urgent advice needed please

fishingcinema

custardy wrote: »

were the policy docs going to your bro's address or your fathers?

they were going to my fathers address

fishingcinema

he did not relaps with renewal they sent him a renewal letter and he paid
i can not say if letters were sent or not just that none were received and that the one supposedly sent recorded delivery they could not give any details on
yes agreed the refund would have sent alarm bells if my brother had a bank account and paid it on his but he did not as you say thats the risk

raskazz wrote: »

If he did not renew but lapsed the renewal with Direct Choice and set up a new policy for the new year then it is entirely his fault that the insurance was cancelled. It would have shown on their database as a new policy, there would be no link to the old one, so they would have had no reason to know that they held the NCD. He would also have been told to provide proof of no claims bonus.

Usually insurers send out at least two or three letters chasing the NCD before issuing a cancellation notice. It is hard to believe that none of them would be received if the policyholder had given the insurer the correct address.

Also, the refund would have rung alarm bells, if you use someone else's card this is the risk you take.

at the end of the day if my brother had known he would have sorted it out as he would not risk drivivg uninsured as he has two babys and hes not that stupid

Edited to add:

Direct Choice looks like a broker not an insurer.

Their online terms state:

"In the event of a claim or upon request, you must be able to substantiate all of the details that you have provided. In particular, you may be asked for sight of your Driving Licence, proof of immobiliser fitment if applicable, and proof of any No Claims Discount entitlement"

So it may be that if it was a renewal after all, the broker may have placed his risk with a different insurer from its panel. Then the new insurer requested NCD proof, it was not forthcoming and the policy was cancelled.

So it really is difficult to apportion blame without fuller information.

alanrowell

fishingcinema wrote: »

they were going to my fathers address

Why? If the car insured was at your father's address but your brother was living elsewhere then your brother was lying to the insurance company and the insurance would have been invalid anyway

Conor_3

thescouselander wrote: »

I think thats a but harsh really.
quote]

Why? Where was I having a go at him? Are you some kind of Southern / Scouse hybrid? A kind of "scoutherner"? You must be if you're so bereft of character that you think that was having a go. That's the kind of comment I'd expect a shandy drinker to come out with.

I was merely pointing out the situation his brother is in. Do you honestly not think that this is a defence that those who really haven't bothered with insurance have used? It is. A lot. Guilty or not - only he knows the truth - he'll go to court and say he didn't get the letters as plenty of people have claimed in the past. The judge will probably have a statement from DL saying they sent it. It's pretty much a guarantee that there's going to be a guilty verdict so what is important is figuring out how to minimise the damage and if there's any possibility of still retaining his licence if this happens.

As alanrowell has pointed out quite correctly, technically his brother is guilty of fraud by making a false statement in regards to his residential address - something that's sometimes done by people who live in a high risk area to reduce their premiums such as people living in the less desirable areas of London.

So really, I suppose the choice is:

1) Take the points and keep shtum about not living at the address he gave the insurance company and chalk it up to experience.
2) Claim that they were sent to his fathers address, the address he gave the insurance company, which is completely different to where he lives then face a possible criminal charge for fraud for making a false statement. And he'll still get the points but will have a criminal conviction as well.

cajef

they cancelle his insurance in oct 2007 part refunded in nov 2007


he brought 6 months car tax this month

This does not make sense, how did he manage to tax the car this month, if he had no insurance.

raskazz

cajef wrote: »

This does not make sense, how did he manage to tax the car this month, if he had no insurance.

Direct Choice obviously sent him a certificate for the year of cover, which he would have used to get the tax at the Post Office. The insurer subsequently sent notice of cancellation due to non-receipt of NCD proof and the policy ceased but the Post Office aren't to know this.

On the situation in general - it has now all become clear. The policyholder gave the insurer the wrong information as regards his address, which as others have pointed out not only brings into question the validity of cover pre-cancellation but also means that the policyholder did not recieve any correspondence that the insurer sent to him.

Given this new information re: the address, there is no point in him denying that he is wholly to blame for driving without insurance.

Wig

MoaningMyrtle wrote: »

Surely if the insurance was cancelled they would have phoned/written to him? Also the annual renewal should have been paid by now if this happened 16 months ago?

It ( the insurance debacle) happened in Nov 2007, it says so in the OP.

He would also need the insurance certificate to get car tax, this should have been within the last 6 or 12 months.

He had an ins cert to get his car tax.

I got a little confused by your post as there is no punctuation, this is just my thoughts on the matter.

I read it and understood perfectly.

I think he probably needs the advice of a solicitor.

A very good idea.

Wig

Presumably they asked for proof of no claims, because instead of "renewing" over the phone the existing policy he took out a **new policy** on the intenet or some other method in order to gain a discount. Then they would ask for proof of no claims, and he should have really expected to have to supply it, all it would have taken was a phonecall to say "I was with yourselves last year".

The lack of notification is frightening, however, and difficult to understand why all their letters would either not get sent or were sent but not recieved. I for example am with the Pru and they have now sent me 3 letters asking for proof (I have just supplied the proof and the final letter has crossed with my own).

The driver licence thing is also very weird, he should write (or phone in the first instance) to the DVLA to find out !!!!!! is going on.

DVLA - 01792 782341

cajef

Wig wrote: »

He had an ins cert to get his car tax.

Actually unknowingly he has obtained a tax disc illegally, as on the form for renewing the vehicle licence it states that you must produce:-

'A valid certificate of insurance'

Wig

raskazz wrote: »

If he did not renew but lapsed the renewal with Direct Choice and set up a new policy for the new year then it is entirely his fault that the insurance was cancelled. It would have shown on their database as a new policy, there would be no link to the old one, so they would have had no reason to know that they held the NCD. He would also have been told to provide proof of no claims bonus.

I agree with the reason why they needed the proof, but to say "they would have no reason to know" is IMO not true. The insurance companies in todays world (and they all do this) are only in the dark about the proof in their own possession because they have not bothered to introduce new computer cross referencing, so they would be in a position to know that person X was insured with them last year on vehicle registration XYZ 123. It should be increasingly obvious to insurance companies to introduce cross referencing, as it must be an regular occurance that policy holders lapse and renew a fresh policy in order to take advantage of better premiums.

Personally I don't do this anymore... atleast not as a first course of action... I first of all phone up the retentions department and negotiate my own discount on the renewal.

Usually insurers send out at least two or three letters chasing the NCD before issuing a cancellation notice. It is hard to believe that none of them would be received if the policyholder had given the insurer the correct address.

Also, the refund would have rung alarm bells, if you use someone else's card this is the risk you take.

Edited to add:

Direct Choice looks like a broker not an insurer.

Their online terms state:

"In the event of a claim or upon request, you must be able to substantiate all of the details that you have provided. In particular, you may be asked for sight of your Driving Licence, proof of immobiliser fitment if applicable, and proof of any No Claims Discount entitlement"

So it may be that if it was a renewal after all, the broker may have placed his risk with a different insurer from its panel. Then the new insurer requested NCD proof, it was not forthcoming and the policy was cancelled.

So it really is difficult to apportion blame without fuller information.

Indeed.