can car insurance policies be cancelled in retrospect?

Ditzy_Mitzy

I think the employment as a security officer is irrelevant. Looking at the information we have:
Poster had an insurance policy for Social, Domestic and Pleasure use only. This does not cover commuting or business use.
The car was being used to travel home from a place of work, however this was not a regular or fixed workplace.
Generally speaking, commuting covers travel to and from a fixed place of work.
Business use covers travel to and from multiple work places, travel during business hours and everything else bar use for hire or reward.
Ergo, a policy with business usage would have been required but was not in place. 
The car was being used for a purpose not covered by any insurance policy, therefore was uninsured. 
Sorry 

Hasbeen

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

I think the employment as a security officer is irrelevant. Looking at the information we have:
Poster had an insurance policy for Social, Domestic and Pleasure use only. This does not cover commuting or business use.
The car was being used to travel home from a place of work, however this was not a regular or fixed workplace.
Generally speaking, commuting covers travel to and from a fixed place of work.
Business use covers travel to and from multiple work places, travel during business hours and everything else bar use for hire or reward.
Ergo, a policy with business usage would have been required but was not in place. 
The car was being used for a purpose not covered by any insurance policy, therefore was uninsured. 
Sorry 

Totally agree.
Unfortunately the OP seems fixated on the reason it was termed not to be insured, was his job title?

Op has not stated any other reason re insurance company stating business use or even ordinary commuting.

Which I would have thought would be the main reason for cancellation?

But regardless. Car was not insured at the time and the insurance company have acted accordingly.

Which is now going to be a VERY expensive lesson for the OP  

What I have not really understood is that OP states incident with police on his way back home, so my initial thoughts, basically stopped for routine check?

If so then surely the vehicle would come up insured on the database?

And why would insurance company be notified?

Pure speculation only on my part. Could be a variety of reasons?

Hasbeen

Hughes_Family said:

My insurance company cancelled my policy (backdating it) to the start of my shift as they said they would not have insured me due to my job title.

So my question is can the insurance policy cancel my policy by back dating it to the start of my shift meaning that i did not have insurance when i was asked by the police or can they cancel it from when they were first informed of my new employment status which was after the police enquired about my insurance status, meaning I did have a valid policy?

Have reread that part again. Are you implying that you personally informed the insurance company about job change?

Did they actually say cancellation? Or that they could not / declined to insure you?

dunstonh

So my question is can the insurance policy cancel my policy by back dating it to the start of my shift meaning that i did not have insurance when i was asked by the police or can they cancel it from when they were first informed of my new employment status which was after the police enquired about my insurance status, meaning I did have a valid policy?

Yes.  If they would never have issued the policy in the first place with the details supplied, they can void the policy as if it never existed back to the point you became illegible for cover.

My job role was a security officer

It is an occupation that does usually see an increase in premiums due to higher risks and some insurers will not offer coverage on their standard plans.   However, that is probably not the issue here by itself.

Your policy was SD&P.   You were using it for commuting but did not have commuting  (if it was a regular place of work.  However, you may have needed business cover if it was going to be multiple places of work).  So, you were not covered and you were using the vehicle in a way that you told the insurer you would not use it.    Again, that in itself may not have resulted in a voiding of the policy.

However, when you tot all the things up a) non-disclosure, b) not correctly covered c) high risk occupation; then the combination of these things could be sufficient for them to withdraw cover.

Under the freedom of information act I have asked for ...

As already mentioned, the FOI act does not apply to the public or companies.    Even if it did, it would not help your case as the insurer may only offer lower risks via the version of the plan you have but may have a higher-risks version available through different distribution methods.  Providers often have multiple versions of products for different distribution methods.    It would provide you with no useful information.

Plus, whilst you are focusing on the occupation, it is not the only issue you had and probably not the main one (As others have said)

HOWEVER, despite all this, there may be some hope.    The Financial Ombudsman Service is very liberal and forgiving and if you can show that you did not deliberately mislead the insurer and you genuinely got the job offer after the insurance office was closed and had not been employed previously, they may take a sympathetic view.      Do expect to have to provide proof.  They will not accept your words as truth.  Especially when it looks suspicious, as it does.

This short notice is common within the industry to cover sickness etc…

You seem to have some knowledge of the industry.   Had you already been working as a security officer elsewhere?  What occupation had you declared on the policy?

csgohan4

This is a good case that if there any changes to how you use your car/van e.t.c beyond what you originally set up in the policy, you must inform your insurer, as things accidents can and will happen

Emmia

Hasbeen said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

I think the employment as a security officer is irrelevant. Looking at the information we have:
Poster had an insurance policy for Social, Domestic and Pleasure use only. This does not cover commuting or business use.
The car was being used to travel home from a place of work, however this was not a regular or fixed workplace.
Generally speaking, commuting covers travel to and from a fixed place of work.
Business use covers travel to and from multiple work places, travel during business hours and everything else bar use for hire or reward.
Ergo, a policy with business usage would have been required but was not in place. 
The car was being used for a purpose not covered by any insurance policy, therefore was uninsured. 
Sorry 

What I have not really understood is that OP states incident with police on his way back home, so my initial thoughts, basically stopped for routine check?

If so then surely the vehicle would come up insured on the database?

And why would insurance company be notified?

Pure speculation only on my part. Could be a variety of reasons?

I was wondering if the policy was sold with some exclusions e.g. night time driving? Or it might be the OP was involved in an incident which would require the attendance of the police - and a potential claim on their policy?

Ditzy_Mitzy

dunstonh said:

So my question is can the insurance policy cancel my policy by back dating it to the start of my shift meaning that i did not have insurance when i was asked by the police or can they cancel it from when they were first informed of my new employment status which was after the police enquired about my insurance status, meaning I did have a valid policy?

Yes.  If they would never have issued the policy in the first place with the details supplied, they can void the policy as if it never existed back to the point you became illegible for cover.

My job role was a security officer

It is an occupation that does usually see an increase in premiums due to higher risks and some insurers will not offer coverage on their standard plans.   However, that is probably not the issue here by itself.

Your policy was SD&P.   You were using it for commuting but did not have commuting  (if it was a regular place of work.  However, you may have needed business cover if it was going to be multiple places of work).  So, you were not covered and you were using the vehicle in a way that you told the insurer you would not use it.    Again, that in itself may not have resulted in a voiding of the policy.

However, when you tot all the things up a) non-disclosure, b) not correctly covered c) high risk occupation; then the combination of these things could be sufficient for them to withdraw cover.

Under the freedom of information act I have asked for ...

As already mentioned, the FOI act does not apply to the public or companies.    Even if it did, it would not help your case as the insurer may only offer lower risks via the version of the plan you have but may have a higher-risks version available through different distribution methods.  Providers often have multiple versions of products for different distribution methods.    It would provide you with no useful information.

Plus, whilst you are focusing on the occupation, it is not the only issue you had and probably not the main one (As others have said)

HOWEVER, despite all this, there may be some hope.    The Financial Ombudsman Service is very liberal and forgiving and if you can show that you did not deliberately mislead the insurer and you genuinely got the job offer after the insurance office was closed and had not been employed previously, they may take a sympathetic view.      Do expect to have to provide proof.  They will not accept your words as truth.  Especially when it looks suspicious, as it does.

This short notice is common within the industry to cover sickness etc…

You seem to have some knowledge of the industry.   Had you already been working as a security officer elsewhere?  What occupation had you declared on the policy?

I'm sorry but this is far outside the remit of the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). What we're looking at, potentially, is a criminal offence. The law is clear on what does and does not constitute driving without insurance. A motor insurance policy covers a driver in specific circumstances and for doing specific things. If the vehicle is driven in circumstances not covered by the policy, it is not insured. That's as far as the criminal law goes, there are no grey areas. In this case the car was being used for business travel and the insurance policy did not cover it for business use. It was, therefore, uninsured for the journey it was undertaking - the criminal offence was complete at that point. 
The fact that an insurance policy which did not cover the journey was in place is irrelevant. The fact this policy was later cancelled, quite reasonably, by the insurance company does not affect the commission of the offence of driving without insurance. If, for argument's sake, the SDP only insurance policy were to be reinstated it would still not provide insurance cover for the journey in question. Owing to this, it doesn't make any difference to the poster whether the insurance was or was not cancelled by the insurance company. 
Driving without insurance is a strict liability offence, what the driver did, or did not, do makes no difference. All that CPS requires to know is that the car was being driven in circumstances where an insurance policy was required and that there was no insurance in place to cover those circumstances, at the time. 
The poster would still be required to declare the conviction for driving without insurance to any future insurers, regardless of cancellations of policies. That, I suspect, trumps a straightforward policy cancellation in terms of risk weighting. 

dunstonh

I'm sorry but this is far outside the remit of the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). What we're looking at, potentially, is a criminal offence.

It's not outside the remit of the FOS.  The FOS make decisions on non-disclosure all the time.    They may decide it is unintentional non-disclosure and that may lead to the insurer being told to cover the claim.     Which would mean that they were not uninsured.

It is potentially an offence if the FOS reject the complaint as it leaves them effectively uninsured.

So, the FOS could be instrumental in avoiding it being classed as a criminal offence.   They may agree with the insurer.   However, the OP really has nothing to lose by complaining to the insurer and referring it to the FOS if necessary.   You can see plenty of FOS decisions where they have overturned insurers when it comes to non-disclosure. 

Ditzy_Mitzy

dunstonh said:

I'm sorry but this is far outside the remit of the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). What we're looking at, potentially, is a criminal offence.

It's not outside the remit of the FOS.  The FOS make decisions on non-disclosure all the time.    They may decide it is unintentional non-disclosure and that may lead to the insurer being told to cover the claim.     Which would mean that they were not uninsured.

It is potentially an offence if the FOS reject the complaint as it leaves them effectively uninsured.

So, the FOS could be instrumental in avoiding it being classed as a criminal offence.   They may agree with the insurer.   However, the OP really has nothing to lose by complaining to the insurer and referring it to the FOS if necessary.   You can see plenty of FOS decisions where they have overturned insurers when it comes to non-disclosure. 

I'm sorry if I didn't explain myself clearly enough the first time. The criminal offence of driving without insurance is committed regardless of whether or not the insurance policy was cancelled. The policy covered Social, Domestic and Pleasure use; the car was being used for a purpose other than Social, Domestic or Pleasure. That's it, it was uninsured at the time. The prosecution has nothing else to prove in order for the driver to be convicted. 
The only way for the offence not to have been committed is for the car to have had the relevant insurance in place prior to the journey which it was undertaking when stopped by the police. The only way for that to have been the insurance company's error is if the policyholder arranged for commuting or business insurance to be put in place prior to the journey, for the insurance company to have confirmed such cover was in place and then, by some miraculous coincidence, to have subsequently cancelled the insurance policy without telling the driver. 
It's a strict liability offence - the onus is placed on the driver to ensure that adequate insurance is in place for his car at all times. In this case we have been told that the driver knew his insurance was inadequate and that he attempted to rectify matters by having the insurance company extend the provisions of the insurance policy. He was unable to do this by virtue of the insurance company being closed. He knew, or ought to have known, therefore that he was driving without insurance. 
I just can't see what the FOS is expected to do? The only get out is if they instruct the insurance company to pretend that the driver contacted them in advance of that journey and, additionally, to pretend that the insurance policy was upgraded in order to cover the journey. FOS can't, and won't, do that.

dunstonh

I just can't see what the FOS is expected to do?

If the FOS decide that it is unintentional non-disclosure then the insurance company, providing they would have offered cover knowing the full facts prior to the event, will say that the policy was not voided and the claim should be paid.   i.e. the person was covered under the insurance and therefore they were not uninsured.

The only get out is if they instruct the insurance company to pretend that the driver contacted them in advance of that journey and, additionally, to pretend that the insurance policy was upgraded in order to cover the journey. FOS can't, and won't, do that.

Yes, the FOS can do that and they have done that where it is unintentional non-disclosure and cover would have been offered if the facts were disclosed prior to the event.