Court Summons for No Continous Insurance
Discussion
I really don't see what the insurer has done wrong here.
1. They have instructed solicitors to defend the DVLA case (which I believe is only a civil penalty);
2. They have offered you compensation for inconvenience;
3. They appear to have sent back the paperwork as required, but have not used recorded delivery (nor were they under any specific obligation to do so).
I am not at all sure where the 'clear breach of contract' occurred. If you believe they had an implied duty to use reasonable care and skill, and act with reasonable promptness, in sending back the documents, fair enough, but I don't believe that that duty extends to using recorded delivery on all correspondence. Neither, in my view, would a court entertain that position.
Even if you are right about your insurer being under that duty, they have offered you some compensation (I don't know how much) and legal advice. Assuming that the compensation is reasonable and proportionate, that would be your remedy for breach of contract, although in my view it is more of a goodwill gesture rather than something they are obliged to give. (In other words, if it were withdrawn, you wouldn't be able to insist on getting it).
The remedy for breach of contract is not always rescission or a full refund - it depends very much on the facts and here, damages would be sufficient (if any breach even occurred). Those damages would be calculated as the difference between what you received and what you were entitled to receive. You did receive insurance cover, you did get reimbursed in relation to your loss (though presumably the insurer also recovered that from the third party) and you will receive both legal representation and a degree of compensation to offset the distress and inconvenience.
1. They have instructed solicitors to defend the DVLA case (which I believe is only a civil penalty);
2. They have offered you compensation for inconvenience;
3. They appear to have sent back the paperwork as required, but have not used recorded delivery (nor were they under any specific obligation to do so).
I am not at all sure where the 'clear breach of contract' occurred. If you believe they had an implied duty to use reasonable care and skill, and act with reasonable promptness, in sending back the documents, fair enough, but I don't believe that that duty extends to using recorded delivery on all correspondence. Neither, in my view, would a court entertain that position.
Even if you are right about your insurer being under that duty, they have offered you some compensation (I don't know how much) and legal advice. Assuming that the compensation is reasonable and proportionate, that would be your remedy for breach of contract, although in my view it is more of a goodwill gesture rather than something they are obliged to give. (In other words, if it were withdrawn, you wouldn't be able to insist on getting it).
The remedy for breach of contract is not always rescission or a full refund - it depends very much on the facts and here, damages would be sufficient (if any breach even occurred). Those damages would be calculated as the difference between what you received and what you were entitled to receive. You did receive insurance cover, you did get reimbursed in relation to your loss (though presumably the insurer also recovered that from the third party) and you will receive both legal representation and a degree of compensation to offset the distress and inconvenience.
So in layman's terms you are saying that you would be happy with the Insurance Companies decision and action if this had happened to you in these exact circumstances ?
You would be happy to receive only the costs of the phone calls you have made to Marker Study and no compensation in relation to the lack of response and having been put through this ridiculous and embarrassing court process.
A process that has been ongoing for almost 10 Months. 10 Months having to deal with the situation and exchange emails and phone calls, Penalty notices, Court Summons and Internal investigations through my employer.
And you still believe that the insurance company should not be held responsible for some level of compensation over and above the costs incurred by me by defending my position as a consumer looking to buy and stay within the law by having insurance ?
If you would be happy with the Insurance companies response and do not feel YOU should warrant receiving any further compensation or policy costs refunded, then you must be receiving a very poor deal from whatever insurance company you do business with.
It is the consumers right and obligation to fight for what is deemed acceptable and fair, if we didn't, then the Insurance industry and others would get away with unacceptable levels of poor customer service and never be challenged to change. This is their business and without US they would be out of business very quickly.
It sounds to me as though you work in the Insurance Industry or even a Board of Director within Marker Study !
You would be happy to receive only the costs of the phone calls you have made to Marker Study and no compensation in relation to the lack of response and having been put through this ridiculous and embarrassing court process.
A process that has been ongoing for almost 10 Months. 10 Months having to deal with the situation and exchange emails and phone calls, Penalty notices, Court Summons and Internal investigations through my employer.
And you still believe that the insurance company should not be held responsible for some level of compensation over and above the costs incurred by me by defending my position as a consumer looking to buy and stay within the law by having insurance ?
If you would be happy with the Insurance companies response and do not feel YOU should warrant receiving any further compensation or policy costs refunded, then you must be receiving a very poor deal from whatever insurance company you do business with.
It is the consumers right and obligation to fight for what is deemed acceptable and fair, if we didn't, then the Insurance industry and others would get away with unacceptable levels of poor customer service and never be challenged to change. This is their business and without US they would be out of business very quickly.
It sounds to me as though you work in the Insurance Industry or even a Board of Director within Marker Study !
No, I would be extremely unhappy.
I'd firstly be extremely unhappy at the general crapfest that is DVLA.
Secondly, your original post said that there was an offer of compensation for inconvenience and distress. I said specifically that this should be fair and appropriate. Nothing in your original post suggested that you'd had any hassle with your insurer in dealing with the issues - i.e., you'd spoken to them and they'd confirmed that you had done nothing wrong to DVLA, in writing, and then had sensible communications with them about the next steps.
If the insurer made me jump through hoops to get this fairly simple service, when things do go wrong, I'd be furious. However you hadn't mentioned this and this might be the more important issue. Depending on what flows from that, the compensation due to you might be more than the initial premium - but it's a completely separate issue from the obligation to send via recorded delivery. In any event, DVLA aren't set up to deal properly with recorded delivery so even if they had used that, DVLA would have been just as likely to screw up and put you through all the undeserved hassle and stress.
But if you think that I am somehow part of a Markerstudy conspiracy purely because I don't think that all correspondence between an insurer and DVLA must be sent recorded, even though they in no way say to you that they would do that, then it is likely that your expectations will never be met.
I'd firstly be extremely unhappy at the general crapfest that is DVLA.
Secondly, your original post said that there was an offer of compensation for inconvenience and distress. I said specifically that this should be fair and appropriate. Nothing in your original post suggested that you'd had any hassle with your insurer in dealing with the issues - i.e., you'd spoken to them and they'd confirmed that you had done nothing wrong to DVLA, in writing, and then had sensible communications with them about the next steps.
If the insurer made me jump through hoops to get this fairly simple service, when things do go wrong, I'd be furious. However you hadn't mentioned this and this might be the more important issue. Depending on what flows from that, the compensation due to you might be more than the initial premium - but it's a completely separate issue from the obligation to send via recorded delivery. In any event, DVLA aren't set up to deal properly with recorded delivery so even if they had used that, DVLA would have been just as likely to screw up and put you through all the undeserved hassle and stress.
But if you think that I am somehow part of a Markerstudy conspiracy purely because I don't think that all correspondence between an insurer and DVLA must be sent recorded, even though they in no way say to you that they would do that, then it is likely that your expectations will never be met.
hutcho2659 said:
This is Marker Study's final response !!!!
Dear Mr ********
Further to our conversation of the 22nd October 2014 I write to confirm that I have now discussed your request for a return of the policy premium with Steven Cross (Group Head of Claims), as requested.
I regret that I am unable to refund the policy premium as we cannot see that an error has been made. As soon as we became aware that the DVLA has not processed the change of vehicle ownership, a letter was sent to them to confirm this. We accept the problems you are facing is not due to anything you have done wrong and therefore we have instructed solicitors, DWF to act in defence of the DVLA proceedings. This will be at our cost. This however, is not an admittance of liability of any wrong doing on our part.
I acknowledge that this matter will have been embarrassing for you in your line of work, and as such we have provided you with a letter to give to your employer so that they too are fully aware that you are not to blame for the proceedings that have been issued against you.
As per our previous correspondence, if you remain unhappy, you may refer your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service, who will be happy to review the matter and provide an independent adjudication.
I realise that this is not the response that you were hoping to receive, but hope that you are able to understand the reasons behind our decision.
Kind regards
Rachel Robb
Complaints Team Leader
Markerstudy Group
Your original gripe was the delay meant you didn't get a refund of unexpired VED plus DVLA's subsequent attempt to penalise you for no insurance. Why is your insurer now saying you have requested a return of the initial premium? If you HAVE done so, you don't stand any chance of getting it. That's not the way an insurance contract works. See pararaph 17 - http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications...Dear Mr ********
Further to our conversation of the 22nd October 2014 I write to confirm that I have now discussed your request for a return of the policy premium with Steven Cross (Group Head of Claims), as requested.
I regret that I am unable to refund the policy premium as we cannot see that an error has been made. As soon as we became aware that the DVLA has not processed the change of vehicle ownership, a letter was sent to them to confirm this. We accept the problems you are facing is not due to anything you have done wrong and therefore we have instructed solicitors, DWF to act in defence of the DVLA proceedings. This will be at our cost. This however, is not an admittance of liability of any wrong doing on our part.
I acknowledge that this matter will have been embarrassing for you in your line of work, and as such we have provided you with a letter to give to your employer so that they too are fully aware that you are not to blame for the proceedings that have been issued against you.
As per our previous correspondence, if you remain unhappy, you may refer your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service, who will be happy to review the matter and provide an independent adjudication.
I realise that this is not the response that you were hoping to receive, but hope that you are able to understand the reasons behind our decision.
Kind regards
Rachel Robb
Complaints Team Leader
Markerstudy Group
Or is this another mistake by your insurer and further evidence of their shoddy attention to detail?
It appears to me the " Consumer " that the insurer has taken responsibility to send off the V5 and has either failed to do so or not been mindful enough to think of the consequences of having a lost V5, and its impact on the customer should it not get to the DVLA.
They are the facts.
If the Insurer cannot prove with documentation that they sent the V5 to the DVLA and the DVLA say they haven't received it, then who is to blame. I know its not me, so why take court action against me ???
Is my request for Compensation / Policy refund unreasonable or unfair given the circumstances ?
If so what is deemed appropriate ????
Those of you that write negatively I really do not see your point. Maybe I should be in the Insurance Industry where anything goes !
They are the facts.
If the Insurer cannot prove with documentation that they sent the V5 to the DVLA and the DVLA say they haven't received it, then who is to blame. I know its not me, so why take court action against me ???
Is my request for Compensation / Policy refund unreasonable or unfair given the circumstances ?
If so what is deemed appropriate ????
Those of you that write negatively I really do not see your point. Maybe I should be in the Insurance Industry where anything goes !
I don't work in insurance, by the way. I do think you are entitled to compensation if your insurer fails to do its job. If you are going to complain effectively you need to set out very clearly:
1. What they did wrong.
2. How you were harmed by it.
If your answer is:
1. They didn't send off my V5 by recorded delivery; and
2. DVLA took enforcement action against me because they didn't send it by recorded delivery
... you still have to show that the outcome would have been different, and how. If the documents were signed for once received, DVLA would have been just as capable of losing them. You wouldn't have known anything about whether or not they were received, even if they had been sent recorded. You would have had slightly more evidence in response to the enforcement but the DVLA would still have trotted out their old argument that it was your responsibility to follow things up.
Answer this honestly: when last sold a car, did you send your documents back by recorded delivery? If not, why is the onus on the insurer to do so?
You've had a very bad experience, of course, and you have my sympathy, but if you did nothing wrong and shouldn't be held to blame then the first person to point the finger at should be the DVLA, not the insurer.
1. What they did wrong.
2. How you were harmed by it.
If your answer is:
1. They didn't send off my V5 by recorded delivery; and
2. DVLA took enforcement action against me because they didn't send it by recorded delivery
... you still have to show that the outcome would have been different, and how. If the documents were signed for once received, DVLA would have been just as capable of losing them. You wouldn't have known anything about whether or not they were received, even if they had been sent recorded. You would have had slightly more evidence in response to the enforcement but the DVLA would still have trotted out their old argument that it was your responsibility to follow things up.
Answer this honestly: when last sold a car, did you send your documents back by recorded delivery? If not, why is the onus on the insurer to do so?
You've had a very bad experience, of course, and you have my sympathy, but if you did nothing wrong and shouldn't be held to blame then the first person to point the finger at should be the DVLA, not the insurer.
hutcho2659 said:
Is my request for Compensation / Policy refund unreasonable or unfair given the circumstances ?
You seem to be confused. These are two entirely different things. I have explained to you that you won't get a return of any premium you have paid. If that is specifically what you asked Steve Cross for I'm not surprised by the response you received. You have wasted your time (and his).hutcho2659 said:
If so what is deemed appropriate ????
Imo, your quantifiable costs (you have kept a record, haven't you?) plus a reasonable rate for your time. On top of that a sum for inconvenience and distress. Don't get greedy. Also, bear in mind the latter isn't over as you still have the court case to sort out.While it is heartening that the insurer has offered their solicitor's help in defending the 'no insurance' charge you must bear in mind that he/she is not instructed by you. How keen will he/she really be to fight your corner? Getting the DVLA to discontinue must be your first priority before worrying about compensation.
Final Update
The FSA have agreed to uphold my claim against Marker Study Insurers after looking at the evidence submitted to them. To note, Marker Study have not submitted one piece to back up their claim that the documents were sent recorded. Or indeed any other evidence to counter my claims against them.
The court case was dismissed prior to its commencement on the actual day of the hearing.
The decision by an Ombudsman in writing has been received by me and sent to the business and states that they WILL pay the sum of £1000 and the decision is final and legally binding.
I am delighted that the consumer has fought and won against an Insurer that is not fit to be trading following on from its terrible customer service.
I hope in the future that Marker Study will reflect upon the action taken by me and no doubt many others past and present.
ETA
not on the forums.
The FSA have agreed to uphold my claim against Marker Study Insurers after looking at the evidence submitted to them. To note, Marker Study have not submitted one piece to back up their claim that the documents were sent recorded. Or indeed any other evidence to counter my claims against them.
The court case was dismissed prior to its commencement on the actual day of the hearing.
The decision by an Ombudsman in writing has been received by me and sent to the business and states that they WILL pay the sum of £1000 and the decision is final and legally binding.
I am delighted that the consumer has fought and won against an Insurer that is not fit to be trading following on from its terrible customer service.
I hope in the future that Marker Study will reflect upon the action taken by me and no doubt many others past and present.
ETA
not on the forums.Edited by Big Al. on Tuesday 30th June 22:56
I'm glad you got a result
It's sailing close to the wind in terms of name and shame rules but I guess as you are only feeding back the results of the decision it's not just one side of the story
PS no obligation for anyone to send mail to DVLA by recorded/signed for or any other method - just putting it in the post box is enough
It's sailing close to the wind in terms of name and shame rules but I guess as you are only feeding back the results of the decision it's not just one side of the story
PS no obligation for anyone to send mail to DVLA by recorded/signed for or any other method - just putting it in the post box is enough
loafer123 said:
Well done, OP.
They are a very nasty bunch, and you've done well to hold them to account.
They are a very nasty bunch, and you've done well to hold them to account.
Why are they "a very nasty bunch"? What evidence do you have to support this please?
Like CYMRU above I'm also confused why this is somehow the insurer's fault. I am willing to bet that with the exception of a small number of worriers, no-one will send V5C updates to DVLA via recorded or special delivery. It just doesn't happen. I am struggling to see how you've apportioned blame to the insurer with apparently no evidence whatsoever. In all likelihood the insurer will have sent off the V5C and it will be the usual DVLA incompetence to blame for their records not being updated. Asking for proof from the insurer that they posted something a couple of years ago is just absurd and completely unrealistic.
Also, an insurer writing to you to tell you that none of this is your fault and offer to fight the case on your behalf with a possible outcome of some compensation for the inconvenience doesn't strike me as being a "very nasty" company either.
Again I dont see how the insurer is to blame either. There is no obligation, legal or otherwise to use recorded delivery to serve notices and forms on DVLA. You good argue that it might be a good idea considering DVLA's unreliability but i suspect that arguement wouldnt really wash as DVLA wont admit unreliability and royal mail simply dont loose that much post.
Also If they loose post after recieving it, DVLA will still deny responsibility anyway.
Its DVLA would should be giving out compo for inconveniences like this, not the insurer.
Also If they loose post after recieving it, DVLA will still deny responsibility anyway.
Its DVLA would should be giving out compo for inconveniences like this, not the insurer.
It looks like the outcome is very much as I predicted earlier - i.e. the £1k is compensation for costs incurred/inconvenience/distress rather than a return of the premium paid. I reckon the OP has done rather well when compared with the sums other people have received for issues with arguably more far reaching consequences.
Entering the insurer's name here - http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/ - makes interesting reading. It seems that this company has form for refusing to accept the Ombudsman Service adjuducators' rulings which are then upheld on final determination.
Bear in mind that it only does business via brokers/intermediaries (you can't deal direct), and claims to be attractive to those:
I had a very 'competetive' quote from a broker for one of my cars a couple of years ago. Seemed too good to be true until I asked who the provider was (no prizes for guessing who it was). The guy I was dealing with seemed a tad surprised when I told him I wasn't interested. He couldn't get it through his head that I was declining to 'save' nearly £100.
I particularly love this bit, it claims it
Entering the insurer's name here - http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/ - makes interesting reading. It seems that this company has form for refusing to accept the Ombudsman Service adjuducators' rulings which are then upheld on final determination.
Bear in mind that it only does business via brokers/intermediaries (you can't deal direct), and claims to be attractive to those:
website said:
such as young drivers, owners of high performance/ high value cars, Japanese imports, kit cars, drivers with unusual occupations or accident/conviction records, to name just a few.
If you use an intermediary, which I suspect many on here do, always check who is underwriting the cover and insist on seeing a copy of their T&Cs before commencing the policy.I had a very 'competetive' quote from a broker for one of my cars a couple of years ago. Seemed too good to be true until I asked who the provider was (no prizes for guessing who it was). The guy I was dealing with seemed a tad surprised when I told him I wasn't interested. He couldn't get it through his head that I was declining to 'save' nearly £100.
I particularly love this bit, it claims it
website said:
applies a unique approach to business
That's one way of putting it, but I'm not entirely convinced that in their case it is a positive selling point... I am not sure I understand some of the comments on here in respect of DVLA.
If you post your V5 Document to them, how can you be sure it's going to be received by them ?
Your right in saying there is no legal obligation to send it via recorded delivery, but surely as a business, you'd want to protect yourself in every way to ensure mistakes such as this one don't come back to bite you. Nit least give your business a bad reputation.
Personally I will be sending any future V5 documents via recorded method so that if this happens in the future I have evidence of the fafafact I have sent it to them.
RED Devil I can't see any where in the posts that you predicted a compensation pay out of £1000 ....
If you post your V5 Document to them, how can you be sure it's going to be received by them ?
Your right in saying there is no legal obligation to send it via recorded delivery, but surely as a business, you'd want to protect yourself in every way to ensure mistakes such as this one don't come back to bite you. Nit least give your business a bad reputation.
Personally I will be sending any future V5 documents via recorded method so that if this happens in the future I have evidence of the fafafact I have sent it to them.
RED Devil I can't see any where in the posts that you predicted a compensation pay out of £1000 ....
I wouldn't expect them to send recorded delivery.
They run a business where they presumably do this all the time and they will have studied the statistics and concluded that it's not cost effective.
They may have the odd bit of trouble but that doesn't bear the cost of sending each item recorded delivery.
I run a small hobby website and our orders go out normal Royal Mail. They've never lost a UK order in 10 years (remarkable I know). How much would it have cost us to send every one of those recorded /insured?
All that jazz said:
Why are they "a very nasty bunch"? What evidence do you have to support this please?
In terms of saying "I can't see what the insurer has done wrong" the fact is that the court, in knowledge of the full facts and evidence, disagree.
hutcho2659 said:
I am not sure I understand some of the comments on here in respect of DVLA.
If you post your V5 Document to them, how can you be sure it's going to be received by them ?
If you post your V5 Document to them, how can you be sure it's going to be received by them ?
You can't but Recorded Mail doesn't make any difference - merely posting it (regardless of if it gets there or not is sufficient)
hutcho2659 said:
Your right in saying there is no legal obligation to send it via recorded delivery, but surely as a business, you'd want to protect yourself in every way to ensure mistakes such as this one don't come back to bite you. Nit least give your business a bad reputation.
Can get proof of posting from the post office for free - still makes no difference it's not requiredhutcho2659 said:
Personally I will be sending any future V5 documents via recorded method so that if this happens in the future I have evidence of the fafafact I have sent it to them.
Look at the guidelines on the forms - they pretty much all say if you don't get acknowledgement in 4-6 weeks they expect you to chase.I think that's where people forget
DVLA don't sign for individual mail anyway. Royal Mail present a bunch of sacks to them containing recorded delivery letters and they sign for the sacks but not the individual letters. Ringing them up to ask if they've received it or looking on RMs site for confirmation is a complete waste of time.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff