Car insurance - no fault claim issue

LondonIrish

Tl:dr
Replied no to car insurance 'at fault' claims question. Now I'm marked as misrepresenting myself and cost has skyrocketed. 

Hi all, 

A couple of years ago I had a car hit mine when it was parked outside on the street while I was asleep. It was a hit and run, so no details were left for me. I claimed on my car insurance. All sorted, all good. 

Went to renew with another company (looking for cheaper) and I was asked if I had any 'at fault' claims in the past couple of years. I can't remember how many exactly. I said no, because it wasn't my fault that my car was damaged.

I was turned down because apparently a hit and run is an 'at fault' claim in insurance-speak. I'm not sure how I was meant to know that as I don't work for an insurance company. 

I then tried another company and answered 'yes' to the question of whether I had been turned down for insurance for misrepresentation in the last 5 years. Obviously, I just had been (even though I didn't know it was misrepresentation at the time) and was told that I couldn't be insured by them either. 

So I contacted a broker and I'm now paying 3k for insurance which should have been 500 quid. This will happen for the next 5 years as that is how long fraud or misrepresentation stays on my file apparently. 

Has anyone dealt with this before and successfully appealed the original designation of misrepresentation. 

(Please note, I accept that in insurance-land that's exactly what I did, but I don't believe it's fair to be judged for not knowing insurance-speak. If I had been asked if I had any claims I would have said yes and been happy to explain) 

rigolith

Your best bet is probably the FSO. Your argument would be that the definition at the time you signed up was not clear, and so having your insurance cancelled for lying is unfair.

If you can get them to remove the marker from your file you should be able to get your insurance cost back to normal.

DullGreyGuy

LondonIrish said:

Went to renew with another company (looking for cheaper) and I was asked if I had any 'at fault' claims in the past couple of years. I can't remember how many exactly. I said no, because it wasn't my fault that my car was damaged.

I was turned down because apparently a hit and run is an 'at fault' claim in insurance-speak. I'm not sure how I was meant to know that as I don't work for an insurance company. 

What do you mean you were "turned down"?

Normally in this sort of circumstances you would have purchased the policy, they will have done some post purchase investigations and upon finding the false declaration either cancelled or voided the policy. This is not the same as being turned down.

Secondly, did you complain to that company at the time? If so then you are out of time, the ombudsman will only look at complaints within 6 months of the complaint with the company being closed.

For another piece of insurance speak, renewing is buying another year/policy with the same company, and so you bought from another company rather than renewed with them. What did your renewal notice from your prior insurer say about the claim? If it said it was fault then 1) thats what you should have answered and 2) if you disagreed it was fault why didnt you take it up with the original insurer before looking elsewhere?

A complaint to the ombudsman will revolve around the facts above plus exactly what the website, including any helper notes said and if this was clear enough. For example, on Aviva's website today the helper notes say:

Was this driver at fault?

If you are held liable for a claim it is classed as 'at fault'. Examples include:

• you are held responsible, or partly responsible, for causing an accident
• your car is stolen or vandalised
• your car is damaged by fire
• your car is damaged by unknown persons (malicious damage or hit whilst parked)

If the website you bought from said similar then clearly the correct answer was yes and so declaring as no is at least putting it very close to the intentional/reckless misrepresentation 

dunstonh

I was turned down because apparently a hit and run is an 'at fault' claim in insurance-speak. I'm not sure how I was meant to know that as I don't work for an insurance company. 

You answer the question as it is asked.     The question, if written as expected, would have made it clear.   However, many people speed read the questions or even assume what they are asking without really reading them.

So I contacted a broker and I'm now paying 3k for insurance which should have been 500 quid. This will happen for the next 5 years as that is how long fraud or misrepresentation stays on my file apparently. 

In many cases, the question asked is "have you ever...."   It isn't "in the last 5 years have you....."

Has anyone dealt with this before and successfully appealed the original designation of misrepresentation. 

If you feel the question asked  was how you said it was, then you complain stating you answered the question just as it was asked.  However, if you answered the question incorrectly, then you dont have a leg to stand on.   Can you copy and paste the actual question here so we can see what it said?

Whilst insurers are known to sometimes mess up wordings, it is less common nowadays and most use plain speak and explanations of their questions to avoid the sorts of issues you are accusing them of.       Assuming you have not made a complaint already, it will boil down to the facts.  i.e. what did they ask and display to you at the time and how you answered it in relation to that question.