can car insurance policies be cancelled in retrospect?

Jumblebumble

dunstonh said:

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.

Has anyone said  there was a claim made?
The  incident could be the fact that the op went through a red light.
I knew a traffic officer about 20 years ago said that if they stopped people who had say an XR3i head on a normal looking engine then when they rang the insurance company to see if the MOD was covered the first thing the insurance company would say is 
" Have they had an accident?" depending on the answer the ins co would confirm  if the car was insured or not.
If they confirmed to plod that there was no problem they  could then carry on taking the premium but not pay out if there was an Claim
I wonder if this still happens today.

Ditzy_Mitzy

dunstonh said:

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. 

There isn't a claim. The poster has been reported by the police for consideration of prosecution of the offence of driving without insurance. There was no insurance in place for the purpose the car was being used for at the time the police stopped it. 
The poster had attempted to arrange insurance cover, but was unable to do so as the insurance company's office was closed. 
I assume you're referring to this:
https://www.abi.org.uk/data-and-resources/tools-and-resources/how-to-buy-insurance/what-the-consumer-insurance-act-means-for-customers/
when you refer to unintentional non-disclosure. 
I just can't see how that applies. It offers some legal protection to consumers purchasing insurance policies. In this case the insurance policy needed for the journey, one that covered business travel, wasn't purchased in the first place. And anyway, the driver did attempt to disclose the material change in circumstances to the insurer, however he was unable to do so. 

dunstonh

I just can't see how that applies. It offers some legal protection to consumers purchasing insurance policies.

As the insurer has voided the policy from before the incident, they are seen to have no insurance.

If the insurer does not void the policy and is required to continue it then there would be insurance.

And anyway, the driver did attempt to disclose the material change in circumstances to the insurer, however he was unable to do so.

They did after the event.  It doesnt mean the insurer would have taken the same position had they been aware before the incident.  it also doesnt mean that the insurer took the correct action.    Had it been before the incident, it would be a case of occupation change and the inclusion of business (if multi-site) or commuter (if a single or limited number of sites).    After the incident, the insurer is then looking at someone that failed to disclose and is asking to backdate it.      We dont know specifically what the reason the insurer is rejecting it. It could be that they do not offer business cover at all.  In which case, the op is pretty much stuffed.  It could be that the totting up of the different things has just made it too risky for them to offer.    If one of those things was removed (such as non-disclosure) it may fall within their tolerance to offer cover.   Its a stretch but the op has nothing to lose.

The series of events, on paper, looks suspicious.   Just happened to get a job at 8.30pm that started 90 minutes later and happen to be stopped by the police. The insurer may have acted more cynically than they should.  Especially if the "incident" involves a potential claim.   Again, its a stretch but you would not believe how liberal the FOS can be at times when sob stories are put in front of them.  Equally, you cannot assume that a call centre worker has made the right decision in voiding the policy.  Making a complaint and getting the FOS to look at it with a view to getting it reinstated is realistically the only choice the OP has to avoid potential legal action.

Hasbeen

The incident happened 12 weeks ago, perhaps the OP has now left it too late to seek any advice that would be beneficial in changing any outcome resulting on the cancelation of insurance?

Even now for making a complaint to the FOS as posted above?

I was unaware, that the police had access to any limitations on someone's insurance policy.

I always thought they did the check on the data base and you were either insured for the vehicle or not?

angrycrow

Not a Cooper myself but I have been told by police officers that when the police view the motor insurers database (mid) for a particular vehicle they see dates and times of cover, name address and dob of policyholder, named driver names and dob and the permitted usage of the vehicle. 

So when the police ran the op's reg it would have told them he only had social domestic pleasure use. If they then established he was traveling to or from work (was op displaying a door supervisor licence for example) they would know he was not covered for this use.

I do wonder if the op is actually a door supervisor as a lot of insurers do not cover pub and club employees. 

dacouch

angrycrow said:

Not a Cooper myself but I have been told by police officers that when the police view the motor insurers database (mid) for a particular vehicle they see dates and times of cover, name address and dob of policyholder, named driver names and dob and the permitted usage of the vehicle. 

So when the police ran the op's reg it would have told them he only had social domestic pleasure use. If they then established he was traveling to or from work (was op displaying a door supervisor licence for example) they would know he was not covered for this use.

I do wonder if the op is actually a door supervisor as a lot of insurers do not cover pub and club employees. 

He is almost certainly working in connection with the licensed trade hence the call late at night and finishing at 230am.
In my experience a security officer is relatively low risk to an Insurer but most of them don't like to insurer door security.
I don't agree that the Insurer should have back dated a cancellation, the policy will set out how the Insurer can cancel the policy and it will involve them giving written notice of a date in the future. (Although that won't help the OP as he was not covered for driving to / from work)
The first question a cop will generally ask when they stop you is where you have been and where you are going

Ditzy_Mitzy

dunstonh said:

I just can't see how that applies. It offers some legal protection to consumers purchasing insurance policies.

As the insurer has voided the policy from before the incident, they are seen to have no insurance.

If the insurer does not void the policy and is required to continue it then there would be insurance.

And anyway, the driver did attempt to disclose the material change in circumstances to the insurer, however he was unable to do so.

They did after the event.  It doesnt mean the insurer would have taken the same position had they been aware before the incident.  it also doesnt mean that the insurer took the correct action.    Had it been before the incident, it would be a case of occupation change and the inclusion of business (if multi-site) or commuter (if a single or limited number of sites).    After the incident, the insurer is then looking at someone that failed to disclose and is asking to backdate it.      We dont know specifically what the reason the insurer is rejecting it. It could be that they do not offer business cover at all.  In which case, the op is pretty much stuffed.  It could be that the totting up of the different things has just made it too risky for them to offer.    If one of those things was removed (such as non-disclosure) it may fall within their tolerance to offer cover.   Its a stretch but the op has nothing to lose.

The series of events, on paper, looks suspicious.   Just happened to get a job at 8.30pm that started 90 minutes later and happen to be stopped by the police. The insurer may have acted more cynically than they should.  Especially if the "incident" involves a potential claim.   Again, its a stretch but you would not believe how liberal the FOS can be at times when sob stories are put in front of them.  Equally, you cannot assume that a call centre worker has made the right decision in voiding the policy.  Making a complaint and getting the FOS to look at it with a view to getting it reinstated is realistically the only choice the OP has to avoid potential legal action.

There are two issues facing the driver in this case. Firstly there is the criminal offence of driving without insurance. Secondly there is the possible civil dispute concerning the cancellation of the insurance policy. The outcome of the second matter, the dispute about cancellation, has no bearing on the outcome of the first, the criminal offence of driving without insurance. 
The facts, as described, are these:
The car was insured for Social, Domestic and Pleasure use only
The car was driven for a purpose, returning home from a place of work, which would not be covered by said Social, Domestic and Pleasure use policy
This came to the attention of the police, who commenced proceedings in relation to a criminal prosecution for driving with no insurance. 
As a secondary matter the insurance company, upon being made aware of the incident with the police, cancelled the motor insurance policy. Whilst this is irritating for the policyholder, it doesn't really matter when considering the criminal prosecution. The reason for this is, irrespective of whether or not the policy was cancelled, it did not cover the driver for the manner in which the car was being used at the point it was stopped. 
Let's assume, for argument's sake, that the insurance policy were to be reinstated. It would only cover the car for Social, Domestic and Pleasure use. It does not change the fact that the car was being used for a purpose other than Social, Domestic or Pleasure. The criminal offence is complete whichever way you look at it, ergo no action taken by the insurance company would constitute a legal defence to driving without insurance in this case.
You point about the insurance company perhaps ruling that it would have offered cover, had it been informed in advance that such cover was required, would not stand up in court. Essentially it reduces to a universal argument that no prosecution for driving without insurance can ever stand as the uninsured driver could have purchased insurance prior to making his journey.

csgohan4

This is an expensive lesson for the OP eitherway. Whether he intentionally or not misled the insurers is irrelevant now sadly as above.

Op you tried to save a few pounds by not getting the correct insurance and it has bitten you back quite badly.  

You can't pick and choose what to cover after an event has happened all the the time and expect to get covered.

You won't be able to get disruption cover for covid 19 despite buying your travel insurance 6 months ago as an example. Some insurers are forgiving, but they are not obligated to as, as the error is yours