misled on insurance?

msm55

MyRealNameToo said:

"Insurance like" does not require regulation because its not insurance hence why the likes of Currys spent a lot of time and effort crafting their products to ensure they weren't insurance, but had to bite the bullet with mobiles and tablets that are insurance.

Who is the firm? Would be useful to see what they are stating first hand.  

They described the cover explicitly as “comprehensive insurance” across multiple channels, including in their onboarding materials and FAQ section of their website. The agreement includes a “Weekly Insurance Charge,” which is separate from the hire cost and supposedly entitles me to be covered under their fleet policy. They then impose a £1,000 “excess” payable to them, not to an insurer, in the event of damage.

The problem is, there’s no clarity on what I’m covered for. They’ve refused to provide the fleet policy or any proper breakdown of terms, even redacted. When pressed after an accident, they suddenly claimed it’s technically a third party policy, but that I “enjoy the benefits of comprehensive insurance for all intents and purposes.” That’s the contradiction.

To me, that begins to look a lot like providing (or at least administering) insurance, especially since they dictate claim procedures, assess fault, authorise repairs, and decide financial liability, all internally. 

I’m not claiming it's a textbook breach of regulation, but the misrepresentation aspect, and the lack of transparency about how this internal “insurance-like” setup works, is where the issue lies.

And as for their name, I would love to mention it but I am just not sure if stating their name publicly will have any repercussions for me.   

I can attach a screenshot of what I am referring to in this post from their website with their name etc cropped out, if that'll help

sheramber

When my husband had a company car the company only insured  their cars for third party cover, as required by law.

The company covered any non fault insurance claims themselves. 

It was cheaper to do that than pay for comprehensive cover for all the cars when it might never be used or the costs  of any claims  were less than the additional cost of  the comprehensive cover. 

msm55

paul_c123 said:

This is business-to-business though, not consumer-business. A whole bunch of regulatory protections are no longer present and you need to be an order of magnitude more savvy with reading and signing contracts etc, especially those which are critical to the success or ability to do business.

Yup I do regret it now given how this has turned out be, but a bit too late sadly. 

Car_54

OP, what outcome are you seeking?

msm55

Car_54 said:

OP, what outcome are you seeking?

The dilemma I am in as follows; I have considered terminating the contract for the reasons above but the car is damaged so I'm not sure whether I should have the car repaired first and then return/terminate or just simply terminate as it is. 

and If what I have explained/described so far amounts to potential misrepresentation?

MyRealNameToo

sheramber said:

When my husband had a company car the company only insured  their cars for third party cover, as required by law.

The company covered any non fault insurance claims themselves. 

It was cheaper to do that than pay for comprehensive cover for all the cars when it might never be used or the costs  of any claims  were less than the additional cost of  the comprehensive cover. 

Having somewhat dealt with a global hire car company, they buy a multinational policy that meets the legal requirements in all jurisdictions they operate in. That includes that for UK, Europe, US etc that the third party cover is from the ground up. 

In addition to the contract of insurance there is a second contract which states that the hire car company will reimburse the reinsurer up to the first $Xm of all claims in the year. When you have 6 figure count of cars being driven most days there isnt a question of if there will be claims but how many millions in payout. Given an insurer has to charge tax, will have a risk margin and profit margin on premiums there is no point paying to cover claims you know will happen. In practice they do their own claims handling in most countries and so there is only a small admin charge for the first $Xm and given they only exceed the excess once every 5 years or so pricing reflects that. 

When you hire a car you are legally covered TPO only by the insurer but in practice the majority of claims are paid for by the hire company. But your CDW isnt insurance though most people think it is. 

msm55

MyRealNameToo said:

When you hire a car you are legally covered TPO only by the insurer but in practice the majority of claims are paid for by the hire company. But your CDW isnt insurance though most people think it is. 

Fair enough. So do these companies just expect their customers to expect their customers to infer a reinsurer or internal funding mechanism exists - when they brand it as ‘comprehensive insurance policy’. 

Under this model, if a customer is refused a claim for whatever reason it might be, recourse to dispute resolution service by the Financial Ombudsman Service won’t be an option as is the case with an actual disclosed insurance policy so left to their mercy unless customer litigates. 

And I thought the term ‘comprehensive insurance’ has well defined and distinct meaning, it’s a standardised term used across the motor insurance sector and I think its interpretation is consistent across insurers / regulators / perhaps even courts and other relevant consumer bodies. 

Anyways, I could be over reaching here and its probably all legit / legal. 

MyRealNameToo

msm55 said:

MyRealNameToo said:

When you hire a car you are legally covered TPO only by the insurer but in practice the majority of claims are paid for by the hire company. But your CDW isnt insurance though most people think it is. 

Fair enough. So do these companies just expect their customers to expect their customers to infer a reinsurer or internal funding mechanism exists - when they brand it as ‘comprehensive insurance policy’. 

Under this model, if a customer is refused a claim for whatever reason it might be, recourse to dispute resolution service by the Financial Ombudsman Service won’t be an option as is the case with an actual disclosed insurance policy so left to their mercy unless customer litigates. 

And I thought the term ‘comprehensive insurance’ has well defined and distinct meaning, it’s a standardised term used across the motor insurance sector and I think its interpretation is consistent across insurers / regulators / perhaps even courts and other relevant consumer bodies. 

Anyways, I could be over reaching here and its probably all legit / legal. 

Dont think you mean reinsurer? Reinsurers sell (re)insurance to insurers on the policies they themselves have written. So a Motor insurer has to insure you for unlimited bodily injury but given they cannot afford unlimited they will buy various layers of reinsurance say like a £5x5 XOL treaty which would mean the insurer pays the first £5m of any claim or incident and the reinsurer would reimburse them the next £5m. It's likely they would then buy another layer of reinsurance above that. 

Someone hiring a car hasn't actually bought insurance, they've bought a service that comes with insurance and various contractual protections and hence cannot go to the Ombudsman. Only a policyholder can go to the ombudsman, as many find out when they claim directly from a third party insurer, dont like the outcome and then the ombudsman refuses to review their case as they were not the insured. 

"Comprehensive insurance" doesnt have a standard meaning and in recent decades as customers become more price sensitive what's included varies more than ever. There is a basic general approach that it includes own vehicle accidental damage but even there there are some minor exceptions with some now saying glass cover is an optional extra rather than standard feature. Same with other matters like Driving Other Cars. 

Hire car companies tend not to actually call things "insurance", Avis' FAQ answer on a question on insurance being answered "When you hire a vehicle with us, you'll automatically receive third party, vehicle damage (Collision Damage Waiver) and vehicle theft cover to safeguard you on your journey." and so talk about "cover" which many may equate to insurance but it may not be. 

msm55

MyRealNameToo said:

Someone hiring a car hasn't actually bought insurance, they've bought a service that comes with insurance and various contractual protections and hence cannot go to the Ombudsman. Only a policyholder can go to the ombudsman, as many find out when they claim directly from a third party insurer, dont like the outcome and then the ombudsman refuses to review their case as they were not the insured. 

Hire car companies tend not to actually call things "insurance", Avis' FAQ answer on a question on insurance being answered "When you hire a vehicle with us, you'll automatically receive third party, vehicle damage (Collision Damage Waiver) and vehicle theft cover to safeguard you on your journey." and so talk about "cover" which many may equate to insurance but it may not be. 

Except my agreement with this particular company says: 

4.2 In consideration of your payment of the Weekly Insurance Charge (which shall be payable by you as part of the weekly Payments) and subject at all times to you meeting the eligibility criteria of the Fleet Policy and the approval of our insurer, we will insure the Vehicle as a named vehicle under our fleet insurance policy with TCompany Limited (“Fleet Policy”). Summary details of the Fleet Policy and your level of insured coverage thereunder, including the policy excess payable by you as a named beneficiary, is set out in the Vehicle Driver Handbook.

4.3 If, at any time, you are no longer eligible to be a named beneficiary under the Fleet Policy for whatever reason (including, but not limited to, where we or the insurer notify you of the same), you:

From what I understand, I should be named beneficiary under the fleet policy and if that was actually the case then I could go to FOS if a claim was refused, as FOS allows complains from named beneficiaries. So I don’t have to be the policyholder. 

FAQ section from this particular company markets; 

Are vehicles insured?

Yes, all our vehicles are covered by a comprehensive insurance policy.

MyRealNameToo

So what's in the  Vehicle Driver Handbook?