious knock on effect to the rest of the premium payers.

I agree, but my personal assesment (based on the knowledge we have) is that to not pay out in this case would be unfair.

You have to consider the critical point 'the company has to be at fault'.

Having read all the factual stuff above, my personal assesment is that they would be at fault in this case.
So whilst I wholeharted agree with you about not making wasteful complaints, I think it would be unfair to stop a payment because of non-disclosure about something totally irrelevant.
Insurers will try anything to get out of paying and lots of well known companies will try to "fobb off" the general public.

I have won 6 financial complaints (YES at great cost) simply because I'm not prepared to be fobbed off and know my rights.
I agree with you that it ultimately costs consumers but I don't see that there is a choice if you are treated unfairly.
In fact I think it's "rubbish" to tell people not to complain about gross injustices becuase of relatively small costs to the industry.

We have all seen stories on "panorama" type programs where PHI companies have refused to pay out over non-disclosure of totally unrelated conditions.
One man was in a lot of distress because he hadn't told the company about a condition his father had (he never even knew about it).

In this case (even though its likely to be resolved ammicably) the client has failed to disclose the conviction so how can it be deemed the companies at fault?

If she wasn't driving then I can't see how that justifies not paying out at all.
Maybe we'll have to agree to disagree on this but I can't see how this (if it happens) would be anything other than "squirming out" of paying.

Sorry but people like me who stand up for what they are entitled to are not going to be put off by posts like your.
I have never lied or exaggerated in a case and despise people that too, but I will fight for what I'm entitled too.
I am certain that the industry as a whole saves more by quirming out of paying more than it does by people making complaints.

This site is here to help people stand up for themselves not for them to be fobbed off.

Happy to discuss further but I don't think we will agree as our point of view on the case are rather different.

grumpyoldman1

Thanks to you all for the feedback. It turns but that on this occasion my lack of faith in insurance companies was misplaced.
Although it took a little time, the company 'NIG' in this case payed up with no problems at all.
Cynically I could say that they missed the '!!!! up' on my part, but I would like to think that they saw that the missed points from a non driver were not material to the claim.
So there you have it a piece of good news.
I am now going to post about Three and Talk Talk. Dont get me started!!!!

touch

Glad to see they paid up although surprised they never raised the point formally. You never know probably your claim was dealt with by a claims handler based in India and they did not notice .

Basically your case was clear cut your non -disclosure is not material to the loss so it was unlikely you would have the claim declined

If you car was not a write off but a repair they would normally contact UW's to load the premium to reflect the conviction