another insurance :(

[saaby93]

Just found this in general gassing
edited to avoid naming and shaming

pestman77 said:

Insurance companies will always find a way or reason to charge you more, I had a claim go against me last year that I did not even know about til it had gone through!! seriously!! App I went into the back of BMW on the M4, 1st I knew about it was when I renewed my insurance, couldnt believe it...

The insurance company said that they had sent letters and had no reply, heaven forbid they try and use a telephone!!! Tried to fight it ...No joy!!!
...

Unfortunatley I had other vehicles insured with them that I dont even drive, guess what?? the premiums went up on those as well.....
...

Accepting premiums might have gone up anyway this year - what do you do next?

[singlecoil]

Good job it's a free market, this sort of thing would be a real pisser if one had to use a particular company.

[saaby93]

singlecoil said:

Good job it's a free market, this sort of thing would be a real pisser if one had to use a particular company.

If he changes - what happens to his proof of no claims?

[singlecoil]

saaby93 said:

singlecoil said:

Good job it's a free market, this sort of thing would be a real pisser if one had to use a particular company.

If he changes - what happens to his proof of no claims?

Well it sounds as if he doesn't have any, and that's what has put up the price of his insurance. So there would be no NCB to transfer?

[Jasandjules]

saaby93 said:

Accepting premiums might have gone up anyway this year - what do you do next?

Write to the insurance company and request proof of posting or an affidavit from the member of staff who posted those letters, including copies of those letters. State you will provide an affidavit which confirms that you never received any such communications. Advise that you do not accept liability.

Can't see how silence on an issue can equate to acceptance of liability. Questionable whether FOS would do anything though, given their tendancy to side with the insurer no matter what.

[Noger]

"Advise that you do not accept liability" - usual nonsense about telling your insurer about accepting liabilty or not.

Your insurer is liable by statute, to satisfy judgements whether you accept it or not. We have no information about the claim, was it paid ? If not, and it is clearly fraud, then they can wind the renewal back and requote.

Would we prefer the alternative, that we won't get paid out if the insurer can get hold of their insured ?

[Noger]

Jasandjules said:

Can't see how silence on an issue can equate to acceptance of liability. Questionable whether FOS would do anything though, given their tendancy to side with the insurer no matter what.

EU law gives the right for someone to sue the insurer in place of the insured. That is how.

The FOS website gives details, but product area, of decisions. They would disagree with you, but hey, what do they know

[ZOLLAR]

Noger said:

"Advise that you do not accept liability" - usual nonsense about telling your insurer about accepting liabilty or not.

Your insurer is liable by statute, to satisfy judgements whether you accept it or not. We have no information about the claim, was it paid ? If not, and it is clearly fraud, then they can wind the renewal back and requote.

Would we prefer the alternative, that we won't get paid out if the insurer can get hold of their insured ?

+1

An insurer will make a reasonable effort to try and contact the policyholder, unfortunately they are unlikley to have a whole department dedicated to just ringing policyholder's when somebody tries to claim against you, after all as part of your T+C's your supposed to inform your insurer of any incident.
On a side note you would be surprised at how many people refuse to give contact details to their insurer plenty of policys have "contact by mail only" whats an insurer to do?.

[Jasandjules]

Noger said:

EU law gives the right for someone to sue the insurer in place of the insured. That is how.

The FOS website gives details, but product area, of decisions. They would disagree with you, but hey, what do they know

Yes but is the question not whether or not the OP is out of pocket as a result and/or should be? The insurer has accepted liability, doesn't mean the OP has?!?!? So if he hasn't accepted liability then the insurer will I trust look at the issue again.

I've had an insurer accept liability on my part before, I told them no I am not accepting that, and they withdrew it, and I won all my costs etc and a no fault claim. Third party was trying it on and hoping to scare me with legal stuff, which didn't quite work out as he planned.....

Oh, the FOS know how to agree with whatever s**e an insurer says........

[ZOLLAR]

Jasandjules said:

Noger said:

EU law gives the right for someone to sue the insurer in place of the insured. That is how.

The FOS website gives details, but product area, of decisions. They would disagree with you, but hey, what do they know

Yes but is the question not whether or not the OP is out of pocket as a result and/or should be? The insurer has accepted liability, doesn't mean the OP has?!?!? So if he hasn't accepted liability then the insurer will I trust look at the issue again.

I've had an insurer accept liability on my part before, I told them no I am not accepting that, and they withdrew it, and I won all my costs etc and a no fault claim. Third party was trying it on and hoping to scare me with legal stuff, which didn't quite work out as he planned.....

Oh, the FOS know how to agree with whatever s**e an insurer says........

You are right in saying that the policyholder can get the insurer to re open the claim but ultimately its the insurers money and if they believe there is sufficient evidence to show you are at fault they are fully within their rights to accept liability whether you agree or not.
Obviously if you provide further evidence to show your not at fault they will of course try and get their money back (which i presume is what happened in your case.)

[saaby93]

Noger said:

Would we prefer the alternative, that we won't get paid out if the insurer can get hold of their insured ?

I think we'd refer the third alternative of paying out when it should and not when it shouldn't.

Rather than either not paying out when needed and leaving a grumpy policy holder
or paying out when not needed and also leaving a grumpy policy holder.

It's ok insurance members here showing us how the system 'works' but we already know how it 'works'

What we want to know is the best way of changing the system or suing the system so it 'works' properly

So that if an insurer makes a claim against your random vehicle and it's pretty obvious its nothing to do with you they can take the claim back off again, and wouldnt it be nice to issue an apology

Edited by saaby93 on Tuesday 30th November 11:44

[Noger]

saaby93 said:

Noger said:

It's ok insurance members here showing us how the system 'works' but we already know how it 'works'

What we want to know is the best way of changing the system or suing the system so it 'works' properly

Well firstly, I don't think you do "know how it works".

And secondly, I also don't think most people asking questions are looking to smash the state, I think they are looking for answers.

Turning everything into a question of how we change things is getting tiresome.

[saaby93]

Noger said:

Turning everything into a question of how we change things is getting tiresome.

I know Noger
Still - what happens about OP?

[ZOLLAR]

saaby93 said:

Noger said:

Turning everything into a question of how we change things is getting tiresome.

I know Noger
Still - what happens about OP?

Needs to check his post more often?

[Noger]

It's like Ant and Dec

[Jasandjules]

ZOLLAR said:

Obviously if you provide further evidence to show your not at fault they will of course try and get their money back (which i presume is what happened in your case.)

Nope, I simply advised them of the action I would take against them to recover any losses I suffered...... It was still the exact same evidence they decided to rely upon. I can only guess that quite often an insurer will just try to take the 50/50 as it's cheaper and quicker for them. In my case it would not have been.....

[Noger]

Jasandjules said:

ZOLLAR said:

Obviously if you provide further evidence to show your not at fault they will of course try and get their money back (which i presume is what happened in your case.)

Nope, I simply advised them of the action I would take against them to recover any losses I suffered...... It was still the exact same evidence they decided to rely upon. I can only guess that quite often an insurer will just try to take the 50/50 as it's cheaper and quicker for them. In my case it would not have been.....

Action against them ? What exactly ? They just re-opened it to make you go away (and probably because the "human" overrode the computer), not because you had any "right" to force them to do so. You signed a contract, shame you didn't understand understand the ramifications of that (you transferred a number of rights at the same time as transferring risk).

50:50, as we have said on many occasions, is never going to be cheaper than punting it off to a panel solicitor and pocketing the referral fee. But you choose your battles.

Often, 50:50 IS cheaper, because you don't have the legal overheads that are in place to stop you going to court. It is the government that makes it so, not insurers. This way claims are quicker and cheaper, but not always.

But going 50:50 when it is an obvious non-fault (for that extra £20 of premium and £100 of NCD as some of the duller members of GG would suggest) is never going to be cheaper. Most likely the system, based on the accident codes, chose a split liability and set the claim down that process. By complaining you get a human involved, that is all. Who wants neither the formal complaint nor the split claim.

[Jasandjules]

Noger said:

Often, 50:50 IS cheaper, because you don't have the legal overheads that are in place to stop you going to court. It is the government that makes it so, not insurers. This way claims are quicker and cheaper, but not always.

How do the Govt make it so? Genuine question.

And I do understand contracts (well, at least I am supposed to), and I also, at least in part, understand the questions which arise when the matter goes before a court. My experience of insurance litigation is pretty limited mind.... I do hope to expand upon it significantly in the near future though.

But I can tell you that I am currently awaiting decision from high court masters to refer two individuals who work for different insurance companies in accordance with CPR 32.14.

[Noger]

Jasandjules said:

Noger said:

Often, 50:50 IS cheaper, because you don't have the legal overheads that are in place to stop you going to court. It is the government that makes it so, not insurers. This way claims are quicker and cheaper, but not always.

How do the Govt make it so? Genuine question.

And I do understand contracts (well, at least I am supposed to), and I also, at least in part, understand the questions which arise when the matter goes before a court. My experience of insurance litigation is pretty limited mind.... I do hope to expand upon it significantly in the near future though.

But I can tell you that I am currently awaiting decision from high court masters to refer two individuals who work for different insurance companies in accordance with CPR 32.14.

The very Civil Procedure Rules that allow you to do what you are doing.

And whilst property damange only claims are not in the scope for a lot of the protocols, insurers do now tend to be "Woolf-like" in their dealing anyway.

Woolf emphasised negotion over litigation.

It isn't contracts I was on about, it was the contract itself. As I said, you transfer risk and some rights (such as the right to subrogate) to the insurer. Most policies will also state that the insurer can handle the claim as they see fit.

The right of direct action is in the European Communities (Rights against Insurers) Regulations 2002. This gives me the right to persue your insurer, without me having to obtain a judgement against you first (if you crashed into my car, obv.).

So it is entirely possible for an insurer to pay out a claim without you ever being involved. Is that "unfair" ? Well TCF is silent on the subject.

You would be very hard pushed to sue your insurer for your premium increase due to them paying a claim as per statute, backed up by contractual terms.

None of which has much to do without your contempt cases. Sounds interesting ! And I mean that sincerely, we have little enough excitement in insurance day-to-day, so it is always good when things are shaken up. Maybe once every 3 months someone manages to have snuck a small claims case under the wire and they turn up at head office with the bailiffs. Such fun

[R1 Loon]

As usual Noger & Zollar provide the facts whilst a few others decide to head off on spurious lines of questioning.

Rather than re-hash old ground, I'd like to ask Mr Solicitor, whether a Court will accpet a series of notes from an insurer stating that they had tried to ring the insured a number of times?

My thoughts are simple, 99% of the time on here "solicitors" advise posters that they need to write to those they are aggrieved with, as telephone records / e-mails are not accepted as proof of contact.

Looks like the insurers are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

One last point for those quoting Contract Law, do you appreciate the differences in Insurance Contract Law vs normal Contraact Law?