Car crushed by council - what do I do now?
Discussion
Last July, my 106 Rallye was stolen from outside my house. I reported it to the Police and heard nothing until March this year when the Police got in touch with me and informed me that the car had been recovered by the council in August and scrapped 10 days later.
The police recommended that I complain to the council as the council seem to have been crushing a large number of cars recently without getting in touch with the owner. I wrote a letter and had a reply from the council saying that I should pursue an insurance claim. I'm not interested in doing this as I believe the council are at fault because they didn't make an attempt to get in touch with the owner of the car (me) before crushing it.
Has this happened to anyone before, and if so, how did you proceed?
The police recommended that I complain to the council as the council seem to have been crushing a large number of cars recently without getting in touch with the owner. I wrote a letter and had a reply from the council saying that I should pursue an insurance claim. I'm not interested in doing this as I believe the council are at fault because they didn't make an attempt to get in touch with the owner of the car (me) before crushing it.
Has this happened to anyone before, and if so, how did you proceed?
NoelWatson said:
The police recommended that I complain to the council as the council seem to have been crushing a large number of cars recently without getting in touch with the owner. I wrote a letter and had a reply from the council saying that I should pursue an insurance claim.
Disgraceful. This is what happens when a bunch of numpties get more power than they can manage. For the Council to say 'claim on your insurance' is a total abandonmnent of their responsibilty. If I turn up with a mobile crusher and turn the Chief Exec's limo into a 12" cube, will they just shrug and go and claim on the insurance? I don't think so.
Could doing what they did might lay them open to criminal charges...? It's just the same as stealing a car and burning it. Defo one for the media
You should be claiming on the Council's insurance and not on your own.
They are the ones who have been incompetent or even irresponsible.
Ask them for the details of their insurer and the names of the relevant officers who took the decisions to trash your car.
Whatever you do don't mention a value of "only" xxx - wait for their valuation then ask them for the qualifications and justification of their valuer after this.
Perhaps you could get them for maladministration or even stronger.
If the vehicle was taxed - this removal could be tantamount to theft.
Russ
They are the ones who have been incompetent or even irresponsible.
Ask them for the details of their insurer and the names of the relevant officers who took the decisions to trash your car.
Whatever you do don't mention a value of "only" xxx - wait for their valuation then ask them for the qualifications and justification of their valuer after this.
Perhaps you could get them for maladministration or even stronger.
If the vehicle was taxed - this removal could be tantamount to theft.
Russ
OK guys,
1 - big one this - failing to notify your insurance company of an accident or of theft etc can result in your future policy being voided. Simply, by claiming a 2 years NCB you will have obtained your next insurance policy by fraud.
2 - if the council were not acting honestly they would, on the face of it, be guilty of theft under the 1968 definitintion. So, they must show that they took reasonable steps to trace the owner. (I fail to see how they did this if you reported the original theft to the police).
3 - you should get your payout from the insurance company. You can then press the insurance company to bring an action against the council.
4 - the local press is always a useful tool (if they're not absolute tools). Give your local rag's newsdesk a call .... it'd make a lovely photo op with you standing next to a nice cube of metal.
5 - take advice from a local solicitor. You can make an appointment and get an hour's consultation free - that gives you time to explain what's happened and the solicitor can assess the situation with full knowledge and make a suggested course of action.
Good luck and don't let the b**tards get you down.
1 - big one this - failing to notify your insurance company of an accident or of theft etc can result in your future policy being voided. Simply, by claiming a 2 years NCB you will have obtained your next insurance policy by fraud.
2 - if the council were not acting honestly they would, on the face of it, be guilty of theft under the 1968 definitintion. So, they must show that they took reasonable steps to trace the owner. (I fail to see how they did this if you reported the original theft to the police).
3 - you should get your payout from the insurance company. You can then press the insurance company to bring an action against the council.
4 - the local press is always a useful tool (if they're not absolute tools). Give your local rag's newsdesk a call .... it'd make a lovely photo op with you standing next to a nice cube of metal.
5 - take advice from a local solicitor. You can make an appointment and get an hour's consultation free - that gives you time to explain what's happened and the solicitor can assess the situation with full knowledge and make a suggested course of action.
Good luck and don't let the b**tards get you down.
OK - this is going to seriously go off thread ... but ... the question has been asked.
This is the position that the FO sets out:
Obviously, that's an excerpt and the full text is available in Issue 46 by following this link: www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/46/46_non_disclosure_insurance.htm
Case studies on non-disclosure:
www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/48/insurance-non-disclosure.htm
With regard to whether or not a specific question has been asked and properly answered: accepted that you should answer all questions truthfully and fully; also that the usualy question is as previously stated.
However, the principle of utmost good faith (uberrimae fidei for those latin scholars still left) does mean that wilfully hiding a relevant fact or issue can have the effect of avoiding the contract.
My point being this - you are on shaky ground by not disclosing the relevant facts, even if not directly asked.
In addition, in this case, is the original poster still insuring a destroyed car? This in itself is an insurance fraud.
This is the position that the FO sets out:
Financial Ombudsman said:
Taking account of the law and good industry practice, we approach non-disclosure/misrepresentation cases in three stages. We summarise these three stages below, before describing each one in a little more detail.
When the customer sought insurance, did the insurer ask a clear question about the matter which is now under dispute?
Did the answer to that clear question induce the insurer; that is, did it influence the insurer’s decision to enter into the contract at all, or to do so under terms and conditions that it otherwise would not have accepted?
Only if the answers to both (1) and (2) are ‘yes’, do we go on to consider whether the customer’s misrepresentation was an honest mistake, a dishonest attempt to mislead or due to some degree of negligence.
clear questions
The insurer must first provide evidence that it asked the customer a clear question when the customer asked to take out or renew a policy. The insurer may ask questions via a traditional proposal form, which records the answers.
In many cases the transaction will have taken place over the telephone. If there is no evidence, such as a call recording and/or a copy of the statement of facts that the insurer has sent the customer, then we will have to decide what is likely to have happened. If the customer gives a credible account of events, we may find it more likely than the insurer’s version.
A similar statement of fact would be required for internet sales; as would some evidence of the questions asked during the website process, as it existed at the time of the application.
In order for non-disclosure to occur, the insurer must show that it asked clear questions.
inducement
Legally, the insurer must establish that the non-disclosure or misrepresentation ‘induced’ (or influenced) its decision to enter into the contract. This was established in Pan Atlantic Insurance Co Ltd v Pine Top Insurance Co Ltd (Reported [1994] in Volume 3 of the Weekly Law Reports at page 677).
If the insurer cannot prove inducement then the policy will remain valid, even if the non-disclosure was deliberate. The burden of proving inducement will not be high in clear-cut cases. For example, if a customer fails to disclose that their house has serious cracks, we are likely to believe the insurer would not have offered them full buildings insurance.
However, it is rare for cases to be this clear-cut and we will usually require evidence that inducement took place. This may be in the form of a statement from the underwriters and/or a copy of the underwriting manual.
the customer’s state of mind
Not all instances of non-disclosure or misrepresentation breach the duty of ‘utmost good faith’. We have identified four types of non-disclosure (deliberate, reckless, innocent, and inadvertent) to help us decide whether, with regard to all the available evidence, the customer acted in breach.
It is possible to deliberately non-disclose without being fraudulent. While dishonesty is one of the essential criteria for fraud, there must also be deception, designed to obtain something to which you are not entitled. For example, a customer might deliberately withhold information they are embarrassed about. Although, in doing so, they are acting dishonestly and deliberately, they are not acting fraudulently because there is no deceitful intention to obtain an advantage.
Only where there is clear evidence of fraud should the insurer retain the premium. In all other cases of deliberate or reckless non-disclosure, the premium should be returned, not least so as to protect the insurer’s position. Retaining the premium could be interpreted as an intention to affirm the contract and/or waive the right to ‘avoid’. Our experience is that most insurers return the premium in any event.
deliberate
Customers deliberately mislead the insurer if they dishonestly provide information they know to be untrue or incomplete. If the dishonesty is intended to deceive the insurer into giving them an advantage to which they are not entitled, then this is also a fraud and – strictly speaking – the insurance premium does not have to be returned.
reckless
Customers also breach their duty of good faith if they mislead the insurer by recklessly giving answers without caring whether those answers are true or false. An example of recklessness might be where a customer signs a blank proposal form and leaves it to be filled out by someone else. The customer has signed a declaration that ‘the above answers are true to the best of my knowledge and belief’, but does not know what those answers will be.
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.
inadvertent
A customer may also have acted in good faith if their non-disclosure is made inadvertently. These are the most difficult cases to determine and involve distinguishing between behaviour that is merely careless and that which amounts to recklessness. Both are forms of negligence.
Inadvertence occurs when the customer unintentionally misleads the insurer. This can occur just by failing to read and check the questions and answers thoroughly enough. When this happens there is no breach of the duty of utmost good faith.
Obviously, that's an excerpt and the full text is available in Issue 46 by following this link: www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/46/46_non_disclosure_insurance.htm
Case studies on non-disclosure:
www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/48/insurance-non-disclosure.htm
With regard to whether or not a specific question has been asked and properly answered: accepted that you should answer all questions truthfully and fully; also that the usualy question is as previously stated.
However, the principle of utmost good faith (uberrimae fidei for those latin scholars still left) does mean that wilfully hiding a relevant fact or issue can have the effect of avoiding the contract.
My point being this - you are on shaky ground by not disclosing the relevant facts, even if not directly asked.
In addition, in this case, is the original poster still insuring a destroyed car? This in itself is an insurance fraud.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I don't think you are being, Rascal. I don't have a precedent that fits the facts here exactly. In addition, good practice may well mean that the insurance company would pay out or at the very least apportion any pay out. That said, if a theft was reported there is no doubt that the insurance company would consider this an increased risk so by failing to disclose a previous theft I can only see that the insurance company and the FO would consider this a deliberate non-disclosure.
I'll run a search later and see if there is a precedent.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff