Help! Car stolen, Insurance hadn't auto renewed!

born_again

Op has not mentioned if the policy was direct with a ins co or through a broker. Which could make a difference.

elsien

TooManyPoints said:

Surely everybody can remember their NI number, can't they? I also can remember my credit card number, expiry date and security code, my main bank account sort code and account number as well as my online login 

Short answer is no, no and no.
The slightly longer answer is why would I need to remember a NI number I need once every few years, if that? 
I have a multitude of bank accounts and credit cards and not a scooby for any of them off the top of my head.
Thd only numbers I do remember are my library card and my phone number. That’s about it. 

TooManyPoints

Short answer is no, no and no.

I was being flippant. I have an extremely odd memory which enables me to remember strings of numbers and letters (though I'm not so good at long strings of letters only). I don't imagine there are many people with that sort of memory. It's handy, but not overly so. That said, I can't remember what I had for dinner last night!   

I hope the OP has some success with the Ombudsman. Personally I doubt he will, mainly because of the time the policy had lapsed during which he had not noticed the premium (which would have been not inconsiderable) had remained unpaid. But you never know.

Langtang

elsien said:

TooManyPoints said:

Surely everybody can remember their NI number, can't they? I also can remember my credit card number, expiry date and security code, my main bank account sort code and account number as well as my online login 

Short answer is no, no and no.
The slightly longer answer is why would I need to remember a NI number I need once every few years, if that? 
I have a multitude of bank accounts and credit cards and not a scooby for any of them off the top of my head.
Thd only numbers I do remember are my library card and my phone number. That’s about it. 

...Because we all need to remember our library card number in 2021....

I remember once being asked for my mobile phone number. I said I had no idea, as I never ring it....

Aretnap

AdrianC said:

TooManyPoints said:

However, as fascinating as all this is, I digress. I think we need to cut to the chase. The long and short of this is this:

• The insurers declined to renew and they informed the OP by e-mail.
• That e-mail was not read. This meant the OP had no confirmation (a) that his policy had been renewed and (b) how much he might have paid for it.

The OP would not have known about this until either (a) he was stopped by the police; (b) he had an accident (c) he received a notice from the DVLA under the Continuous Insurance legislation or (d) his vehicle was stolen.

Most people's first warning would be...
(e) the premium was not taken from their bank account.

When you spend too much time on an internet forum full of obsessive money-saving types, it's easy to forget that normal people don't go through their bank statements looking at every payment listed on it in detail, still less every payment that isn't listed on it. Any more than normal people can recite their national insurance or credit card numbers off the tops of their heads. I certainly wouldn't notice (say) my electricity bill not being paid one month; perhaps if you're the sort of person who can afford a £65K car your annual insurance premium isn't the sort of money that would stand out either.

AdrianC said:

Aretnap said:

Found a couple of Financial Ombudsman Service decisions which may assist the OP.

As a general policy the FOS says "Our approach in these circumstances is that an insurer should take significant steps to highlight that it had changed from auto-renewing a policy to expecting a customer to contact it to renew."

But that's describing a completely different set of circumstances.

That's describing an insurer who were happy to continue cover, but had changed the onus of renewal from auto- to DIY.
This is an insurer who were NOT continuing to offer cover, because the car was outwith their underwriting criteria.

In an uninsured claim under your circumstances, the insurer simply pay out, but withhold the premium that would have been due.
In the OP's circumstances, there is no premium due. You would be forcing them to extend cover they were unwilling to extend.

That's one way of looking at it. It's not the only way. Certainly in the right circumstances the FOS isn't averse to ordering insurers to cover risks that they wouldn't willingly have offered. An obvious example is when a customer has bought a second hand car without realising it has been modified and thus not declared the modifications - the insurer can be required to honour the cover, even if the modifications are ones that they would not normally have agreed to cover at any price.

If the FOS does decide that the insurer had a responsibility to do more to warn the OP that his premium would not auto-renew (as they may well do, based on the above) the obvious remedy is to retrospectively reinstate the cover, and either deduct a "premium" from the settlement which the Ombudsman regards as reasonable  (last year's premium + a few percent perhaps?), or waive the "premium" as compensation for the OP's ordeal (as they did in one of the cases I found).

I'm not saying that a complaint from the OP would be guaranteed to succeed - I think the point can be argued either way. Just that it is not obviously a lost cause, so he might as well try. Unless you can find a case which is more closely resembles the OP's where they didn't find in the customer's favour?

TooManyPoints

 I certainly wouldn't notice (say) my electricity bill not being paid one month;

Possibly not. The difference is that a missed payment on your electricity account would not see your supply disconnected.

I appreciate that civil liability and criminal law run to different standards. But as far as criminal responsibility goes, the OP's situation would definitely not see him with a defence to a charge of No Insurance and as I mentioned earlier, it would almost certainly see an argument of "Special Reasons" (not to endorse) fail. The law requires him to be absolutely sure (as far as is reasonably practical) that he is covered. The OP made no effort whatsoever to ensure he was covered. He simply assumed that he was. His renewal date came and went and he did not check that his premium had been taken or that his cover continued; he did not attempt to examine his new insurance certificate to see that it was in order. It may well be that he is financially well off enough to not have to worry about checking his bank statements. But that does not absolve him from his responsibility to see his is insured (which, after all said and done, is his responsibility, not that of the insurers).

I've no idea how the Ombudsman will view this. We have no clear idea of what communications were sent, how they were headed and what they said. But provided he was notified I think it would be very harsh if the insurers were held to be on cover after three months, and only then because the pricey motor which they decided they no longer wanted to cover was stolen.

AdrianC

Has there been a suggestion of an IN10?

This is about a theft claim.

ElefantEd

If the Ombudsman does tell the insurance company that they are obliged to retrospectively cover the OP, would the insurers be entitled to ask for the premium? And if so, what's to stop them saying "If we were going to insure this car, which we normally wouldn't, we would charge £25k"?

Grumpy_chap

ElefantEd said:

If the Ombudsman does tell the insurance company that they are obliged to retrospectively cover the OP, would the insurers be entitled to ask for the premium? And if so, what's to stop them saying "If we were going to insure this car, which we normally wouldn't, we would charge £25k"?

The car was worth £65k
A premium of £25k still leaves the OP £40k to the better.

TooManyPoints

Has there been a suggestion of an IN10?

No there hasn't and I said I appreciate the difference between the burden of proof to secure a criminal conviction and that needed to win a civil claim. I was using the likelihood of acquittal or SRNTE (nil to very low) to illustrate that the criminal law places an almost unconditional  responsibility on the motorist to ensure cover is in place. There seems some support here to suggest that the insurers were at fault in some way that it mitigates the OP's negligence. From what little we know, I believe they were not.