Car Insurance Cancellation

TheGreySection

I don't follow? I've already said I'd agreed to pay the pro-rated amount for the time I was covered.

TheGreySection

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82114639#Comment_82114639

Arbitrary or not, the point is once the insurer confirms they are willing to proceed with cover at an increased premium they are implicitly confirming that they deem the misrepresentation to be careless and as such I am able to (and did) refuse to proceed with the additional premium and cancel the policy. In these circumstances it should have been recorded as a customer cancellation rather than insurer cancellation.

Aylesbury_Duck

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82114754#Comment_82114754

Comparison sites don't produce binding conrract offers, they simply work on the information provided to create a comparison. For example, some insurers will ask for claims records in the last three years, and some in the last five. The actual price you pay may differ from that shown on the comparison results. The statements you agree to and the questions you answer on the actual insurer site are typically more detailed, and more importantly, are contractual.

Aylesbury_Duck

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82114801#Comment_82114801

And it may have been. Are you any closer to establishing that?

TheGreySection

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82114870#Comment_82114870

You're missing my point. The commenter suggested I would need to disclose, when completing the questionnaire on an insurer or comparison website, that on a previous insurance, I had omitted details of a claim and wrongly categorised another claim.

I don't think comparison sites or insurer websites contain a question that pertains to this or that would require such a disclosure. The only disclosure relevant to this current situation is, as we have already established, whether any policy of insurance I have taken out has been cancelled by an insurer.

TheGreySection

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82114871#Comment_82114871

I made numerous attempts to speak to 1st Central's complaints team but on each occasion after waiting on hold for between 10-45 minutes the call was ended by them before connecting to an agent. The cynic in me thinks this is a likely a deliberate ploy.

I have emailed a complaint requesting that their and any central databases be updated to confirm that it was a customer cancellation. I have also submitted a DSAR to CUE to see what is recorded on such central database.

Outcome awaited.

Grumpy_chap

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82114754#Comment_82114754

Usually not a question but in the assumptions which you need to click through and agree.

Something like "I have never had insurance cancelled or had special terms applied"

Or, like this on Compare the Market

In my view, you did have a policy cancelled by the insurer. That seems to match 1stC applying that feeling. Exactly "missed out anything important"

TheGreySection

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82114955#Comment_82114955

Again, missing the point. I know I would have to declare cancelled insurance, hence this entire discussion.

Sheramber said: "Your application on the comparison site does not include details of that omission." The suggestion being that I would need to disclose the fact I omitted details of a claim on procuring a previous policy.

My point is that is a nonsense. There would be no disclosure or assumption requiring me to disclose that I had omitted details of a claim on procuring a previous policy.

This point around the premium on the comparison site being the same with all information included is a red herring anyway. I'm not sure why people are getting so hung up on it.

The fundamental position, as set out in the regulations, in as simple terms as I can manage:

• 1st Central offered to continue cover at an increased premium so deemed the misrepresentation to be careless.
• In a case of careless misrepresentation I am entitled to (and did) choose to refuse the additional premium and cancel the policy.
• 1st Central cannot deem this to be an insurer cancellation and put a marker on me in this circumstance.

Thankfully, your view completely disregards the relevant insurance regulations I have summarised above. The insurer is only entitled to void the policy where (a) the misrepresentation is reckless or deliberate or (b) in the case of careless misrepresentation, they would have refused to provide cover having known all the facts. They offered to continue cover at an increased premium so clearly (b) cannot apply.

Ergo, they didn't cancel the policy, I did.

Aylesbury_Duck

It was a red herring you introduced, to reinforce your argument that they were prepared to insure you for a similar amount to the original policy cost and therefore that they cannot have considered you a particularly higher risk client as a result of your accident record.

I am persuaded by the argument in your penultimate paragraph. Let's hope they are.

dumpster_fire2025

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82114961#Comment_82114961

I think you're interperting the law to your favour here (when from what I can see it's not.)

CIDRA Sch. 1 para. 6 states

"In addition, if the insurer would have entered into the consumer insurance contract (whether the terms relating to matters other than the premium would have been the same or different), but would have charged a higher premium, the insurer may reduce proportionately the amount to be paid on a claim."

In your case they appear to be offering to continue the policy with a higher premium but due to the liability side of motor insurance can't reduce the amount paid on any claims to third parties so I would argue that this doesn't cover your situation. It also says "may" and not "must" here.

If you're relying on Ombudsman decisions then state the DRNs are so people can look at them. Just stating "as set out in the regulations" and "according to the Ombudsman" isn't helpful.