insurance cancellations unlawful?

Brooker_Dave

paddyandstumpy wrote: »

As I said in my last post, more often than not a full refund is provided, the premium isn't "trousered".

And where a customer has attempted to deceive the insurer by not correctly proposing a risk and been found out, IMO it's right they have a limited future market for insurance and at an inflated rate.

Exactly, the cheated customer gets to be cheated even more, every year for the rest of their lives.

What exactly was the extra risk the name on the logbook caused?

paddyandstumpy

I think you meant to say "the customer who tried to cheat the insurer has to pay a price for their fraud", rather than your post above?

Brooker_Dave

paddyandstumpy wrote: »

I think you meant to say "the customer who tried to cheat the insurer has to pay a price for their fraud", rather than your post above?

What fraud would that be?

Blibble

The issue is not that a different name on the logbook has inherently makes the risk greater, however if the name on the logbook had been fully disclosed then the insurer may not have accepted the risk. The name on the logbook is a material / pertinent fact to the acceptance of the claim; disclosure (or not) of this may affect the insurer's decision to indemnify the risk.

Nobody here is suggesting that the event is more or less likely based on the name on the logbook - rather that the insurer has been led to accept a risk they otherwise wouldn't.

Brooker_Dave

Blibble wrote: »

Nobody here is suggesting that the event is more or less likely based on the name on the logbook - rather that the insurer has been led to accept a risk they otherwise wouldn't.

What is the additional risk?

EdGasket

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

What is the additional risk?

Dodgy paperwork might imply dodgy in other areas too like driving or maintaining the car. An owner and registered keeper of their own car statistically might take more care of it.

Brooker_Dave

EdGasket wrote: »

Dodgy paperwork might imply dodgy in other areas too like driving or maintaining the car. An owner and registered keeper of their own car statistically might take more care of it.

What's dodgy about it?

Lease car in lease companies name?

Hardly unusual.

dacouch

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

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

Gibraltar...

They're also a broker

Blibble

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

What's dodgy about it?

Lease car in lease companies name?

Hardly unusual.

Regardless of whether you think it unusual or not, if the insurer in question had stats to suggest that leased cars were involved in a relatively greater percentage of accidents (i.e., were riskier) then it is their decision whether they wish to cover any perceived increase in risk. As long as the documentation provided to the customer at the inception of the policy is clear surrounding fully-purchased / leased cars then I fail to see a problem.

Brooker_Dave

Blibble wrote: »

Regardless of whether you think it unusual or not, if the insurer in question had stats to suggest that leased cars were involved in a relatively greater percentage of accidents (i.e., were riskier) then it is their decision whether they wish to cover any perceived increase in risk. As long as the documentation provided to the customer at the inception of the policy is clear surrounding fully-purchased / leased cars then I fail to see a problem.

But this is the crux of the issue, disreputable insurance companies cancelling policies for trivial reasons, and reasons that in no way relate to the event.

It would appear that in doing so they are acting unlawfully.

The company in question needs to be closed down and the directors need to be jailed.

Until there is genuine regulation of this industry, and genuine punishment for those who break the rules to profiteer and cheat their customers, nothing will change.

Why should the person in question be cheated out of his claim, the rest of his cover, and be essentially uninsurable for the rest of his life?