Car Insurance Job Picker Discussion

PollyLL

dacouch wrote: »

You cannot use this as an arguement with the Insurer or the Ombudsman either.

Out of interest Landlord seems to be in fairly everyday use in Australia

http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&q=landlord&meta=&aq=f&oq=landlord&fp=2c744f47aab57b72

http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&q=landlord+responsibilities&revid=643111401&ei=1V8MS9SrMsj84AaQ_biNBA&sa=X&oi=revisions_inline&resnum=0&ct=broad-revision&cd=3&ved=0CEUQ1QIoAg&fp=2c744f47aab57b72

http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&q=landlord+insurance&meta=cr%3DcountryAU&aq=&oq=landlord+insurance&fp=2c744f47aab57b72

http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&q=landlord+definition&meta=cr%3DcountryAU&aq=1&oq=landlord+de&fp=2c744f47aab57b72


Once again for you to succeed in overturning the decision you either have to demonstrate the question is badly worded / ambiguous which is very unlikely as it is used throughout the industry and there have been people who have argued against it and lost. Or your better option is to demonstrate Highway would have accepted you as a client if you had declared you were a landlord and the non disclosure was innocent.

It is not sufficient for you to just demonstrate it was innocent.

Out of interest, why do you come across as so authoritive on this? Is it just my perception, or are you in the industry?

Yes, people talk about landlords etc in Australia, but when you are a landlord you tend to prefer to name yourself a Property Investor and that's the term used by real estate agents too. It tends to be tenants who call people landlords.

Landlord would tend to be considered an archaic term for a person preferring to be known as a Property Investor. The word 'lord' is what the problem is.

dacouch

As I said in a previous post the other people who have posted on your thread work in the Insurance industry som understand the principles of your problem. Raskazz is an underwritter and will deals with non disclosures as part of his job. Although non disclosures take many forms they are all in effect the same as the same principles are used to work out whether the policy should be invalidated or not.

Insurance is a contract that is based on "Utmost good faith", if you do not disclose the correct information the Insurers need to look at whether it was innocent or not AND whether they would have insured you in the first place if you had declared the correct information. Whether the question is ambiguos is taken into account although it is fairly unusual now days for someone to succeed using this arguement as most Insurers word their questions in the correct way.

You need to read the link to the Ombudsman advice on non disclosures fully and not pull out parts that suit you. You have to read the whole of the link as this contains the principles that Highway and all Insurers have to use when looking at whether to void a policy or pay the claim.

PollyLL

dacouch wrote: »

As I said in a previous post the other people who have posted on your thread work in the Insurance industry som understand the principles of your problem. Raskazz is an underwritter and will deals with non disclosures as part of his job. Although non disclosures take many forms they are all in effect the same as the same principles are used to work out whether the policy should be invalidated or not.

Insurance is a contract that is based on "Utmost good faith", if you do not disclose the correct information the Insurers need to look at whether it was innocent or not AND whether they would have insured you in the first place if you had declared the correct information. Whether the question is ambiguos is taken into account although it is fairly unusual now days for someone to succeed using this arguement as most Insurers word their questions in the correct way.

You need to read the link to the Ombudsman advice on non disclosures fully and not pull out parts that suit you. You have to read the whole of the link as this contains the principles that Highway and all Insurers have to use when looking at whether to void a policy or pay the claim.

Well I tried to find out whether you work in insurance or not, but you didn't answer.

I really appreciate your objective point of view on this, but I have news for you. I did read the Ombudsman's advice/guidelines very well, quoted them to Highway on monday and also to Swinton's customer assistance department on monday. Both understood it and both committed to raise the matter up higher to do their best to get the earlier decision overturned based on my INNOCENT MISTAKE following the go compare instructions and selecting from the list, somthing that did describe the work I do, AS INSTRUCTED to do.

The news I have for you, is that they both phoned me today, to tell me that I have been successful, that the decision's been overturned and that they're now dealing with my claim and I no longer need to declare a voided policy (note to self: ring Churchill car insurers in the morning :cool2: ). I think it helped a lot that I'd told them that the Ombudsman had opened a file for this and that I was sending in complaint forms to them as soon as I had the forms to fill in.

Yippee....success. Now I get the feeling you won't believe me, because you're so sure of yourself.

Here's that text for you again (with your own quoted point in bold in relation to this paragraph:

innocent
Customers act in good faith if their non-disclosure is made innocently. This may happen because the question is unclear or ambiguous, or because the relevant information is not something that they should reasonably know. In these cases, the insurer will not be able to ‘avoid’ the contract and (subject to the policy terms and conditions) should pay the claim in full.

It just couldn't be more simple in this case and I can't see why you've continued to insist that I wouldn't be succesful, but as I said, I appreciate all points of view as it helps me to think more clearly about it.

Thanks for your time. I'm now going to my first post on this thread to tell futue readers that it was resolved successfully in the end.

My one unresolved complaint about this whole thing, is that I emailed MSE in an attempt to get them to stand by their advice, that people should be willing to tweak their job title. It's really really bad advice and nobody has replied to me from MSE. There could now be hundreds or maybe even thousands of people driving around uninsured who don't yet know it.

Edited in. Highway told me they were sending me a letter today to confirm the decision, so I'll scan it and load the text into this thread when I get it probably friday. I don't seem to be able to load in PDF's, so you'll have to trust me that it's a true copy & paste of the text. I just know/think you won't dacouch.

mikey72

PollyLL wrote: »

Well I tried to find out whether you work in insurance or not, but you didn't answer.

I really appreciate your objective point of view on this, but I have news for you. I did read the Ombudsman's advice/guidelines very well, quoted them to Highway on monday and also to Swinton's customer assistance department on monday. Both understood it and both committed to raise the matter up higher to do their best to get the earlier decision overturned based on my INNOCENT MISTAKE following the go compare instructions and selecting from the list, somthing that did describe the work I do, AS INSTRUCTED to do.

The news I have for you, is that they both phoned me today, to tell me that I have been successful, that the decision's been overturned and that they're now dealing with my claim and I no longer need to declare a voided policy (note to self: ring Churchill car insurers in the morning :cool2: ). I think it helped a lot that I'd told them that the Ombudsman had opened a file for this and that I was sending in complaint forms to them as soon as I had the forms to fill in.

Yippee....success. Now I get the feeling you won't believe me, because you're so sure of yourself.

Here's that text for you again (with your own quoted point in bold in relation to this paragraph:

innocent
Customers act in good faith if their non-disclosure is made innocently. This may happen because the question is unclear or ambiguous, or because the relevant information is not something that they should reasonably know. In these cases, the insurer will not be able to ‘avoid’ the contract and (subject to the policy terms and conditions) should pay the claim in full.

It just couldn't be more simple in this case and I can't see why you've continued to insist that I wouldn't be succesful, but as I said, I appreciate all points of view as it helps me to think more clearly about it.

Thanks for your time. I'm now going to my first post on this thread to tell futue readers that it was resolved successfully in the end.

My one unresolved complaint about this whole thing, is that I emailed MSE in an attempt to get them to stand by their advice, that people should be willing to tweak their job title. It's really really bad advice and nobody has replied to me from MSE. There could now be hundreds or maybe even thousands of people driving around uninsured who don't yet know it.

Edited in. Highway told me they were sending me a letter today to confirm the decision, so I'll scan it and load the text into this thread when I get it probably friday. I don't seem to be able to load in PDF's, so you'll have to trust me that it's a true copy & paste of the text. I just know/think you won't dacouch.

Good result.
These forums are becoming full of posters who constantly advise rolling over and giving up. It does look as though a lot of companies are trying to subvert the forum. I agree you might not have get anywhere, but you certainly wouldn't if you didn't try.

PollyLL

mikey72 wrote: »

Good result.
These forums are becoming full of posters who constantly advise rolling over and giving up. It does look as though a lot of companies are trying to subvert the forum. I agree you might not have get anywhere, but you certainly wouldn't if you didn't try.

Thanks. A positive comment....

As promised to readers, here's the text of the letter I got today:

=====================================

I understand that you were unsatisfied with the decision we made to Null and Void your policy from inception as detailed on the letter we issued on the 18th November 2009.
You failed to disclose that your occupation was a Landlord (an Occupation that we do not place cover for).
You were unhappy with our decision as you feel this was an innocent mistake made in error when completing the online forms on GoCompare.
As an Owner of several properties that you rent out, you feel that you put down an occupation that best describes yours as "Manager - Property Letting"
Having reviewed all aspects of this claim our Underwriters have now confirmed that we will make a special exception in your case and have agreed to re-instate your policy disregarding previous advices to Null and void your policy from inception.
I understand measures have now been taken through your brokers to re-instate your policy on this basis however as your vehicle un-recovered following a theft, the policy will now cancel.
I am also pleased to inform you that we have instructed our claims department to proceed with your claim for the theft of your vehicle.
I apologise again for any inconvenience you may have experienced and hope that you are now satisfied with this outcome.
If you have any questions about this letter, please call me directly on 0845 293****
======================================

BTW. MSE have now responded and don't feel they need to change their job tweaking advice on this site.

Proc

PollyLL wrote: »

<snip>... landlord isn't a particularly well regarded occupation, so I don't go around telling people that I'm a landlord...<snip>

This says it all PollyLL. You obviously do recognise that there is actually a massive perceived difference between a Landlord and a Property Manager; hence you supposedly tell people that you are a Property Manager.

You've said it yourself:

Landlord: Not well regarded.
Property Manager: Good enough to tell people.

edit: Just noticed you got a result. Although I'm genuinely happy for you, I'm also quite surprised as you have already said (presumably not to them) that you recosgnise a difference between the two roles.

PollyLL

Proc wrote: »

This says it all PollyLL. You obviously do recognise that there is actually a massive perceived difference between a Landlord and a Property Manager; hence you supposedly tell people that you are a Property Manager.

You've said it yourself:

Landlord: Not well regarded.
Property Manager: Good enough to tell people.

edit: Just noticed you got a result. Although I'm genuinely happy for you, I'm also quite surprised as you have already said (presumably not to them) that you recosgnise a difference between the two roles.

I chose the thing that I felt best described the work that I actually do, what wakes me up in the morning to get on with things. Managing the properties I let out is what does it. There was no attempted deception on my part whatsoever. Just because I understand there's a difference in perception by others doesn't mean I had a clue that an insurer would look at it so harshly and that it would become such a critical point.

Thanks for your input anyway, but I don't agree with you trying to point the finger at me.

toshkininny

My other half is unemployed. The job title that it comes up with as a possible replacement is househusband or retired. Could I really use househusband to save money on car insurance, as I am down as a housewife too?!

My feeling is no, but just wondered you thought, thanks!

dacouch

Is your husband being paid Job Seekers Allowance?

toshkininny

yes he is.