insurance cancellations unlawful?

Brooker_Dave

Could this be to insurance companies what PPI was to banks?

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/announcement.php?f=3&a=292

EdGasket

DO you think that refusing a claim if one tyre is below the legal limit should allow an insurance copmpany to refuse to pay a claim if the accident occured in dry weather? Because on dry roads, a worn tyre has better grip then a new one; that's why racing cars use slick tyres in the dry; more rubber in contact with the road. Yet I have had insurance assessors come out to examine a car with their tread-depth gauge even though the level of tread was immaterial to the accident circumstances!

dunstonh

Could this be to insurance companies what PPI was to banks?

No. PPI was widespread. This only affects a tiny number of people and you would have to be out of pocket to get redress.

Brooker_Dave

But surely an unlawful cancellation leaves the victim out of pocket for the rest of their life?

Their premium is loaded for ever?

dacouch

It looks to me that MCE who appear to be a broker rather than an Insurer have fudged the cancellation and then the SAR etc.

They havn't given that many details about the court case

Brooker_Dave

dacouch wrote: »

It looks to me that MCE who appear to be a broker rather than an Insurer have fudged the cancellation and then the SAR etc.

They havn't given that many details about the court case

Court case 1 was just to appeal the 6 points and lack of insurance?

I would have thought court case 2 where matey goes for his losses will be the one to watch, all those firms who've been earning well from PPI claims may take an interest too.

Always seems a bit harsh that cancellations have to be declared for life, when convictions and even driving bans don't.

Brooker_Dave

dacouch wrote: »

It looks to me that MCE who appear to be a broker rather than an Insurer have fudged the cancellation and then the SAR etc.

http://www.fsc.gi/fsclists/Details.aspx?EntityID=18353

Gibraltar...

dacouch

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

Court case 1 was just to appeal the 6 points and lack of insurance?

I would have thought court case 2 where matey goes for his losses will be the one to watch, all those firms who've been earning well from PPI claims may take an interest too.

Always seems a bit harsh that cancellations have to be declared for life, when convictions and even driving bans don't.

As Dunstonh mentions, I doubt there would be enough cases to interest the claims companies and these types of cases are not as easy as a PPI where it's literally a case of sending a copied and pasted letter.

I think MCE will avoid court as it's just wastes money on court costs and just pay his compensation.

Brooker_Dave

dacouch wrote: »

As Dunstonh mentions, I doubt there would be enough cases to interest the claims companies and these types of cases are not as easy as a PPI where it's literally a case of sending a copied and pasted letter.

I suppose it depends if it as unlawful as the other forum seems to think it is, and the losses are quantifiable from the increased premiums people are stuck with, and pizza delivery man lost his chance to be a bus driver.

If they put a good case together, bit payout surely?

The PPI thing is coming to a close, so lots of claim companies looking for new work.

I'll bet at least 250000 people have had their policies cancelled, albeit by some of the bottom feeding companies that prey on scum (and motor traders), young drivers seem especially picked on.

paddyandstumpy

So are you suggesting there should be no option for an insurer to cancel a risk?

Which would open a free-for-all with non disclosure...

Brooker_Dave

paddyandstumpy wrote: »

So are you suggesting there should be no option for an insurer to cancel a risk?

Not at all.

The theory seems to be that trivial issues should not lead to cancellations, and the 7 day thing is unlawful.

Pizza man had his CBT, so there was no reason to cancel or make him jump through hoops.

I don't think anyone is saying you can just make it all up and they can't cancel.