Car hire excess agreement Cover4Rentals null and void!

matj515

Hi all,

First time poster, making people aware of a car hire insurance excess waiver problem we had recently, and to see if anyone else had the same problem and/or got it resolved....

We hired a car in Italy (15th-23rd August) and when I saw the high cost and poor cover offered directly by the rental company I decided to purchase third-party excess cover from a UK based company Cover4Rentals (recommended by Which, I knew that was an error!) The earliest I could start the policy was the following day (16th) but the policy still ran through to the end of the car rental agreement (23rd) so I thought all was OK. 

On the last day of the rental (23rd August) the car was broken into and our luggage was stolen, and we had to drive back to the car hire office with glass everywhere and a hole in the rear window. We paid the glass repair costs direct to the car hire firm (£225). 

Now the insurance provider has rejected the claim on the basis that the insurance policy did not cover the entire rental period - I realise this is to protect them against claims for existing damage or damage occurring prior to taking out insurance, but in this case we can evidence the fact that the damage occurred within the policy period (we have photos, the rental check in document, and a police report all dated 23rd August).


This seems to be a case of the insurance company T&Cs not being at all flexible or even recognising the facts of the case, but more importantly had I known that the policy was effectively null and void from the minute I took it out I would have gone back to the car hire company and taken out cover with them. All of these exclusions were buried in the documentation, but like 99% of holiday makers I did not read it line-by-line. 

Anyone else had this problem (with Cover4Rentals or others) and did anyone overturn the decision?

In hope more than expectation!

MyRealNameToo

matj515 said:

Hi all,

First time poster, making people aware of a car hire insurance excess waiver problem we had recently, and to see if anyone else had the same problem and/or got it resolved....

We hired a car in Italy (15th-23rd August) and when I saw the high cost and poor cover offered directly by the rental company I decided to purchase third-party excess cover from a UK based company Cover4Rentals (recommended by Which, I knew that was an error!) The earliest I could start the policy was the following day (16th) but the policy still ran through to the end of the car rental agreement (23rd) so I thought all was OK. 

On the last day of the rental (23rd August) the car was broken into and our luggage was stolen, and we had to drive back to the car hire office with glass everywhere and a hole in the rear window. We paid the glass repair costs direct to the car hire firm (£225). 

Now the insurance provider has rejected the claim on the basis that the insurance policy did not cover the entire rental period - I realise this is to protect them against claims for existing damage or damage occurring prior to taking out insurance, but in this case we can evidence the fact that the damage occurred within the policy period (we have photos, the rental check in document, and a police report all dated 23rd August).


This seems to be a case of the insurance company T&Cs not being at all flexible or even recognising the facts of the case, but more importantly had I known that the policy was effectively null and void from the minute I took it out I would have gone back to the car hire company and taken out cover with them. All of these exclusions were buried in the documentation, but like 99% of holiday makers I did not read it line-by-line. 

Anyone else had this problem (with Cover4Rentals or others) and did anyone overturn the decision?

In hope more than expectation!

It's a standard counter fraud term, as you say. Stops people causing damage, then buying the policy and then lying as to when the damage occurred. 

To play devils advocate, none of those prove it happened on the 23rd. In principle it could have occurred earlier and you just didnt tell anyone about it until the 23rd. The fact you have a police report to the same probably makes some look more favourably as many will happily lie to their insurers, less will do so to the police. 

You will find many policies are similar, Travel has to be bought before you leave the UK for your trip. If you realise your last policy ran out a week ago whilst you are sitting on the beach in Dubai you can't just get a regular policy starting that day for the rest of the holiday. There are specialist covers available for those that need it but you need to read the terms or deal with the fact you can't answer the questions on the website honestly to know that. 

You're unlikely to have much hope of having it overturned, I have seen complaints to the ombudsman about Travel claims declined when the policy was bought in similar circumstances and the ombudsman did not uphold the complaint. 

What hope you have will be based on their sales process being flawed. How did you buy it? Online or phone? Via their website or a third party? 

Looking at their site they ask you what date you will be picking up the car... did you say 15th or 16th? They will allow me to backdate it for today so guessing you were on a comparison site or such if it say you couldn't do it until tomorrow in which case they sold you a policy based on a 16th pickup date when you actually picked up on the 15th which would be another issue as a false declaration under CIDRA. 

matj515

MyRealNameToo said:

matj515 said:

Hi all,

First time poster, making people aware of a car hire insurance excess waiver problem we had recently, and to see if anyone else had the same problem and/or got it resolved....

We hired a car in Italy (15th-23rd August) and when I saw the high cost and poor cover offered directly by the rental company I decided to purchase third-party excess cover from a UK based company Cover4Rentals (recommended by Which, I knew that was an error!) The earliest I could start the policy was the following day (16th) but the policy still ran through to the end of the car rental agreement (23rd) so I thought all was OK. 

On the last day of the rental (23rd August) the car was broken into and our luggage was stolen, and we had to drive back to the car hire office with glass everywhere and a hole in the rear window. We paid the glass repair costs direct to the car hire firm (£225). 

Now the insurance provider has rejected the claim on the basis that the insurance policy did not cover the entire rental period - I realise this is to protect them against claims for existing damage or damage occurring prior to taking out insurance, but in this case we can evidence the fact that the damage occurred within the policy period (we have photos, the rental check in document, and a police report all dated 23rd August).


This seems to be a case of the insurance company T&Cs not being at all flexible or even recognising the facts of the case, but more importantly had I known that the policy was effectively null and void from the minute I took it out I would have gone back to the car hire company and taken out cover with them. All of these exclusions were buried in the documentation, but like 99% of holiday makers I did not read it line-by-line. 

Anyone else had this problem (with Cover4Rentals or others) and did anyone overturn the decision?

In hope more than expectation!

It's a standard counter fraud term, as you say. Stops people causing damage, then buying the policy and then lying as to when the damage occurred. 

To play devils advocate, none of those prove it happened on the 23rd. In principle it could have occurred earlier and you just didnt tell anyone about it until the 23rd. The fact you have a police report to the same probably makes some look more favourably as many will happily lie to their insurers, less will do so to the police. 

You will find many policies are similar, Travel has to be bought before you leave the UK for your trip. If you realise your last policy ran out a week ago whilst you are sitting on the beach in Dubai you can't just get a regular policy starting that day for the rest of the holiday. There are specialist covers available for those that need it but you need to read the terms or deal with the fact you can't answer the questions on the website honestly to know that. 

You're unlikely to have much hope of having it overturned, I have seen complaints to the ombudsman about Travel claims declined when the policy was bought in similar circumstances and the ombudsman did not uphold the complaint. 

What hope you have will be based on their sales process being flawed. How did you buy it? Online or phone? Via their website or a third party? 

Looking at their site they ask you what date you will be picking up the car... did you say 15th or 16th? They will allow me to backdate it for today so guessing you were on a comparison site or such if it say you couldn't do it until tomorrow in which case they sold you a policy based on a 16th pickup date when you actually picked up on the 15th which would be another issue as a false declaration under CIDRA. 

Thanks.

Fair point re: evidence, but the time stamped and location tagged photos do show a broken window and glass all over the floor when we returned to the car. That would be a remarkable feat of misdirection to either forge the photographs, or to recreate a break in that happened a week earlier. It would have also probably been cheaper to go to a local garage and get the window replaced rather than paying the car rental standard glass replacement charge. 

On the technicalities of the complaint there are three points I suppose. First, car rental insurance is organised completely differently to most other forms of insurance in that it has to be in place before you are in possession of the thing you are insuring, this does not happen with a house, car, watch, boat etc. and your policy would not be null and void just because you already own it. The insurer accepts that there is a risk that there could be existing damage/wear and tear to these (far more expensive) items, and makes arrangements to either come and inspect/value the items before issuing a policy, or prices this risk into the premium.

The second related point is that these policy exclusions are substituting for effective claims management and investigation on the part of the insurer - again in most circumstances it would be up to the insurer to work out whether the loss of items or damage occurred within the period covered by the policy or not. This is what should protect them against false claims rather than having a blanket exclusion. Basically this is cheap cover, and clearly what you get is a cheap service. Most of the Google reviews say the same thing - cheap to buy insurance and breakdown, but god help you if you actually need reimbursement or recovery. Plus they seem to have a tactic of automatically renewing cover that has not been asked for, but that's a different rabbit hole to go down.....

The third point is that on Cover4Rentals.com, the only options I can see are to insure from today's date at the earliest and also that you are collecting the car on the same date (when I did it the only available date was the day after 16th August not 15th, presumably as it was after 3pm). Either way, seeing as I had collected the car two hours prior to buying the cover, even this would have invalidated the policy (as damage could have occurred on the way out of the rental car park etc).

Interestingly, on Cover4Rentals.com there is nothing to state that 'we cannot provide cover for a vehicle you have already rented' which obviously would have stopped me in my tracks and I would have looked for alternative options (or gone without cover which is effectively what I did). However, on the Eversure website (the parent company of Cover4Rentals) when you choose the dates of your cover it does clearly state 'we cannot provide cover for a vehicle you have already rented'. So there is a discrepancy within the company's own materials, website and processes, and a fairly obvious exclusion is not flagged up clearly to the customer. 

It also took two weeks for them to get back to me after I first submitted the claim at which point they asked for a copy of the police report (which is fine), but then around an hour later they declined. Not sure why they asked for this documentation when they should have known the policy was already invalid.....

They have refunded the premium as a 'goodwill gesture' which is usually a soft signal that the original charge was invalid, same as banks often do when challenged on overdraft penalties. I will escalate up within their organisation and see what they say. I have already wasted more than £225 worth of my own time dicking around with all this stuff but it's a point of principle now :-)

bagand96

Unfortunately you purchased a policy that was null and void because you didn't meet the policy requirements.  It's a pretty standard term when purchasing Car Hire Excess cover that the policy must cover the entire rental period and/or cover cannot be purchased after the rental has started.

You confirmed that you'd read and accept the Policy Wording and Product Information Document when purchasing.  Now I know we've all ticked those boxes without reading pages of T&Cs in detail, but it's fairly clear on the PID which is only a 2 page document.

The Gesture of Goodwill is exactly that, and not an admission of fault.

matj515

bagand96 said:

Unfortunately you purchased a policy that was null and void because you didn't meet the policy requirements.  It's a pretty standard term when purchasing Car Hire Excess cover that the policy must cover the entire rental period and/or cover cannot be purchased after the rental has started.

You confirmed that you'd read and accept the Policy Wording and Product Information Document when purchasing.  Now I know we've all ticked those boxes without reading pages of T&Cs in detail, but it's fairly clear on the PID which is only a 2 page document.

The Gesture of Goodwill is exactly that, and not an admission of fault.

Yes agreed, but I still take issue with the fact that the Eversure website clearly states 'we cannot provide cover for a rental that has already started', whereas the Cover4Rentals site does not do this. So even if I did backdate it to the start of the day when we collected the car, I still wouldn't be covered as I had already collected the car some two hours earlier. So through that particular portal they offered a policy that could never be fulfilled, and should have been flagged as such.

Not a regular occurrence but there could be situations where people are able to collect their car early and before their policy officially kicks in (travel plans change, passport queues are not as bad as expected) but won't realise that this invalidates their policy. The policy starting one minute after collection is the same as a week according to their rules.

Anyway, live and learn.

BFBW

matj515 said:

bagand96 said:

Unfortunately you purchased a policy that was null and void because you didn't meet the policy requirements.  It's a pretty standard term when purchasing Car Hire Excess cover that the policy must cover the entire rental period and/or cover cannot be purchased after the rental has started.

You confirmed that you'd read and accept the Policy Wording and Product Information Document when purchasing.  Now I know we've all ticked those boxes without reading pages of T&Cs in detail, but it's fairly clear on the PID which is only a 2 page document.

The Gesture of Goodwill is exactly that, and not an admission of fault.

Yes agreed, but I still take issue with the fact that the Eversure website clearly states 'we cannot provide cover for a rental that has already started', whereas the Cover4Rentals site does not do this. So even if I did backdate it to the start of the day when we collected the car, I still wouldn't be covered as I had already collected the car some two hours earlier. So through that particular portal they offered a policy that could never be fulfilled, and should have been flagged as such.

Not a regular occurrence but there could be situations where people are able to collect their car early and before their policy officially kicks in (travel plans change, passport queues are not as bad as expected) but won't realise that this invalidates their policy. The policy starting one minute after collection is the same as a week according to their rules.

Anyway, live and learn.

I don't think anyone supports you in this. Just looks at though you are trying it on.
You write that you booked the insurance(from the next day) two hours after taking the car! Why did you not simply book it online when you saw the 'high cost and poor cover' of the excess waiver? 
Even though you delayed it for at least two hours, you might have gotten away with it, but you proceeded to choose an excess car hire company that only allowed you to choose the next day(strange, since you claim that it was the start of the day when you collected the car, but then claim it was after 3pm when you bought the insurance) in answer to 'When are you renting your vehicle'. You chose to make a false statement.
There would have been no requirement to 'backdate it to the start of the day' as you put it, as there is no timeslot to enter, simply the date. So even if two hours later, but the same day, you would likely have gotten away with it.

First of all, unless you just rolled up to the agency without a prior booking, you have ample opportunity to check out the terms of the Excess Waiver and to book an online Excess Reimbursement policy. You did neither.

Secondly, you had the option to book an Excess Reimbursement policy before collecting the car. I have done exactly the same thing, did an impromptu car booking at an airport and booked an excess reimbursement policy on the spot. 

Thirdly, you had the option to search out different car hire excess policies that did allow you to book the same day. You didn't do that either.

So it seems that you made a lot of mistakes, but are still looking to find someone else to blame, for the flimsiest of reasons, I might add. Poor form, if you ask me.

Would you then be satisfied if everyone else had to suffer by having to enter the exact time of their rental collection, instead of having the leeway of simply buying it on the same day?

That's what the nonsense of "but there could be situations where people are able to collect their car early and before their policy officially kicks in (travel plans change, passport queues are not as bad as expected) but won't realise that this invalidates their policy. The policy starting one minute after collection is the same as a week according to their rules."

No, they already have that leeway, as long as it's on the same day. You blundered in almost every way possible. They have given you your money back. Next time, do things properly, rather than trying to rewrite history to make yourself look like the victim. Apologies if it sounds harsh, but that is how your situation reads to me.
There is no "point of principle" as you put it. Just you trying it on.



 

matj515

BFBW said:

matj515 said:

bagand96 said:

Unfortunately you purchased a policy that was null and void because you didn't meet the policy requirements.  It's a pretty standard term when purchasing Car Hire Excess cover that the policy must cover the entire rental period and/or cover cannot be purchased after the rental has started.

You confirmed that you'd read and accept the Policy Wording and Product Information Document when purchasing.  Now I know we've all ticked those boxes without reading pages of T&Cs in detail, but it's fairly clear on the PID which is only a 2 page document.

The Gesture of Goodwill is exactly that, and not an admission of fault.

Yes agreed, but I still take issue with the fact that the Eversure website clearly states 'we cannot provide cover for a rental that has already started', whereas the Cover4Rentals site does not do this. So even if I did backdate it to the start of the day when we collected the car, I still wouldn't be covered as I had already collected the car some two hours earlier. So through that particular portal they offered a policy that could never be fulfilled, and should have been flagged as such.

Not a regular occurrence but there could be situations where people are able to collect their car early and before their policy officially kicks in (travel plans change, passport queues are not as bad as expected) but won't realise that this invalidates their policy. The policy starting one minute after collection is the same as a week according to their rules.

Anyway, live and learn.

I don't think anyone supports you in this. Just looks at though you are trying it on.
You write that you booked the insurance(from the next day) two hours after taking the car! Why did you not simply book it online when you saw the 'high cost and poor cover' of the excess waiver? 
Even though you delayed it for at least two hours, you might have gotten away with it, but you proceeded to choose an excess car hire company that only allowed you to choose the next day(strange, since you claim that it was the start of the day when you collected the car, but then claim it was after 3pm when you bought the insurance) in answer to 'When are you renting your vehicle'. You chose to make a false statement.
There would have been no requirement to 'backdate it to the start of the day' as you put it, as there is no timeslot to enter, simply the date. So even if two hours later, but the same day, you would likely have gotten away with it.

First of all, unless you just rolled up to the agency without a prior booking, you have ample opportunity to check out the terms of the Excess Waiver and to book an online Excess Reimbursement policy. You did neither.

Secondly, you had the option to book an Excess Reimbursement policy before collecting the car. I have done exactly the same thing, did an impromptu car booking at an airport and booked an excess reimbursement policy on the spot. 

Thirdly, you had the option to search out different car hire excess policies that did allow you to book the same day. You didn't do that either.

So it seems that you made a lot of mistakes, but are still looking to find someone else to blame, for the flimsiest of reasons, I might add. Poor form, if you ask me.

Would you then be satisfied if everyone else had to suffer by having to enter the exact time of their rental collection, instead of having the leeway of simply buying it on the same day?

That's what the nonsense of "but there could be situations where people are able to collect their car early and before their policy officially kicks in (travel plans change, passport queues are not as bad as expected) but won't realise that this invalidates their policy. The policy starting one minute after collection is the same as a week according to their rules."

No, they already have that leeway, as long as it's on the same day. You blundered in almost every way possible. They have given you your money back. Next time, do things properly, rather than trying to rewrite history to make yourself look like the victim. Apologies if it sounds harsh, but that is how your situation reads to me.
There is no "point of principle" as you put it. Just you trying it on.



 

'Supporting me' in this (your words) is different from pointing out technical facts and flaws with my claim. I was asking for advice on the latter not your personal opinion on the former but thanks for weighing in.

Not sure exactly what I am supposed to be 'trying on' as our car was demonstrably broken into on the last day of our car hire rental period. Certainly I made mistakes according to the booking process but I assumed my cover was valid for the period which I had paid for (16th-23rd August) and my car was broken into on the 23rd upon which a lot of our personal possessions were stolen including clothes, electricals, and my children's personal effects (many irreplaceable). I had to sweep broken glass off the back seat with a beach towel in order that we could actually return the car to the airport (so as not to incur further charges), and driving for five miles or so with a hole in the window. We then had to report all this to the car hire company with the kids in tears and then spend two hours in the police station the day after trying to file a report as to what happened.

Believe me pal if I was trying it on I wouldn't have suffered through all that for £225. 

BFBW

matj515 said:

BFBW said:

matj515 said:

bagand96 said:

Unfortunately you purchased a policy that was null and void because you didn't meet the policy requirements.  It's a pretty standard term when purchasing Car Hire Excess cover that the policy must cover the entire rental period and/or cover cannot be purchased after the rental has started.

You confirmed that you'd read and accept the Policy Wording and Product Information Document when purchasing.  Now I know we've all ticked those boxes without reading pages of T&Cs in detail, but it's fairly clear on the PID which is only a 2 page document.

The Gesture of Goodwill is exactly that, and not an admission of fault.

Yes agreed, but I still take issue with the fact that the Eversure website clearly states 'we cannot provide cover for a rental that has already started', whereas the Cover4Rentals site does not do this. So even if I did backdate it to the start of the day when we collected the car, I still wouldn't be covered as I had already collected the car some two hours earlier. So through that particular portal they offered a policy that could never be fulfilled, and should have been flagged as such.

Not a regular occurrence but there could be situations where people are able to collect their car early and before their policy officially kicks in (travel plans change, passport queues are not as bad as expected) but won't realise that this invalidates their policy. The policy starting one minute after collection is the same as a week according to their rules.

Anyway, live and learn.

I don't think anyone supports you in this. Just looks at though you are trying it on.
You write that you booked the insurance(from the next day) two hours after taking the car! Why did you not simply book it online when you saw the 'high cost and poor cover' of the excess waiver? 
Even though you delayed it for at least two hours, you might have gotten away with it, but you proceeded to choose an excess car hire company that only allowed you to choose the next day(strange, since you claim that it was the start of the day when you collected the car, but then claim it was after 3pm when you bought the insurance) in answer to 'When are you renting your vehicle'. You chose to make a false statement.
There would have been no requirement to 'backdate it to the start of the day' as you put it, as there is no timeslot to enter, simply the date. So even if two hours later, but the same day, you would likely have gotten away with it.

First of all, unless you just rolled up to the agency without a prior booking, you have ample opportunity to check out the terms of the Excess Waiver and to book an online Excess Reimbursement policy. You did neither.

Secondly, you had the option to book an Excess Reimbursement policy before collecting the car. I have done exactly the same thing, did an impromptu car booking at an airport and booked an excess reimbursement policy on the spot. 

Thirdly, you had the option to search out different car hire excess policies that did allow you to book the same day. You didn't do that either.

So it seems that you made a lot of mistakes, but are still looking to find someone else to blame, for the flimsiest of reasons, I might add. Poor form, if you ask me.

Would you then be satisfied if everyone else had to suffer by having to enter the exact time of their rental collection, instead of having the leeway of simply buying it on the same day?

That's what the nonsense of "but there could be situations where people are able to collect their car early and before their policy officially kicks in (travel plans change, passport queues are not as bad as expected) but won't realise that this invalidates their policy. The policy starting one minute after collection is the same as a week according to their rules."

No, they already have that leeway, as long as it's on the same day. You blundered in almost every way possible. They have given you your money back. Next time, do things properly, rather than trying to rewrite history to make yourself look like the victim. Apologies if it sounds harsh, but that is how your situation reads to me.
There is no "point of principle" as you put it. Just you trying it on.



 

'Supporting me' in this (your words) is different from pointing out technical facts and flaws with my claim. I was asking for advice on the latter not your personal opinion on the former but thanks for weighing in.

Not sure exactly what I am supposed to be 'trying on' as our car was demonstrably broken into on the last day of our car hire rental period. Certainly I made mistakes according to the booking process but I assumed my cover was valid for the period which I had paid for (16th-23rd August) and my car was broken into on the 23rd upon which a lot of our personal possessions were stolen including clothes, electricals, and my children's personal effects (many irreplaceable). I had to sweep broken glass off the back seat with a beach towel in order that we could actually return the car to the airport (so as not to incur further charges), and driving for five miles or so with a hole in the window. We then had to report all this to the car hire company with the kids in tears and then spend two hours in the police station the day after trying to file a report as to what happened.

Believe me pal if I was trying it on I wouldn't have suffered through all that for £225. 

Once again, apologies if it came over harshly. I guess I wanted to illustrate another perspective. If you think that you are in the right then do not allow me to discourage you.
As an aside, I can imagine that it was a most upsetting experience. I wrote impassionately..

jimi_man

matj515 said:

MyRealNameToo said:

matj515 said:

Hi all,

First time poster, making people aware of a car hire insurance excess waiver problem we had recently, and to see if anyone else had the same problem and/or got it resolved....

We hired a car in Italy (15th-23rd August) and when I saw the high cost and poor cover offered directly by the rental company I decided to purchase third-party excess cover from a UK based company Cover4Rentals (recommended by Which, I knew that was an error!) The earliest I could start the policy was the following day (16th) but the policy still ran through to the end of the car rental agreement (23rd) so I thought all was OK. 

On the last day of the rental (23rd August) the car was broken into and our luggage was stolen, and we had to drive back to the car hire office with glass everywhere and a hole in the rear window. We paid the glass repair costs direct to the car hire firm (£225). 

Now the insurance provider has rejected the claim on the basis that the insurance policy did not cover the entire rental period - I realise this is to protect them against claims for existing damage or damage occurring prior to taking out insurance, but in this case we can evidence the fact that the damage occurred within the policy period (we have photos, the rental check in document, and a police report all dated 23rd August).


This seems to be a case of the insurance company T&Cs not being at all flexible or even recognising the facts of the case, but more importantly had I known that the policy was effectively null and void from the minute I took it out I would have gone back to the car hire company and taken out cover with them. All of these exclusions were buried in the documentation, but like 99% of holiday makers I did not read it line-by-line. 

Anyone else had this problem (with Cover4Rentals or others) and did anyone overturn the decision?

In hope more than expectation!

It's a standard counter fraud term, as you say. Stops people causing damage, then buying the policy and then lying as to when the damage occurred. 

To play devils advocate, none of those prove it happened on the 23rd. In principle it could have occurred earlier and you just didnt tell anyone about it until the 23rd. The fact you have a police report to the same probably makes some look more favourably as many will happily lie to their insurers, less will do so to the police. 

You will find many policies are similar, Travel has to be bought before you leave the UK for your trip. If you realise your last policy ran out a week ago whilst you are sitting on the beach in Dubai you can't just get a regular policy starting that day for the rest of the holiday. There are specialist covers available for those that need it but you need to read the terms or deal with the fact you can't answer the questions on the website honestly to know that. 

You're unlikely to have much hope of having it overturned, I have seen complaints to the ombudsman about Travel claims declined when the policy was bought in similar circumstances and the ombudsman did not uphold the complaint. 

What hope you have will be based on their sales process being flawed. How did you buy it? Online or phone? Via their website or a third party? 

Looking at their site they ask you what date you will be picking up the car... did you say 15th or 16th? They will allow me to backdate it for today so guessing you were on a comparison site or such if it say you couldn't do it until tomorrow in which case they sold you a policy based on a 16th pickup date when you actually picked up on the 15th which would be another issue as a false declaration under CIDRA. 

Thanks.

Fair point re: evidence, but the time stamped and location tagged photos do show a broken window and glass all over the floor when we returned to the car. That would be a remarkable feat of misdirection to either forge the photographs, or to recreate a break in that happened a week earlier. It would have also probably been cheaper to go to a local garage and get the window replaced rather than paying the car rental standard glass replacement charge. 

Sure but all the time stamped and location tagged photos show, is that there was a broken window on the 23rd and that it had happened at some point prior to the photo being taken but not after. So it could have happened on the 15th. Yes it's unlikely but the point is that the evidence doesn't disprove that. 

MyRealNameToo

matj515 said:

MyRealNameToo said:

matj515 said:

Hi all,

First time poster, making people aware of a car hire insurance excess waiver problem we had recently, and to see if anyone else had the same problem and/or got it resolved....

We hired a car in Italy (15th-23rd August) and when I saw the high cost and poor cover offered directly by the rental company I decided to purchase third-party excess cover from a UK based company Cover4Rentals (recommended by Which, I knew that was an error!) The earliest I could start the policy was the following day (16th) but the policy still ran through to the end of the car rental agreement (23rd) so I thought all was OK. 

On the last day of the rental (23rd August) the car was broken into and our luggage was stolen, and we had to drive back to the car hire office with glass everywhere and a hole in the rear window. We paid the glass repair costs direct to the car hire firm (£225). 

Now the insurance provider has rejected the claim on the basis that the insurance policy did not cover the entire rental period - I realise this is to protect them against claims for existing damage or damage occurring prior to taking out insurance, but in this case we can evidence the fact that the damage occurred within the policy period (we have photos, the rental check in document, and a police report all dated 23rd August).


This seems to be a case of the insurance company T&Cs not being at all flexible or even recognising the facts of the case, but more importantly had I known that the policy was effectively null and void from the minute I took it out I would have gone back to the car hire company and taken out cover with them. All of these exclusions were buried in the documentation, but like 99% of holiday makers I did not read it line-by-line. 

Anyone else had this problem (with Cover4Rentals or others) and did anyone overturn the decision?

In hope more than expectation!

It's a standard counter fraud term, as you say. Stops people causing damage, then buying the policy and then lying as to when the damage occurred. 

To play devils advocate, none of those prove it happened on the 23rd. In principle it could have occurred earlier and you just didnt tell anyone about it until the 23rd. The fact you have a police report to the same probably makes some look more favourably as many will happily lie to their insurers, less will do so to the police. 

You will find many policies are similar, Travel has to be bought before you leave the UK for your trip. If you realise your last policy ran out a week ago whilst you are sitting on the beach in Dubai you can't just get a regular policy starting that day for the rest of the holiday. There are specialist covers available for those that need it but you need to read the terms or deal with the fact you can't answer the questions on the website honestly to know that. 

You're unlikely to have much hope of having it overturned, I have seen complaints to the ombudsman about Travel claims declined when the policy was bought in similar circumstances and the ombudsman did not uphold the complaint. 

What hope you have will be based on their sales process being flawed. How did you buy it? Online or phone? Via their website or a third party? 

Looking at their site they ask you what date you will be picking up the car... did you say 15th or 16th? They will allow me to backdate it for today so guessing you were on a comparison site or such if it say you couldn't do it until tomorrow in which case they sold you a policy based on a 16th pickup date when you actually picked up on the 15th which would be another issue as a false declaration under CIDRA. 

Thanks.

Fair point re: evidence, but the time stamped and location tagged photos do show a broken window and glass all over the floor when we returned to the car. That would be a remarkable feat of misdirection to either forge the photographs, or to recreate a break in that happened a week earlier. It would have also probably been cheaper to go to a local garage and get the window replaced rather than paying the car rental standard glass replacement charge. 

Give me any photo in the world and I can timestamp and geolocate it to anytime or place (including the future). 

People go vastly further than just editing the ExIf of a photo when they want to make a false claim. 

matj515 said:
On the technicalities of the complaint there are three points I suppose. First, car rental insurance is organised completely differently to most other forms of insurance in that it has to be in place before you are in possession of the thing you are insuring, this does not happen with a house, car, watch, boat etc. and your policy would not be null and void just because you already own it. The insurer accepts that there is a risk that there could be existing damage/wear and tear to these (far more expensive) items, and makes arrangements to either come and inspect/value the items before issuing a policy, or prices this risk into the premium.

I'd argue it's closest to Travel insurance, which is the same... you typically buy it after purchasing the holiday but before you are on the holiday. Like Hire Car Excess, you also can't take it out later. 

Home actually is one where you are told to buy it before you take possession, once you've exchanged contracts you are obliged to pay the money even if all thats left is some smouldering rubble but you dont take possession until completion.

matj515 said:
The second related point is that these policy exclusions are substituting for effective claims management and investigation on the part of the insurer - again in most circumstances it would be up to the insurer to work out whether the loss of items or damage occurred within the period covered by the policy or not. This is what should protect them against false claims rather than having a blanket exclusion. Basically this is cheap cover, and clearly what you get is a cheap service. Most of the Google reviews say the same thing - cheap to buy insurance and breakdown, but god help you if you actually need reimbursement or recovery. Plus they seem to have a tactic of automatically renewing cover that has not been asked for, but that's a different rabbit hole to go down.

There are many classes of insurance where there are counter fraud terms, buy specialist travel insurance whilst you are away and there will be a limit on claims for the first few days. Pet insurance won't cover the first few days unless it's back to back to another policy. 

Yes you can go 10 years without insurance and then suddenly decide today is the day to buy a policy and coincidently your dog shows symptoms for the first time ever the same afternoon. How do you propose that the insurer's claims management prove if the dog was first sick at 10am or 2pm when the policy was bought at midday? 

The general hope is that if the dog is seriously ill that a person that cares enough to consider treating them isnt going to wait 3 days before seeing a vet to be able to commit fraud. 

Without an unlimited budget to investigate every claim with experts in cognitive questioning there is no realistic and cost effective mechanism and so policy terms are used instead.

It goes beyond fraud too... many policies won't cover War or Terrorism in England & Wales, clearly they could if they wanted but typically the government has historically covered these matters but won't cover insurers for the same (outside of Pool Re which insurers have to pay for). Your home could be redrafted to cover this peril but they've all simply chosen not to. 

matj515 said:
The third point is that on Cover4Rentals.com, the only options I can see are to insure from today's date at the earliest and also that you are collecting the car on the same date (when I did it the only available date was the day after 16th August not 15th, presumably as it was after 3pm). Either way, seeing as I had collected the car two hours prior to buying the cover, even this would have invalidated the policy (as damage could have occurred on the way out of the rental car park etc). 

Interestingly, on Cover4Rentals.com there is nothing to state that 'we cannot provide cover for a vehicle you have already rented' which obviously would have stopped me in my tracks and I would have looked for alternative options (or gone without cover which is effectively what I did). However, on the Eversure website (the parent company of Cover4Rentals) when you choose the dates of your cover it does clearly state 'we cannot provide cover for a vehicle you have already rented'. So there is a discrepancy within the company's own materials, website and processes, and a fairly obvious exclusion is not flagged up clearly to the customer. 

It also took two weeks for them to get back to me after I first submitted the claim at which point they asked for a copy of the police report (which is fine), but then around an hour later they declined. Not sure why they asked for this documentation when they should have known the policy was already invalid.....

They have refunded the premium as a 'goodwill gesture' which is usually a soft signal that the original charge was invalid, same as banks often do when challenged on overdraft penalties. I will escalate up within their organisation and see what they say. I have already wasted more than £225 worth of my own time dicking around with all this stuff but it's a point of principle now :-)

As mentioned, they ask you when you are picking up the car, you cannot enter a date before today and it appears you can't even select today on the day after a certain time. 

Irrespective of everything else they are likely to have you on the fact you declared you were collecting it on the 16th when actually it was the 15th. To me thats the biggest hurdle for you to overcome. Their inevitable comment will be its policed by the fact you cannot enter retroactive dates and your response should have been to contact them or realise why rather than lie and provide a wrong answer. 

It's common for insurers to consider all aspects of a claim and then decline it on each one rather than stopping at the first hurdle. As such if the customer overcomes the issues its a clear yes/no. Were that not the case the decline could be overturned because of their poor website but then declined again due to an issue with the police report etc. 

I think you are reading too much into it, it's likely the FOS would agree with their decision but wouldnt consider it fair that they keep all the premiums when you could never of made a claim. Insurers do consider how FOS settle claims, to the extent that policy terms are often changed to be inline with the FOS approach. 

For example if you dont have matching set cover on home and you destroy one of your 6 dining table chairs but the rest are all fine then the insurer only has to pay for the one chair, the fact the chairs arent made any more isnt their issue. Despite terms clearly stating this the FOS came up with a weird idea that insurers should make a 50% contribution to replacing the rest of them too. Now many policies state that this is their general approach to matching sets. 


The angle of attack is certainly about the lack of information on the website or through the purchase process but you are still going to stumble over the fact they asked the hire start date and you gave a wrong answer.