insurance cancellations unlawful?

dacouch

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

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.

From what I have read, they have received a result but it's not necessarily due to the cancellation being for the lack of CBT. It could have been because MCE did not follow the cancellation process properly by just sending an email. It could be because MCE did not have the proper authority to cancel the policy for lack of documents (As an agent) where as an Insurer could cancel for lack of documents.

It could just be the compliance officer got involved late, realised MCE had made numerous errors after the fact eg not responding to the SAR and requests for evidence for the court etc. They may have then decided it's easier to roll over

We need more information about the actual case.

Brooker_Dave

dacouch wrote: »

We need more information about the actual case.

They seem to place everything on ICOBS, whatever that is.

"It is very clear that cancellation insurance policy for a mere technical reason is a breach of the relevant law. Even proper notification of cancellation does not make the cancellation lawful. There is nothing in ICOBS which allows that. ICOBS is very clear that insurers are not entitled to cancel or to impose technical conditions upon the life of an insurance policy or upon the decision as to whether or not to accept a claim."

dacouch

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

They seem to place everything on ICOBS, whatever that is.

"It is very clear that cancellation insurance policy for a mere technical reason is a breach of the relevant law. Even proper notification of cancellation does not make the cancellation lawful. There is nothing in ICOBS which allows that. ICOBS is very clear that insurers are not entitled to cancel or to impose technical conditions upon the life of an insurance policy or upon the decision as to whether or not to accept a claim."

They do like ICOBS.

I would be interested to hear Magpie Cottages view on the ICOBS as that's his speciality

agrinnall

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

They seem to place everything on ICOBS, whatever that is.

Insurance Conduct of Business Sourcebook.

https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/ICOBS/

Quentin

dacouch wrote: »

I would be interested to hear Magpie Cottages view .....

Will have to speak to him one to one to hear him! (Particular Packing Requirements)

Brooker_Dave

dacouch wrote: »

As Dunstonh mentions, I doubt there would be enough cases

Two fresh threads tonight from people being cancelled, and thus cheated out of money and marked for life.

Some sort of regulation of the insurance industry is needed.

paddyandstumpy

Insurance is already very heavily regulated.

If you feel a cancellation is unfair, complain. If your not happy with their response, take it to the Ombudsman.

Brooker_Dave

paddyandstumpy wrote: »

Insurance is already very heavily regulated.

If you feel a cancellation is unfair, complain. If your not happy with their response, take it to the Ombudsman.

The ombudsman is a weak long drawn out process that often fails to look at the actual law surrounding the contract.

In yesterdays example some bloke is being cancelled because the logbook is in the lease companies name.

How does that make him more likely to crash or have his car stolen etc?

Mungo76

dacouch wrote: »

They do like ICOBS. /QUOTE]

They do spout that one a lot, it's not one you would put into your complaint letter, unless you're the 5 page type.

paddyandstumpy

Actually the FOS is very customer friendly, speaking from an Insurers perspective.

The case you are referring to; if the risk is not something the insurer would have taken on had the correct information need disclosed, why shouldn't they cancel the risk?

If they were forced to continue accepting a risk they would otherwise not cover, it sets a dangerous precedent that non disclosure can be rewarded with cheaper rates and insurance with a company that otherwise would not have offered cover.