|
jesta1865
2,320 posts
78 months
|
hedgefinder said: was the letter sent recorded though? i don't think it needs to be, the act that says a court has served you when it posts doesn't stipulate recorded delivery, so we as the public don't have to back.
|
|
|
Pontoneer
2,568 posts
55 months
|
hedgefinder said: was the letter sent recorded though? It does not matter : the Act deems that any letter posted in the ordinary mail has been received . This puts the burden of proof on the alleged non-recipient to prove that you did not post said letter , which is well nigh impossible . This is the situation which has beaten DVLA when people accused of not SORN-ing vehicles on time simply state that they posted the notification off in sufficient time .
|
|
|
Jasandjules
45,435 posts
98 months
|
streaky said: No, the OP says he called. If the policy was in his wife's name, they might well, and rightly, have ignored his 'instructions'.
Streaky
They should either have refused to speak to him as the non-policy holder OR accept those instructions. Can't see how they can have it both ways......
|
|
|
streaky
18,240 posts
118 months
|
Pontoneer said: The interpretation Act deems that any letter posted has been served ... We might be reading the Act differently. My understanding is that it becomes engaged where there is an Act that requires service by post. In this instance, which Act authorises or requires that the notice be served on the insurer by post? If there is no Act authorising or requiring such service, surely s7 does not apply? IANAL Streaky
|
|
|
streaky
18,240 posts
118 months
|
Jasandjules said: streaky said: No, the OP says he called. If the policy was in his wife's name, they might well, and rightly, have ignored his 'instructions'.
Streaky
They should either have refused to speak to him as the non-policy holder OR accept those instructions. Can't see how they can have it both ways...... They need not refuse to speak to him, just not give any personal information about the insured. Streaky
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
chriscpritchard
232 posts
34 months
|
streaky said: They need not refuse to speak to him, just not give any personal information about the insured.
Streaky And not imply that they've cancelled the policy...
|
|
|
Noger
6,779 posts
118 months
|
Jasandjules said: pitmansboots said: The terms are quite clear and you agree to them quite actively as I understand it. No, you can not create a new contract by silence. It is a new contract when the insurance renews. As I said, unless there is an exception then this is invalid. We had exactly this discussion 3 years ago  Anyway, the interesting thing about Test-Achats is that UK law and EU "law" are odds over contract creation during renewal. The definition given by the EU means that they believe no new contract is formed if you "roll over" the cover. UK law says it is new contract (but silence is acceptable to create it). So we shall see where we go with tacit renewal in the next few months.
|
|
|
Noger
6,779 posts
118 months
|
streaky said: Pontoneer said: The interpretation Act deems that any letter posted has been served ... We might be reading the Act differently. My understanding is that it becomes engaged where there is an Act that requires service by post. In this instance, which Act authorises or requires that the notice be served on the insurer by post? If there is no Act authorising or requiring such service, surely s7 does not apply? IANAL Streaky It will be contractual, not statutory. There is no statutory right for an insured to cancel an insurance policy in the UK. The Interpretation act is an irrelevance here.
|
|
|
streaky
18,240 posts
118 months
|
chriscpritchard said: streaky said: They need not refuse to speak to him, just not give any personal information about the insured.
Streaky And not imply that they've cancelled the policy... The OP said that the female he spoke to "seemed happy" with the information ... that's not the same as implying a cancellation. Regardless, we were not parties to the call, so we don't know exactly what was said on either side. The OP might not have perfect or even good recall, or might simply have paraphrased. I just had a strong feeling of deja vu.  Streaky
|
|
