Van insurance payment

unholyangel

Who authorised the initial payment and how? By telephone,  or online? The friend or her ex? 

If she only authorised a one off payment....there have been instances of the Ombudsman upholding that the account holder had neither authorised the payment nor been negligent. 

If it was a credit card or an overdraft was involved it's different. In that case even if you're negligent your liability is limited to the first £50. Unless you were grossly so, or acting deliberately.

In any case, she could chase the ex. Whether it is wise to do so is another matter. She could view it as a "cost" of getting rid of him. It may then seem like a bargain. 

Sandtree

Ergates said:

Sandtree said:

custardy said:

I would be contacting the insurer in the first instance ASAP 
Given the scenario I would expect them to try and help.

The OP isn't named on the policy, would be an issue to discuss a third party's policy with the OP. Thinking of it from the contact centre agent's perspective the OP could be anyone and just trying to cause issues for their policyholder.

Wouldn't they be named as the account holder?

We never used to take the name on the card, we just asked if it was their card, if they said no then asked them to confirm they had the cardholder's permission. We never asked in any way shape or form if they were the accountholder or a secondary cardholder and must admit I cannot recall anyone ever asking that question when it comes to paying someone. 

Don't know if @born_again knows what happens to a CPA on a secondary cardholder's card if the secondary person is subsequently removed? (as a point of curiosity rather than necessarily relevant to this thread). It may vary by bank as certainly a minority issue both cards with the same number (or used to at least) which presumably means the CPA would continue on the account as the issuer doesn't identify primary/secondary spend.

born_again

Sandtree said:

Don't know if @born_again knows what happens to a CPA on a secondary cardholder's card if the secondary person is subsequently removed? (as a point of curiosity rather than necessarily relevant to this thread). It may vary by bank as certainly a minority issue both cards with the same number (or used to at least) which presumably means the CPA would continue on the account as the issuer doesn't identify primary/secondary spend.

Interesting point.
Most cards should now be different numbers. As it was a really PIA and annoyed many customers when you had to stop both cards. Which was a very valid point... I know ours have been for many years.

As to CPA. It is card number based on Visa system. But it needs a manual entry  to add it, so would not be part of the process. So would think (not come across this one before) that payment would still go through. As main card holder is advised to make sure that the 2nd card holder is aware that the card is stopped & that any CPA are advised of the change.