Sons Car insurance company chasing payment after he died
Discussion
Sorry for your loss OP
As for naming and shaming surely the business were happy to ask for it so there was no shame? Companies and employees need to consider the customers needs (not necessarily the original customer) when they act then they would do the right thing first time and their company would be enhanced by positive customer experiences. The OP did not name and shame just report the facts . All the best to the OP
As for naming and shaming surely the business were happy to ask for it so there was no shame? Companies and employees need to consider the customers needs (not necessarily the original customer) when they act then they would do the right thing first time and their company would be enhanced by positive customer experiences. The OP did not name and shame just report the facts . All the best to the OP
Edited by mad4amanda on Saturday 28th March 18:58
Rugbyfester said:
When sorting out and informing his mobile, his bank etc, everyone was very helpful & understanding and just simply closed the account, not it would seem Adrian Flux who he was insured with, at first they wanted me to settle his insurance (he was paying monthly) to the tune of £250(ish), when I said that he left no money within his estate they went off and reduced it to £70.
Whilst I'm sorry to hear of your loss, I can see why Adrian Flux wanted money as it wasn't your sons insurance policy - it was yours. They probably wanted the extra money because you lied to them when you took out the policy.Rugbyfester said:
On the basis that I understood his insurance would be automatically stopped upon his death, I insured the car in my name, being 48 its considerably cheaper than continuing with what he was paying, interestingly I did get a quote form Adrian Flux at the time who were too expensive.
paulrussell said:
Rugbyfester said:
When sorting out and informing his mobile, his bank etc, everyone was very helpful & understanding and just simply closed the account, not it would seem Adrian Flux who he was insured with, at first they wanted me to settle his insurance (he was paying monthly) to the tune of £250(ish), when I said that he left no money within his estate they went off and reduced it to £70.
Whilst I'm sorry to hear of your loss, I can see why Adrian Flux wanted money as it wasn't your sons insurance policy - it was yours. They probably wanted the extra money because you lied to them when you took out the policy.Rugbyfester said:
On the basis that I understood his insurance would be automatically stopped upon his death, I insured the car in my name, being 48 its considerably cheaper than continuing with what he was paying, interestingly I did get a quote form Adrian Flux at the time who were too expensive.
paulrussell said:
Whilst I'm sorry to hear of your loss, I can see why Adrian Flux wanted money as it wasn't your sons insurance policy - it was yours. They probably wanted the extra money because you lied to them when you took out the policy.
Er, the bit you quoted second in your own post indicates that upon the death of his son, the OP insured the car in his own name but with a different company, that was NOT AF. This was done on the basis that he believed that when his son had died, the policy with AF would be deemed to be cancelled / void, but he wanted to keep the car insured so it could be used.After he did that, he then set about dealing with the original AF policy that his son had started, when he was alive, and was being paid for in monthly instalments, again by his son.
At no point did the OP transfer his sons insurance into his name with AF and then request cancellation of the policy, and at no point had he originally started a fronting policy which you seem to be alluding to.
Edited by AlexRS2782 on Sunday 29th March 02:18
AlexRS2782 said:
Er, the bit you quoted second in your own post indicates that upon the death of his son, the OP insured the car in his own name but with a different company, that was NOT AF. This was done on the basis that he believed that when his son had died, the policy with AF would be deemed to be cancelled / void, but he wanted to keep the car insured so it could be used.
After he did that, he then set about dealing with the original AF policy that his son had started, when he was alive, and was being paid for in monthly instalments, again by his son.
At no point did the OP transfer his sons insurance into his name with AF and then request cancellation of the policy, and at no point had he originally started a fronting policy which you seem to be alluding to.
Agreed, I was under the impression is was the premium for the time up until notification which was nearly a month after he passed. Assuming it was legitimately owed then I can see why they asked. If they hounded you for it then that's more than insensitive, especially for only £70.After he did that, he then set about dealing with the original AF policy that his son had started, when he was alive, and was being paid for in monthly instalments, again by his son.
At no point did the OP transfer his sons insurance into his name with AF and then request cancellation of the policy, and at no point had he originally started a fronting policy which you seem to be alluding to.
Edited by AlexRS2782 on Sunday 29th March 02:18
I do think though that it's a little odd to use £1500 from the estate to fix the landy rather than clear his debts first. That doesn't sound right. It's an asset in his estate, it has value, and assets pay off liabilities. Thats the way it works.
I echo what others say and I'm sorry for your loss.
Rugbyfester said:
Reading other posts I was expecting some twonk to come up with some twaddle.
No great surprise.There are 3 categories of posters on here. Those who:
1. Read what others have written.
2. Read the posts, but fail to understand what they have read.
3. Read the posts, but decide to put their own prejudiced interpretation/spin on them.
The last two seem to be on the increase, particularly the ones in category 3 who, not content with twisting things to suit their own PoV, proceed to cast unwarranted aspersions on the integrity of the OP.
Actually I'm beginning to think there is a 4th category. Those who don't read earlier posts at all.
Jon1967x said:
I do think though that it's a little odd to use £1500 from the estate to fix the landy rather than clear his debts first. That doesn't sound right. It's an asset in his estate, it has value, and assets pay off liabilities. Thats the way it works.
I know only too well the pain felt by Paul. The hardest thing I have undertaken in my life thus far was composing and reading out the eulogy to a packed church as they said their goodbyes to a young relative of mine.I am amazed by the strength of character shown by Paul in dealing with the affairs. Having to pick up the phone and say someone is dead sends a rush of emotion which hits you like a steam train.
As a non runner the car was virtually worthless. By investing some money and repairing the vehicle the value of the asset has been maximised. But it is more than just an asset, it was his son's car.
I don't think any of us are in a position to question the actions of a grieving father.
If for whatever reason Adrian Flux do insist on receiving their £70, and it very much sounds as though they have been embarrassed into waiving the charge, then tell them to PM me and I'll give them the £70 if it means so much to them.
Businesses all make mistakes but when a grieving parent is calling to inform of the death of their child it would take an imbecile not to either take charge of the situation or know who to turn to in the company so they can resolve the matter.
Your son will always hold a place in your heart. His memory will cause immense pain interspersed with smiles. As time passes the smiles lengthen and pain shortens.
Henry
Jon1967x said:
I do think though that it's a little odd to use £1500 from the estate to fix the landy rather than clear his debts first. That doesn't sound right. It's an asset in his estate, it has value, and assets pay off liabilities. Thats the way it works.
Where does it say the £1500 came from his son's estate? I read that the OP paid for the repairs himself to make the car roadworthy so it could be sold on. What he said was "Taking into account his funeral expenses, his car repairs and the value of the car, I will be very lucky to get a bacon butty out of anything left when I sell the car, and most likely actually substantially out of pocket" So ultimately the sale of the (single) asset WILL be used to pay for the liabilities - in this case the funeral expenses and the OP's bill for the repair. Not sure what point you are otherwise trying to make? Should the OP increase his financial loss further by paying the insurance company off first?
ETA - sorry for your loss, Rugbyfester. Must be a horrible time.
Jon1967x said:
I do think though that it's a little odd to use £1500 from the estate to fix the landy rather than clear his debts first. That doesn't sound right. It's an asset in his estate, it has value, and assets pay off liabilities. Thats the way it works.
When I was 22 my best friend took his own life. We were very close and were involved in lots of silly stuff together. We were a couple of idiots together and it hit me quite hard. He had an old golf gti which he was working on. After his death I and a few other friends payed to get it fixed up properly. I had no interest in the car but we wanted to finish something he started. It was our final mark of respect for him. When I carried his coffin on my shoulders I wasn't thinking about assets or values. Times that by a million and you would have what was going through a father when his son passes away.
Your comments are insensitive and offensive. You owe the bloke in question an apology. There is not agreeing with someone on a website, and there is crossing the line. And you have crossed it.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff