Car Insurance Job Picker Discussion

raskazz wrote: »

You didn't read my previous post, did you?


As they have stated in black and white that they do not insure landlords, they will have made sure that they are on firm ground with this, so I'm fairly sure that what they are telling you is correct. Reason being that if any complaint was referred to the Ombudsman they would be required to produce evidence that they do not insure landlords, in the form of underwriting manuals etc which were in force at the time you took the policy out.[/QUOTE]

Now see the bold bit, that's useful information.

How do you know it?

raskazz wrote: »

Again, totally irrelevant. It doesn't matter how Churchill, Direct Line, Aviva or anyone else rate the occupation of 'landlord'. All that matters is how Highway rate 'landlord'. Different companies will aim for different profiles, have different appetites for risk and have differing experiences particular occupations.

Again, useful info which I will use in my telephone conversations with them tomorrow.

There's also a Swinton brokerage office just up the rd from my place too.

The fact is that I manage let properties for a living. It's immaterial whether I own them or not. Does it matter if really the lenders own them and I'm just the pig in the middle between the bank and the tenants.

I do appreciate your opinion by the way, it's just very frustrating stuff and yes, in hindsight - landlord. But at the time it seemed neither here nor there and more important to put something that reflects the work that I actually do - managing property lettings.

raskazz wrote: »

See this:

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/46/46_non_disclosure_insurance.htm

Particularly the last paragraph:

"Where there has been inadvertent non-disclosure or misrepresentation, we expect insurers to rewrite the insurance. This should be done on the terms they would originally have offered if they had been aware of all the information. In some cases this may result in a proportionate payment; in others it may result in no payment at all. This is because the inadvertently-withheld information would, if disclosed, have led to the firm declining the application altogether."

That's a good link thanks.

From the link:

An insurance contract is a ‘contract of utmost good faith’, which means that all parties to the contract are under a strict duty to deal fully and frankly with each other. Customers must disclose all facts that are ‘material’ (or relevant) to the risk for which they are seeking cover.
A ‘material’ fact is one which would influence an underwriter when they were deciding whether to accept the risk, and the terms and conditions that should apply. If a customer fails to disclose (or misrepresents) a material fact and this induces the insurer to accept the proposed risk, the legal remedy is to ‘avoid’ the policy. This means the insurer is entitled to treat the policy as though it never existed. Unless fraud is involved, the insurer will normally return the premium and will not pay out on any claim made under the policy.
========================

So I'll have to find out whether I'm getting a full refund to know whether they actually would take the ridiculous position that its fraud.

PollyLL wrote: »

That's a good link thanks.

From the link:

An insurance contract is a ‘contract of utmost good faith’, which means that all parties to the contract are under a strict duty to deal fully and frankly with each other. Customers must disclose all facts that are ‘material’ (or relevant) to the risk for which they are seeking cover.
A ‘material’ fact is one which would influence an underwriter when they were deciding whether to accept the risk, and the terms and conditions that should apply. If a customer fails to disclose (or misrepresents) a material fact and this induces the insurer to accept the proposed risk, the legal remedy is to ‘avoid’ the policy. This means the insurer is entitled to treat the policy as though it never existed. Unless fraud is involved, the insurer will normally return the premium and will not pay out on any claim made under the policy.
========================

So I'll have to find out whether I'm getting a full refund to know whether they actually would take the ridiculous position that its fraud.

In the letter they say that they are making the policy void from inception and do not mention fraud, so you should expect a full refund of the premium which you paid. They may not process the refund until you have returned the certificate of insurance to them.

dacouch wrote: »

Highway will almost certainly refund the premium, this is because they have declared that the contract is null and void so therefore did not exist. This is why they refund the premium.

One thing to bear in mind is that having a policy cancelled / voided generally makes it very difficult to obtain any other type of Insurance including home insurance. You will find that Insurers specifically ask a question about it and will certainly require you to advise them of it before or at renewal time.

This is bad news. All for their stupid £850. Unbelievable and a warning to others, but I'm gonna fight them on it. I don't care about the money, but my reputation is important as these black marks tend to cause others to ignore your story which is just plain stupid in this case.