Cancellation of Insurance

welshblue

... due to modifications.

Hi all. I purchased a car from Trade Centre Wales for my daughter back in July.
At the time I asked if the window tints were factory fitted/ standard and the salesman assured me they were ... even putting their sticker over one on the back window ... over the tint

Today an engineer came to fit a telematic box and wouldn't - due to the tints.
Subsequently More Than issued a notice of cancellation.
Not only am I out of pocket for admin fees/ cost of removing tints/ have to have more expensive car insurance but am technically also blacklisted from RSA and it's sister companies for non-disclosure (basically on record as lying)

More Than have been extremely helpful in providing letters for me but any help in knowing what redress do I have against a big company would be much appreciated

Welshblue

dacouch

Stupid question but have you checked whether the tints were actually factory fitted / standard?

What is the exact wording of the question More Than ask about modifications to cars?

Quentin

welshblue wrote: »

.
Not only am I out of pocket for admin fees/ cost of removing tints/ have to have more expensive car insurance but am technically also blacklisted from RSA and it's sister companies for non-disclosure (basically on record as lying)

More Than have been extremely helpful in providing letters for me but any help in knowing what redress do I have against a big company would be much appreciated

You say you are blacklisted by RSA, though it sounds like you have had your policy cancelled because of your "lying".


This will have to be disclosed to any other insurer you approach (they will find out in the event of any claim if not before, and failure to disclose a cancelled policy will allow them to reject any claims and chase you should they have to pay out to a third party).


It remains on your record for evermore and insurers normally ask if you have "ever" had a policy cancelled.


So it may be worth you doing anything you can to get the cancellation reversed!


(You may have grounds to complain that you have been treated unfairly as you didn't knowingly lie)

welshblue

@ dacouch - after researching the model of car/ joining a Renault forum ... any factory tints aren't as dark as what are currently on the vehicle. Hindsight is such a great tool !

More Than's stance on any modification no matter how small is a no no

@ Quentin ... after a discussion with More Than they won't allow me to remove the tints and re-insure. Company policy apparently.
As for the cancellation and further disclosures ... I have until the 19th of Nov. to cancel the policy myself which means it won't have to be disclosed on future applications ... which I think is very fair of them.

The 'blacklisting' element comes in I'm asked from refraining to try and get insurance from RSA or any of it's subsidiaries as it will be refused at inception.

---

Further on Trade Centre Wales have offered me £75 as an apology which in my eyes doesn't go far enough. That will be swallowed up by admin cancellation fees and the cost of taking the tints off.

But is that classed as admitting liability enough for me to go back to RSA and say ... look ... it wasn't really my fault ... I'm guilty of ignorance not falsehoods ? Time will tell.

Thanks both for your input

Quentin

You still have grounds to complain over this - you say your misrepresentation over the tinted glass was innocent and based on what you were told by the garage, which you can now prove!

If you can get your complaint upheld, then you should be compensated for all the extra expense they have put you to.

Also find out the true full cost of all this and pursue the dealer for it as well as compensation for the trouble they have caused you now (and in the future, who knows how many brands RSA will have that won't touch you)

dacouch

You did not answer what the exact wording of the question More Than ask about modifications.

The law is you only have to answer questions they ask you, that you don't need to volunteer information they have not asked and that the questions need to be clear and specific.

The wording might give you a reason to go back to More Than

rs65

Quentin wrote: »

(and in the future, who knows how many brands RSA will have that won't touch you)

Assuming of course RSA still exists in the future. They almost became Zurich recently.

Quentin

Problem is whoever they become will no doubt become owner of this blacklist, along with their whitelist too

FlameCloud

Quentin wrote: »

You still have grounds to complain over this - you say your misrepresentation over the tinted glass was innocent and based on what you were told by the garage, which you can now prove!

If you can get your complaint upheld, then you should be compensated for all the extra expense they have put you to.

Also find out the true full cost of all this and pursue the dealer for it as well as compensation for the trouble they have caused you now (and in the future, who knows how many brands RSA will have that won't touch you)

The problem the op will have is that even if the misrepresentation was innocent, if more than will not take on cover modifications (and can prove it) they are still entitled to avoid the policy.

THE website does ask about modifications - was this how the cover was taken out?

magpiecottage

FlameCloud wrote: »

The problem the op will have is that even if the misrepresentation was innocent, if more than will not take on cover modifications (and can prove it) they are still entitled to avoid the policy.

Not according to the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2015.

The view of the Financial Ombudsman Service is given here.

Note that it says, "If we decide that the consumer took reasonable care, we generally say that the insurer should disregard the misrepresentation. This means that if the insurer has avoided the policy, it should be reinstated as it originally was."

A case study involving tinted windows on a car is published here.

FlameCloud

magpiecottage wrote: »

Not according to the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2015.

The view of the Financial Ombudsman Service is given here.

Note that it says, "If we decide that the consumer took reasonable care, we generally say that the insurer should disregard the misrepresentation. This means that if the insurer has avoided the policy, it should be reinstated as it originally was."

A case study involving tinted windows on a car is published here.

You are ignoring the remedies section (schedule 1) of a qualifying misrepresentation that entitles even a careless misrepresentation to result in avoidance.