Car insurance void: please help!

uk1

BoGoF wrote: »

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#

You have clearly misrepresented what I said aa well as what the OP has said. It is you that doesn't understand the OP's situation. Posters like you are the reason why many people who can be helpful don't bother.

I suggest you read:

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/misrepresentation-and-non-disclosure.htm

.... and in particular the section on "Proportionate response" - the word I used in my advice. I used that word purposefully because it is the word that the Ombudsman will use in deciding such complaints. I explained to you why you were wrong and as you are simply now being rude I won't be respnding to any of your further posts.

Quentin

BoGoF wrote: »

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#

No one has said that!

To precis the advice that you refer to as sugar coating, it's that the insurer is acting in a Draconian manner, the OP should complain about it and be prepared to escalate this should the initial complaint fail!

(You appear mistaken by accusing the OP as having deliberately not disclosed something (presumably to deliberately reduce the premium) which if you had read the OP would know is not the case)

elsien

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.

OP's policy was valid when they took it out. The change occurred when they changed jobs part way through the insurance period - they did not deliberately misrepresent their situation from the start.

uk1

johnsmith1890 wrote: »

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

I suspect that this isn't straightforward. In certain circumstances insurers could still have been at risk for third party claims when they were unaware of non-disclosures in policies that were subsequently voided. So I think the only accurate answer is that it isn't clear-cut. Sorry.

uk1

johnsmith1890 wrote: »

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

In thinking more about your (interesting) question I have the following observations.

The insurers generally do not know up until they discover the reason for voiding the policy that they were not at risk. It follows logically therefore that they may well have met a claim before the voiding when if they had fully understood the circumstances then cover would have been denied. This means that the insurer was probably at risk and premiums should be paid. It cannot be argued that they did not carry the risk of paying a claim. This points to a rational justifacation of not refunding.

Furthermore, if a consequence of recklessly or purposefully misrepresenting the risk to an insurer meant that a customer would be refunded if the misrepresentation was discovered and the policy was voided, this would have the unwanted consequence of encouraging people to misrepresent the risk because they would either be covered or have their premium refunded if discovered. In other words there would be no downside consequences for misleading insurers.

On balance I think in most circumstances the justificable voiding of a policy probably brings with it a refusal to refund premiums paid for the above reasons.

I hope that this seems logical.

Jumblebumble

uk1 wrote: »

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.

Perhaps take a look at https://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=23071
This is slightly different to the OPs case

uk1

Jumblebumble wrote: »

Perhaps take a look at https://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=23071
This is slightly different to the OPs case

I think it completely rather than "slightly" different.

In the situation you linked it seems that the insured made a false original declaration on the proposal. Whatever was on or not on the form he had bought a policy, issued with a policy that excluded commuting and then commuted. It then seems that he varied his account of the circumstances of the claim story to try and shoe-horn the cover to include it.

In the OP's situation he purchased the correct policy originally but there was then a change which he didn't inform the insurers about.

I see the two situations as different for those reasons. That's my read of it.

[Deleted User]

uk1 wrote: »

In thinking more about your (interesting) question I have the following observations.

The insurers generally do not know up until they discover the reason for voiding the policy that they were not at risk. It follows logically therefore that they may well have met a claim before the voiding when if they had fully understood the circumstances then cover would have been denied. This means that the insurer was probably at risk and premiums should be paid. It cannot be argued that they did not carry the risk of paying a claim. This points to a rational justifacation of not refunding.

Furthermore, if a consequence of recklessly or purposefully misrepresenting the risk to an insurer meant that a customer would be refunded if the misrepresentation was discovered and the policy was voided, this would have the unwanted consequence of encouraging people to misrepresent the risk because they would either be covered or have their premium refunded if discovered. In other words there would be no downside consequences for misleading insurers.

On balance I think in most circumstances the justificable voiding of a policy probably brings with it a refusal to refund premiums paid for the above reasons.

I hope that this seems logical.

Yes, interesting, and some good stuff there. I wonder, will they only void a policy if no claim has been made. If a claim has been made, maybe they cancel it instead. I assume the latter means that the policyholder was covered up to the point of cancellation. With a voided policy, should a retrospective claim be made, the policyholder would not be covered. Is there a difference between voiding and cancelling along the lines I've described?

brooksyz

thank you all so much for your responses.


I have taken what everybody said on board and written a complaint to the insurers stating my position and will keep you updated!


I did not nor would I intentionally withhold information and this whole matter is very upsetting.


However, I feel now feel just in disputing this first with the insurers and then the FOS.


They have given me 7 days notice of cancelling my policy and i'm struggling to now find insurance based on the fact this policy was cancelled so i'm hoping that even if it takes some time this complaint works!


thank you again for all the advice

uk1

johnsmith1890 wrote: »

Yes, interesting, and some good stuff there. I wonder, will they only void a policy if no claim has been made. If a claim has been made, maybe they cancel it instead. I assume the latter means that the policyholder was covered up to the point of cancellation. With a voided policy, should a retrospective claim be made, the policyholder would not be covered. Is there a difference between voiding and cancelling along the lines I've described?

What is the difference between non-renewed, cancelled and voided car insurance?

Non-renewed car insurance policies are those that have been terminated at the expiration date
.
Cancelled car insurance policies are those that have been terminated before they were due to expire.

Voided car insurance policies are those that have been declared null and void from the policy start date. Under these circumstances, cancellation provisions may not apply.

The above is probable better than my ramblings.

For the purpose of both clarity and completeness, in my earlier post I said why I think refunds are more unlikely for voided policies, but perhaps an example of where they might be paid.

There are situations where when a policy holder discloses a change where the insurers feel that it is the "type of business" risk that they have decided not to provide cover for. It isn't to say that other insurers would take the risk, t might simply be specialisation for example.

I'm scratching my head top think of an example and any I give will inevitably be wrong but let's say a vicar buys house insurance from The Vicars House Insurance Company and it auto renews each year. It may be that he gives up Vicaring and becomes a car salesman. In that situation the insurers may have decided they they only wish to provide specialist cover for vicars and not for car salesman. There is no suggestion that the insured had failed to notify the change because he wished to deceive or was reckless. He just didn't think of it, a bit like the OP here. It may be in those circumstances an insurer might refund the current annual policy payment if they conclude that if they had received a change of occupation at renewal and there had been no claim. I think that these situations are grey rather than black or white.