Ruthless Car Insurance BISL Beware!

leosayer

Anyone who drives the car is involved in any accident or has a vehicle damaged or stolen.

That is pretty clear cut and on that basis your insurance is justified contractually in cancelling your policy.

I checked my own policy booklet with esure and it's a very similar wording.

I did read the policy booklet when I took out the policy but I don't recall that one and I'm not sure that I'd have considered contacting esure in similar circumstances to yours.

I sympathise OP and I wish you luck but I think your best bet may be to appeal to their better nature.

I guess the answer is that you should always inform your insurance company immediately of any change to the information that you supplied them when you took out the insurance.

RS2000.

Pinkpyjama wrote: »

She has her own policy which is where the claim went through (she never even paid a penny - all liability admitted from other side)
She is a named driver on my policy too. That is where DD have the issue, that I didn't tell them at the time. It never entered my head to, it was such a minor bump and at the time I was more preoccupied by my wife being heavily pregnant at the time (I took her to A&E to get checked out afterwards) and also her Father was and still is terminally ill.
Sorry to repeat myself but I volunteered the info to them when trying to renew. They didn't find out about it.
Their clause says 'may' cancel, not 'will' and when you see I only had 11 days left to go, surely some common sense should have prevailed. The final straw was their willingness to leave me uninsured without my knowledge. That was disgusting conduct.
So no I'm not giving this up easily.

Their arguement will be that you entered into a contract with them and agreed to inform them of any changes to the insured risk.

You didn't inform them of what they considered to be a material fact and as a result they told you that they have a right to cancel the policy.

If I were you I would exhaust their complaints procedure then seek proper legal advice.

Dr._Shoe

That's why I always use a broker. They handle all these kinds of things for you.

RS2000.

Dr._Shoe wrote: »

That's why I always use a broker. They handle all these kinds of things for you.

How would a broker have helped in this situation?

Pinkpyjama

I am aware that they acted to the letter as it were. Although my anger is fast turning into reluctant acceptance of this I am still determined that on this occasion they acted incredibly harshly.
This coupled with putting my kids and wife at risk saying my car was insured when it wasn't.
I checked during the phone call whether it was being recorded and I was told it was. Wonder if they've deleted this now?
I will exhaust the complaints procedure and then go legal if that's what it takes.
All it needs is for some common sense and goodwill, I am hoping someone other than the jobsworth who dealt with me Thursday will see it that way.
I work in a rule based industry where if I penalised everybody to the letter I would be in court almost weekly. In most cases a firm warning not to do it again sorts most of the scenarios I am presented with.
The words 'may' rather than 'will' leaves room for manoeuvre and surely when my circumstances were looked at could have given cause to show a bit more latitude. (I would even of accepted them not allowing her as a named driver but in any case let's consider that this info was willingly given by me)
Still on Monday or Tuesday I am hoping that I get a call (don't count on it)
Thanks to everyone for their opinions, believe me I've learnt a valuable lesson. What annoys me is that I usually do read the small print, over the last two or three years I have called companies to advise of change of addresses, where the car is parked, where my normal place of work is - at each time paying between 15-20 quid for the privilege.
One final note that I haven't said before was that there was a significant inconsistency in the Team Leaders stance. He went from initially saying it was due to me failing to advise them at the time of my wife's incident, then later to say that their underwriter would not cover her anymore. I challenged this saying how come on a separate quote (that I had obtained via their website) I was given a price based on all the facts (again at the time I was being honest and had no idea what hole I was digging)
Cue a lot of waffle and backtracking with no answer to my question.
I had a contract dispute with EE about 18 months ago when we moved house and could no longer get a signal where we lived. I was fobbed off and passed from pillar to post with all saying effectively 'tough' and I would have to see out my contract. I persevered and wrote letter after letter and promising to go to the relevant authority. Eventually getting an apologetic letter and phone call allowing me to be released from the contract. It was almost as if they thought I would go away whilst trying to flex their muscles. When they realised I wouldn't and that it was about to go legal - they backed down.
I hope it doesn't go that far, but I feel badly wronged here and there is a principal here.
Enjoy your Sunday everyone.

dacouch

Dial Direct are a broker eg they deal with a number of Insurer, it's perfectly possible that when you obtained a quotation from their system that the quote you received as from a different underwriter (Insurer) to the policy you had originally

mattyprice4004

I have to say, I do see their point - but they have dealt with the issue very poorly and in a rather harsh way.
With regards to a non fault claim increasing premiums, a driver that has had a non fault claim is indeed statistically much more likely to have another accident of some sort - whether it's because they choose to park near a junction at night, don't drive very defensively or cut it fine with 'pulling out' etc.

Pinkpyjama

Really? I was originally with Auto and General which like DD are under the BISL umbrella. It went to DD after Auto and General said they won't be doing car insurance moving forward.
The underwriter is BISL. That was always the case and I'm led to believe that is where the problem was.
You get a nice cuddly Meerkat which turns out to have a nasty bite and isn't so cuddly!

Quentin

Pinkpyjama wrote: »

......
The words 'may' rather than 'will' leaves room for manoeuvre.

As far as "may" v "will" goes, you may have misunderstood.


By saying something like "we may increase your premium or cancel your policy etc" they are setting out the remedies that will be available to them under the policy conditions and not excluding any of those options.


Regarding them being able to still offer cover that is because they aren't the insurer - they place the business with different underwriters - your original underwriter refused to continue cover and when you applied again they were able to offer you cover via a different company/underwriter.


Previously you said you didn't want to involve the FOS but now have resolved to go "legal" after exhausting the complaints procedure.


But consider the FOS first - the timescale will be roughly the same as court procedure, (ie long), but will be at no cost to you and if they reject your appeal that doesn't jeopardise you then taking legal action.


As you have seen, they have acted in accordance with the policy terms in cancelling the policy. (Though the way in which the cancellation was carried out gives grounds for complaint)


Whether or not this was fair will ultimately be up to the Ombudsman if it gets that far, and the Ombudsman will ultimately adjudicate on whether or not your non disclosure was inadvertent.


If it comes down in your favour as having made an inadvertent non disclosure, then the only leg they have to stand on is whether or not they would have covered your wife had they known about her claim at the proper time.


You also have the way in which they dealt with the cancellation to complain about too (ie telling you it was with immediate effect, then relenting, then telling you they had reneged on this agreement after you had used the car in the belief you had till midnight on cover)

RS2000.

Pinkpyjama wrote: »

I am aware that they acted to the letter as it were. Although my anger is fast turning into reluctant acceptance of this I am still determined that on this occasion they acted incredibly harshly.
This coupled with putting my kids and wife at risk saying my car was insured when it wasn't.
I checked during the phone call whether it was being recorded and I was told it was. Wonder if they've deleted this now?
I will exhaust the complaints procedure and then go legal if that's what it takes.
All it needs is for some common sense and goodwill, I am hoping someone other than the jobsworth who dealt with me Thursday will see it that way.
I work in a rule based industry where if I penalised everybody to the letter I would be in court almost weekly. In most cases a firm warning not to do it again sorts most of the scenarios I am presented with.
The words 'may' rather than 'will' leaves room for manoeuvre and surely when my circumstances were looked at could have given cause to show a bit more latitude. (I would even of accepted them not allowing her as a named driver but in any case let's consider that this info was willingly given by me)
Still on Monday or Tuesday I am hoping that I get a call (don't count on it)
Thanks to everyone for their opinions, believe me I've learnt a valuable lesson. What annoys me is that I usually do read the small print, over the last two or three years I have called companies to advise of change of addresses, where the car is parked, where my normal place of work is - at each time paying between 15-20 quid for the privilege.
One final note that I haven't said before was that there was a significant inconsistency in the Team Leaders stance. He went from initially saying it was due to me failing to advise them at the time of my wife's incident, then later to say that their underwriter would not cover her anymore. I challenged this saying how come on a separate quote (that I had obtained via their website) I was given a price based on all the facts (again at the time I was being honest and had no idea what hole I was digging)
Cue a lot of waffle and backtracking with no answer to my question.
I had a contract dispute with EE about 18 months ago when we moved house and could no longer get a signal where we lived. I was fobbed off and passed from pillar to post with all saying effectively 'tough' and I would have to see out my contract. I persevered and wrote letter after letter and promising to go to the relevant authority. Eventually getting an apologetic letter and phone call allowing me to be released from the contract. It was almost as if they thought I would go away whilst trying to flex their muscles. When they realised I wouldn't and that it was about to go legal - they backed down.
I hope it doesn't go that far, but I feel badly wronged here and there is a principal here.
Enjoy your Sunday everyone.

Take proper advice to see if you have a case first.

Also stick to facts with your complaint and leave the emotions out. Your wife and kids were not really at risk were they? Well she maybe was for driving without insurance but given the circumstances a prosecution would be unlikely to proceed.