Car insurance voided, URGENT！！！Please help

mgfvvc

societys_child wrote: »

Edit: Humm, but the op didn't know that, and thought they were helping to reduce the friends premium by agreeing, when they'd no intention of ever driving the vehicle, which is pretty similar.

It would help if you read the original post more carefully. It says "so we can share car sometimes when traveling and also can reduced his premium a bit". The first bit of that clearly implies an intention to drive the car, as well as reducing the premium.

ttony1314

mgfvvc wrote: »

It would help if you read the original post more carefully. It says "so we can share car sometimes when traveling and also can reduced his premium a bit". The first bit of that clearly implies an intention to drive the car, as well as reducing the premium.

I did have intention on driving the car but not it is down to the insurer to believe me or not it i wasnt the my intention to set up the policy. my defense will be the following:
1. i never owned that car on the policy (which DVLA record says so as well)
2. Police is informed as well (why would i do it if i was the person who set up the policy?)
3. there are never any money left my account for this policy.

ttony1314

But again im not sure if Financial Ombudsman will take my view as well, as im not sure if i got enough to prove it wasnt my intention to set up the policy.

System

ttony1314 wrote: »

he used my details to set up the insurance on his car, which doesnt even have his name of the policy,

If it's "your" policy and his name does not appear as a named driver then he was driving uninsured?
Apart from that it's surely identity theft? Isn't that a criminal offence too?

ValiantSon

How was the policy paid for? I would imagine that it was paid for with a credit or debit card which, if your so-called friend, bought the insurance would have been done with his card. Ask the insurers about this.

ttony1314

ValiantSon wrote: »

How was the policy paid for? I would imagine that it was paid for with a credit or debit card which, if your so-called friend, bought the insurance would have been done with his card. Ask the insurers about this.

According to the insurer, it was paying on monthly, which, doesnt coming from any of my account (I only have one anyway).

ValiantSon

ttony1314 wrote: »

According to the insurer, it was paying on monthly, which, doesnt coming from any of my account (I only have one anyway).

Sounds to me like these are grounds for you to get this removed from your records then. The policy is being paid from an account that you do not hold, so you could not have set the payments up. They cannot argue otherwise. You really need to push them over this. They cannot hold you responsible if they don't have any evidence that you committed fraud.

You MUST make a formal complaint and follow it through, right up to and including the ombudsman, if necessary.

Quentin

ValiantSon wrote: »

Sounds to me like these are grounds for you to get this removed from your records then. The policy is being paid from an account that you do not hold, so you could not have set the payments up. They cannot argue otherwise. You really need to push them over this. They cannot hold you responsible if they don't have any evidence that you committed fraud.

You MUST make a formal complaint and follow it through, right up to and including the ombudsman, if necessary.

Whilst agreeing the OP should try everything to get this decision reversed, the fact that the policyholder didn't pay the premium isn't itself grounds to do this.

Insurers always accept payment from any source!

ValiantSon

Quentin wrote: »

Whilst agreeing the OP should try everything to get this decision reversed, the fact that the policyholder didn't pay the premium isn't itself grounds to do this.

Insurers always accept payment from any source!

That's as may be, and I acknowledge the depth of your knowledge on these matters, however, burden of proof is a legal requirement and the insurers (powerful as they are) do not have the right to arbitrarily apportion blame: they need to have some proof that he has committed insurance fraud. As it stands (from what we know) they don't have any.

To take this to its logical conclusion I could randomly pick a name from the electoral register and use their details to purchase insurance (to gain a cheaper price) and then pay for it from my account and the random stranger would end up with a record of cancelled insurance when my fraud was discovered. Somehow I don't see a court upholding that kind of decision.