Car insurance void: please help!

Quentin

BoGoF wrote: »

Is it me or are people sugar coating what actually happened here. It was a material difference to the policy, the OP was not insured to make that journey. By your logic 'forgetting' to add a named driiver would also be ok.

Big difference in your simile!

It's you

Letting someone drive your car without cover is clearly totally different to the scenario here!

What do you think would be the premium "lost" by the insurer over this genuine oversight? (Probably between nil and £10!)

The "punishment" here doesn't match the "crime" at all!

BoGoF

Making a journey you are not covered for is not all that different.

Adding a named driver to my policy cost less than £10.

With respect it's not up to you if the punishment fits the crime......nor me. Just thought some balance was needed.

Quentin

Of course it's not "up to me"!

But the OP has been correctly advised to follow the complaints procedure, and if needed to escalate to the FOS (who it is "up to")

No "sugar coating" in that advice at all!

uk1

BoGoF wrote: »

Is it me or are people sugar coating what actually happened here. It was a material difference to the policy, the OP was not insured to make that journey. By your logic 'forgetting' to add a named driiver would also be ok.

It is you. Thankfully, things are rarely black or white as you think. No one is saying it is OK, it is just the sanctions insurers are allowed to take when a situation like this occurs. They should respond "fairly" and proportioately. And the "authority" for this is the Ombudsman's web site where they lay out how they have dealt with previous similar complaints and what is fair and unfair. The only case where insurers can void and decline is when the non-disclosure is either fraudulent, deliberate or "clearly reckless" - and these are the words used by The Ombudsman. In that situation they can void the policty and refuse to pay out.

This does not seem to me to be any of those and in all other scenarios then if the non-disclosure was inadvertant, it is as I said it should be. The insurers are trying it on on the basis that most ordinary people are unaware of how the Ombudsman will treat the complaint. As soon as a escallation complaint handler at the OP's insurer reads that the OP is aware of this and intends to complain then if they have an ounce of common sense they will reconsider in the OP's favour. If not then it is better than evens that the Ombudsman will find in the OP's favour.

You should be happy and more importantly so should the OP that it is this way. No?

BoGoF

So how do you establish the deliberate from the careless non-disclosure? We could all say innocent mistake. In my line of work 'forgot' usually means I thought I would take a chance on it.

IMHO undertaking a journey you know you are not covered for is very careless. OP must have made a conscious decision to exclude commuting when taking out the policy.

uk1

BoGoF wrote: »

So how do you establish the deliberate from the careless non-disclosure? We could all say innocent mistake. In my line of work 'forgot' usually means I thought I would take a chance on it.

IMHO undertaking a journey you know you are not covered for is very careless. OP must have made a conscious decision to exclude commuting when taking out the policy.

With respect it is down to "common sense" which apparently one is either blessed with or not. I don't agree with your presumptions and I do not believe the Ombudsman would either. If there is a "reasonable doubt" then it is found in favour of the insured.

In any event it is not your opinion or my own that matters, it is the Ombudsman's. If you are interested in how cases are decided it would be better if you did some searches rather than ask me to speak on "his" behalf. The website is extremely useful and will support the advice I provided.

Quentin

BoGoF wrote: »

So how do you establish the deliberate from the careless non-disclosure? We could all say innocent mistake. In my line of work 'forgot' usually means I thought I would take a chance on it.

IMHO undertaking a journey you know you are not covered for is very careless. OP must have made a conscious decision to exclude commuting when taking out the policy.

Have you read how this has come to pass??

This isn't even "non disclosure"!

As posted there's no great gain for anyone to deliberately "forget" to cover commuting, and also no great loss to the insurer!

The "punishment" at worse should be the payment of any premium if any owed, or a reduction in the pay out of a low percentage again to cover the "under insurance" if a premium adjustment is required

uk1

Quentin wrote: »

Have you read how this has come to pass??

This isn't even "non disclosure"!

As posted there's no great gain for anyone to deliberately "forget" to cover commuting, and also no great loss to the insurer!

The "punishment" at worse should be the payment of any premium if any owed, or a reduction in the pay out of a low percentage again to cover the "under insurance" if a premium adjustment is required

I most likely would have been in the OP's situation as I had rather presumed that virtually all private motor insurance covers travel to and from one's normal place of work as all of my cover over many decades has. Perhpas it has changed over time - I don't know.

So I would have answered any question when I originally bought the insurance and would have simply auto-renewed without a second thought. Bogoff might think me grossly negligent but I know I am not.

[Deleted User]

Out of interest, if an insurance company voids a policy, do they return all the money paid by the uninsured person?

BoGoF

uk1 wrote: »

I most likely would have been in the OP's situation as I had rather presumed that virtually all private motor insurance covers travel to and from one's normal place of work as all of my cover over many decades has. Perhpas it has changed over time - I don't know.

So I would have answered any question when I originally bought the insurance and would have simply auto-renewed without a second thought. Bogoff might think me grossly negligent but I know I am not.

So you have no idea about the classes of insurance available but feel suitably qualified to say the OP has done nothing wrong?

https://www.confused.com/car-insurance/guides/car-insurance-classes-of-use#