Registered Keeper/Ownership.
Discussion
Direct Line say that the Registered Keeper IS the owner of our second vehicle.
Can they legally make this assumption?
Back in August, we made our son registered keeper, in anticipation of his taking the car to Uni - only to find the halls of residence were so close, that hewould not need the car, and it has remained at home on our driveway.
Today, while enquiring about adding another named driver, they decided that since our son was the RK, he could not be a named driver, but instead should be the policy holder - and are cancelling our insurance!
I called them back, and suggested that since I AM the owner the simplest answer was to transfer the RK details back to me... and they are adamant that owner and RK are the same thing!
Do ALL insco's adopt this same belief?
Can they legally make this assumption?
Back in August, we made our son registered keeper, in anticipation of his taking the car to Uni - only to find the halls of residence were so close, that hewould not need the car, and it has remained at home on our driveway.
Today, while enquiring about adding another named driver, they decided that since our son was the RK, he could not be a named driver, but instead should be the policy holder - and are cancelling our insurance!
I called them back, and suggested that since I AM the owner the simplest answer was to transfer the RK details back to me... and they are adamant that owner and RK are the same thing!
Do ALL insco's adopt this same belief?
Mill Wheel said:
Direct Line say that the Registered Keeper IS the owner of our second vehicle.
Can they legally make this assumption?
Whoever you spoke to is wrong, Owner and RK are definitely different things. Look at the top of the V5 and it explicitly says "This Document is Not Proof of Ownership." in block capital letters. Maybe point this out to them next time you phone up?Can they legally make this assumption?
mrmr96 said:
Mill Wheel said:
Direct Line say that the Registered Keeper IS the owner of our second vehicle.
Can they legally make this assumption?
Whoever you spoke to is wrong, Owner and RK are definitely different things. Look at the top of the V5 and it explicitly says "This Document is Not Proof of Ownership." in block capital letters. Maybe point this out to them next time you phone up?Can they legally make this assumption?
I just wondered if they have a legal right to make the assumption!
To have my then 19 year old son cost over £2000, so it is not as though we are fronting to avoid paying! He is not the main driver - and since September has only driven around 50 miles.
To have the policy in his name as owner this year is £1311 - but I am looking to go with a different company that doesn't try to bend the rules of ownership!
When you took out the policy, you warranted that..
"The car is owned and registered by you, your spouse, partner or civil partner".
So, they are not trying to bend the rules. Because...
a) Either you lied to start with
b) You have subsequently changed a material fact, and not told them
So as far as THEY are concerned, the owner and RK are the same. Because you warranted that it was.
Although changes from the CIA now mean basis of contract warranties are somewhat suspect.
"The car is owned and registered by you, your spouse, partner or civil partner".
So, they are not trying to bend the rules. Because...
a) Either you lied to start with
b) You have subsequently changed a material fact, and not told them
So as far as THEY are concerned, the owner and RK are the same. Because you warranted that it was.
Although changes from the CIA now mean basis of contract warranties are somewhat suspect.
I have in the past insured a car with Direct Line where I was not the owner, but was the Registered Keeper.
I assume their real concern in this case is that the OP is attempting to pass off his son as a named driver of the vehicle when he is in their view the main/only driver as he is the Registered Keeper.
To be fair I dont think it is an unreasonable asumption to assume the registered keeper would be the main driver.
I assume their real concern in this case is that the OP is attempting to pass off his son as a named driver of the vehicle when he is in their view the main/only driver as he is the Registered Keeper.
To be fair I dont think it is an unreasonable asumption to assume the registered keeper would be the main driver.
All Direct Line seem to want to do is only insure people who are both the RK and owner, or at least their partner / spouse etc are. I presume it's to do with the risk being unacceptable on different RK to owner.
That's all, nothing else.
They're not making challenges to the legal stance, just saying "unless you, your spouse or partner are the owner and RK we don't want to insure you." There's nothing illegal about that at all. Like most businesses they can pick and choose who they want to do business with.
On that basis they are right to cancel your policy as your son is not the owner, but he is the RK which is not inline with the business they wish to transact.
That's all, nothing else.
They're not making challenges to the legal stance, just saying "unless you, your spouse or partner are the owner and RK we don't want to insure you." There's nothing illegal about that at all. Like most businesses they can pick and choose who they want to do business with.
On that basis they are right to cancel your policy as your son is not the owner, but he is the RK which is not inline with the business they wish to transact.
Noger said:
When you took out the policy, you warranted that..
"The car is owned and registered by you, your spouse, partner or civil partner".
So, they are not trying to bend the rules. Because...
a) Either you lied to start with
b) You have subsequently changed a material fact, and not told them
So as far as THEY are concerned, the owner and RK are the same. Because you warranted that it was.
Although changes from the CIA now mean basis of contract warranties are somewhat suspect.
The policy was taken out in May 2008, and son was added as a named driver in October 2010... for three periods of 2 weeks, at £200 per time."The car is owned and registered by you, your spouse, partner or civil partner".
So, they are not trying to bend the rules. Because...
a) Either you lied to start with
b) You have subsequently changed a material fact, and not told them
So as far as THEY are concerned, the owner and RK are the same. Because you warranted that it was.
Although changes from the CIA now mean basis of contract warranties are somewhat suspect.
He passed his test in May 2011, and was added as a named driver... until he was due to go to Uni last year.
Initially we called to inform them he would become the main driver, AND would be using the car in Bolton, so we expected an increase in premium - but they said he could only be main driver if he became the registered keeper - so I transferred the RK details, and told them it was done, and waited for a them to quote for new insurance or transfer the balance of our insurance to his name.
Nobody mentioned change of ownership, and there is no mention on the certificate. I'll look tonight to see if it is in the paperwork from 2008.
When we found out that he was so close to Uni, and Bolton train station and would not need a vehicle, we informed DirectLine that we no longer needed him to be insured as main driver and that we would continue with him as named driver on my policy.
They made no mention of the fact we would need to change RK details back to myself.
When I called them today to add another named drover for a few days, they asked if I was the registered keeper - I have not been asked this until now.
She then told me they were cancelling my insurance and my son would have to take out a new policy.
I asked why they wanted to cancel it - and she said it was because I was fronting... claiming I was the owner when the vehicle was registered to my son!
Having him as main driver was quoted today at £1311.22
Having him as a named driver on my policy was £2600 last year, but the renewal arrived this week for £1322.68
I fail to see it could be construed as fronting when the cost would be MORE than having him as a main driver.
They should also be aware of his status as RK - as it was their suggestion.
I spoke to the sales operator at DirectLine, and she told me legally, the owner and RK were on and the same. I asked if his PassPlus course would make a difference, and she said no, but if we took out home insurance, or pet, travel etc. we would get 10% of each additional insurance we took out. She also offered to continue insuring me for a further 7 days while I thought about it!
So I went online and looked around the comparison sites.
Admiral were not the cheapest, but I have been with them before and had no problems, so I gave them a call - and to insure BOTH my vehicles, along with full European Breakdown cover, with my son as a named driver on the smaller vehicle, was £980 - and since I already pay £110 for UK breakdown, I have decided to change!
LoonR1 said:
All Direct Line seem to want to do is only insure people who are both the RK and owner, or at least their partner / spouse etc are. I presume it's to do with the risk being unacceptable on different RK to owner.
That's all, nothing else.
They're not making challenges to the legal stance, just saying "unless you, your spouse or partner are the owner and RK we don't want to insure you." There's nothing illegal about that at all. Like most businesses they can pick and choose who they want to do business with.
On that basis they are right to cancel your policy as your son is not the owner, but he is the RK which is not inline with the business they wish to transact.
Loon, do you ever feel like giving up? That's all, nothing else.
They're not making challenges to the legal stance, just saying "unless you, your spouse or partner are the owner and RK we don't want to insure you." There's nothing illegal about that at all. Like most businesses they can pick and choose who they want to do business with.
On that basis they are right to cancel your policy as your son is not the owner, but he is the RK which is not inline with the business they wish to transact.
You must have a tough skull, being as you must bash it against a brick wall so often.
Thank you for continually trying though.
TVR1 said:
Loon, do you ever feel like giving up?
You must have a tough skull, being as you must bash it against a brick wall so often.
Thank you for continually trying though.
You may feel that, I think differently. Information conveyed confidently and bombastically as fact does not make it so.You must have a tough skull, being as you must bash it against a brick wall so often.
Thank you for continually trying though.
Bert
When I sold car insurance for another large insurer in the UK, I used to tell people to avoid changing the RK details if it's being passed between family in the household. It's as simple as selecting a different option on a drop-down list to say "Close Relative at the same address" rather than "Policyholder".
It doesn't matter for many, but some people like to keep the number of previous keepers to a lower number if possible.
It doesn't matter for many, but some people like to keep the number of previous keepers to a lower number if possible.
TVR1 said:
Loon, do you ever feel like giving up?
You must have a tough skull, being as you must bash it against a brick wall so often.
Thank you for continually trying though.
I do when I get replies like that quoted below.You must have a tough skull, being as you must bash it against a brick wall so often.
Thank you for continually trying though.
BertBert said:
You may feel that, I think differently. Information conveyed confidently and bombastically as fact does not make it so.
Bert
I state facts that's all. Yes, some of them are generalisations, but as I keep saying, if I had to caveat every single comment to cover every single potential outcome, then each post would be hundreds of pages long.Bert
I try to educate as well, not that it works, as many like to be entrenced in their views, be they irrational ones, or simply the joy of pedantry.
This thread is acually a great example of that. The OP has decided to question the legality of a business setting T&Cs over which business it chooses to transact, AFAICS there is no legal issue here.
Mill Wheel said:
The policy was taken out in May 2008, and son was added as a named driver in October 2010... for three periods of 2 weeks, at £200 per time.
He passed his test in May 2011, and was added as a named driver... until he was due to go to Uni last year.
Initially we called to inform them he would become the main driver, AND would be using the car in Bolton, so we expected an increase in premium - but they said he could only be main driver if he became the registered keeper - so I transferred the RK details, and told them it was done, and waited for a them to quote for new insurance or transfer the balance of our insurance to his name.
Nobody mentioned change of ownership, and there is no mention on the certificate. I'll look tonight to see if it is in the paperwork from 2008.
When we found out that he was so close to Uni, and Bolton train station and would not need a vehicle, we informed DirectLine that we no longer needed him to be insured as main driver and that we would continue with him as named driver on my policy.
They made no mention of the fact we would need to change RK details back to myself.
When I called them today to add another named drover for a few days, they asked if I was the registered keeper - I have not been asked this until now.
She then told me they were cancelling my insurance and my son would have to take out a new policy.
I asked why they wanted to cancel it - and she said it was because I was fronting... claiming I was the owner when the vehicle was registered to my son!
Having him as main driver was quoted today at £1311.22
Having him as a named driver on my policy was £2600 last year, but the renewal arrived this week for £1322.68
I fail to see it could be construed as fronting when the cost would be MORE than having him as a main driver.
They should also be aware of his status as RK - as it was their suggestion.
I spoke to the sales operator at DirectLine, and she told me legally, the owner and RK were on and the same. I asked if his PassPlus course would make a difference, and she said no, but if we took out home insurance, or pet, travel etc. we would get 10% of each additional insurance we took out. She also offered to continue insuring me for a further 7 days while I thought about it!
So I went online and looked around the comparison sites.
Admiral were not the cheapest, but I have been with them before and had no problems, so I gave them a call - and to insure BOTH my vehicles, along with full European Breakdown cover, with my son as a named driver on the smaller vehicle, was £980 - and since I already pay £110 for UK breakdown, I have decided to change!
Forget what you were told (or assumed you were told) this is the key statement which is on their online website:He passed his test in May 2011, and was added as a named driver... until he was due to go to Uni last year.
Initially we called to inform them he would become the main driver, AND would be using the car in Bolton, so we expected an increase in premium - but they said he could only be main driver if he became the registered keeper - so I transferred the RK details, and told them it was done, and waited for a them to quote for new insurance or transfer the balance of our insurance to his name.
Nobody mentioned change of ownership, and there is no mention on the certificate. I'll look tonight to see if it is in the paperwork from 2008.
When we found out that he was so close to Uni, and Bolton train station and would not need a vehicle, we informed DirectLine that we no longer needed him to be insured as main driver and that we would continue with him as named driver on my policy.
They made no mention of the fact we would need to change RK details back to myself.
When I called them today to add another named drover for a few days, they asked if I was the registered keeper - I have not been asked this until now.
She then told me they were cancelling my insurance and my son would have to take out a new policy.
I asked why they wanted to cancel it - and she said it was because I was fronting... claiming I was the owner when the vehicle was registered to my son!
Having him as main driver was quoted today at £1311.22
Having him as a named driver on my policy was £2600 last year, but the renewal arrived this week for £1322.68
I fail to see it could be construed as fronting when the cost would be MORE than having him as a main driver.
They should also be aware of his status as RK - as it was their suggestion.
I spoke to the sales operator at DirectLine, and she told me legally, the owner and RK were on and the same. I asked if his PassPlus course would make a difference, and she said no, but if we took out home insurance, or pet, travel etc. we would get 10% of each additional insurance we took out. She also offered to continue insuring me for a further 7 days while I thought about it!
So I went online and looked around the comparison sites.
Admiral were not the cheapest, but I have been with them before and had no problems, so I gave them a call - and to insure BOTH my vehicles, along with full European Breakdown cover, with my son as a named driver on the smaller vehicle, was £980 - and since I already pay £110 for UK breakdown, I have decided to change!
Direct Line Important Statements said:
The car is owned and registered by you, your spouse, partner or civil partner(not business partner)at your address and has not been modified or altered in anyway (including wheels, suspension, bodywork and engine) and you or your spouse, partner or civil partner (not business partner) will be the main driver. Please note your documents will state that the policyholder is the legal owner and registered keeper of the car.
Noger has already quoted this, but it's clear that they insist that the policyholder is both RK and owner, or spouse, partner or civil partner. The policies you took out previously were effectively invalid, due to you not complying with this warranty.It took me no time to find it and I had to tick a box to confirm that I'd read and complied with them before being allowed to proceed to purchase.
LoonR1 said:
Mill Wheel said:
The policy was taken out in May 2008, and son was added as a named driver in October 2010... for three periods of 2 weeks, at £200 per time.
He passed his test in May 2011, and was added as a named driver... until he was due to go to Uni last year.
Initially we called to inform them he would become the main driver, AND would be using the car in Bolton, so we expected an increase in premium - but they said he could only be main driver if he became the registered keeper - so I transferred the RK details, and told them it was done, and waited for a them to quote for new insurance or transfer the balance of our insurance to his name.
Nobody mentioned change of ownership, and there is no mention on the certificate. I'll look tonight to see if it is in the paperwork from 2008.
When we found out that he was so close to Uni, and Bolton train station and would not need a vehicle, we informed DirectLine that we no longer needed him to be insured as main driver and that we would continue with him as named driver on my policy.
They made no mention of the fact we would need to change RK details back to myself.
When I called them today to add another named drover for a few days, they asked if I was the registered keeper - I have not been asked this until now.
She then told me they were cancelling my insurance and my son would have to take out a new policy.
I asked why they wanted to cancel it - and she said it was because I was fronting... claiming I was the owner when the vehicle was registered to my son!
Having him as main driver was quoted today at £1311.22
Having him as a named driver on my policy was £2600 last year, but the renewal arrived this week for £1322.68
I fail to see it could be construed as fronting when the cost would be MORE than having him as a main driver.
They should also be aware of his status as RK - as it was their suggestion.
I spoke to the sales operator at DirectLine, and she told me legally, the owner and RK were on and the same. I asked if his PassPlus course would make a difference, and she said no, but if we took out home insurance, or pet, travel etc. we would get 10% of each additional insurance we took out. She also offered to continue insuring me for a further 7 days while I thought about it!
So I went online and looked around the comparison sites.
Admiral were not the cheapest, but I have been with them before and had no problems, so I gave them a call - and to insure BOTH my vehicles, along with full European Breakdown cover, with my son as a named driver on the smaller vehicle, was £980 - and since I already pay £110 for UK breakdown, I have decided to change!
Forget what you were told (or assumed you were told) this is the key statement which is on their online website:He passed his test in May 2011, and was added as a named driver... until he was due to go to Uni last year.
Initially we called to inform them he would become the main driver, AND would be using the car in Bolton, so we expected an increase in premium - but they said he could only be main driver if he became the registered keeper - so I transferred the RK details, and told them it was done, and waited for a them to quote for new insurance or transfer the balance of our insurance to his name.
Nobody mentioned change of ownership, and there is no mention on the certificate. I'll look tonight to see if it is in the paperwork from 2008.
When we found out that he was so close to Uni, and Bolton train station and would not need a vehicle, we informed DirectLine that we no longer needed him to be insured as main driver and that we would continue with him as named driver on my policy.
They made no mention of the fact we would need to change RK details back to myself.
When I called them today to add another named drover for a few days, they asked if I was the registered keeper - I have not been asked this until now.
She then told me they were cancelling my insurance and my son would have to take out a new policy.
I asked why they wanted to cancel it - and she said it was because I was fronting... claiming I was the owner when the vehicle was registered to my son!
Having him as main driver was quoted today at £1311.22
Having him as a named driver on my policy was £2600 last year, but the renewal arrived this week for £1322.68
I fail to see it could be construed as fronting when the cost would be MORE than having him as a main driver.
They should also be aware of his status as RK - as it was their suggestion.
I spoke to the sales operator at DirectLine, and she told me legally, the owner and RK were on and the same. I asked if his PassPlus course would make a difference, and she said no, but if we took out home insurance, or pet, travel etc. we would get 10% of each additional insurance we took out. She also offered to continue insuring me for a further 7 days while I thought about it!
So I went online and looked around the comparison sites.
Admiral were not the cheapest, but I have been with them before and had no problems, so I gave them a call - and to insure BOTH my vehicles, along with full European Breakdown cover, with my son as a named driver on the smaller vehicle, was £980 - and since I already pay £110 for UK breakdown, I have decided to change!
Direct Line Important Statements said:
The car is owned and registered by you, your spouse, partner or civil partner(not business partner)at your address and has not been modified or altered in anyway (including wheels, suspension, bodywork and engine) and you or your spouse, partner or civil partner (not business partner) will be the main driver. Please note your documents will state that the policyholder is the legal owner and registered keeper of the car.
Noger has already quoted this, but it's clear that they insist that the policyholder is both RK and owner, or spouse, partner or civil partner. The policies you took out previously were effectively invalid, due to you not complying with this warranty.It took me no time to find it and I had to tick a box to confirm that I'd read and complied with them before being allowed to proceed to purchase.
EddyO said:
I guess that DL don't offer insurance to those contract hiring their motor vehicles??
Not via an Internet quote, no. They may do if you call them up.But probably only for a company car, or long term lease.
Proving ownership is a PITA. It is fine between spouses, as there is the presumption of shared ownership. So if the husband really owns the car, and the wife has the policy in her name, if you pay the wife on Total Loss there isn't a usually problem.
But there is no such legal presumption between other family members, although some insurers are OK with it. So if the father owns the car, and the son insures and crashes it....who gets the cash ? Dad bought it, and has lost it, the son has the cheque. Yes, there is the concept of a bailee, so the son may well have insurable interest as "looking after the car". But who do you pay ? With a lease car that relationship will be in writing. It is unlikely to exist in this case, so is a grey area.
Whilst I don't think DL have been particularly clear in what the call centre have said, it seems to me their *policy* is clear. And the OP hasn't helped the situation that much.
In terms of this being a fronted risk, then in the loose definition it is. Most people think of fronting as mispresentation in terms of named driver. In fact "fronting" the risk is just as described above. The owner, and policyholder, provides a front for the main driver. It used to be that this meant cheaper premiums, but most if not all rating systems will ignore the risk of the PH if it is lower than the main driver now. However it is still a more complicated risk, and many direct writers simply don't want to bother. Why should they. Plenty of people just buy a car, insure it and register it to themselves.
Noger said:
EddyO said:
I guess that DL don't offer insurance to those contract hiring their motor vehicles??
Not via an Internet quote, no. They may do if you call them up.But probably only for a company car, or long term lease.
Proving ownership is a PITA. It is fine between spouses, as there is the presumption of shared ownership. So if the husband really owns the car, and the wife has the policy in her name, if you pay the wife on Total Loss there isn't a usually problem.
But there is no such legal presumption between other family members, although some insurers are OK with it. So if the father owns the car, and the son insures and crashes it....who gets the cash ? Dad bought it, and has lost it, the son has the cheque. Yes, there is the concept of a bailee, so the son may well have insurable interest as "looking after the car". But who do you pay ? With a lease car that relationship will be in writing. It is unlikely to exist in this case, so is a grey area.
Whilst I don't think DL have been particularly clear in what the call centre have said, it seems to me their *policy* is clear. And the OP hasn't helped the situation that much.
In terms of this being a fronted risk, then in the loose definition it is. Most people think of fronting as mispresentation in terms of named driver. In fact "fronting" the risk is just as described above. The owner, and policyholder, provides a front for the main driver. It used to be that this meant cheaper premiums, but most if not all rating systems will ignore the risk of the PH if it is lower than the main driver now. However it is still a more complicated risk, and many direct writers simply don't want to bother. Why should they. Plenty of people just buy a car, insure it and register it to themselves.
This must be a relatively new thing - I had a Merc insured with DL, and it was registered to "Mr J Blogs t/a Blahco Ltd" - there was no issue at all when the car was a total loss, and in fact their service was very fair and very prompt. All completed online for the claim, and despite it being a total loss, they did not cease cover and allowed direct transfer to a comparable vehicle.
I can't see what they are trying to achieve - the relationship between the registered keeper, main driver and legal owner can be convoluted to say the least - perhaps they are just pissed off with insurance fraud, and this gives them a way out in the event of a dodgy claim.
LoonR1 said:
That's what they want to do online. They may do differently if you speak to them.
Long term leases may not have the same issues as per Noger's post.
I wonder where it will end? Long term leases may not have the same issues as per Noger's post.
A claim refused because a car had been secured as apart of an IVA/bankrupt's estate, or had had had a walking warrant served on it....or....or....or.
What would DL do if someone popped out of the woodwork after a claim and stated that they had an ownership of a vehicle? Of course refuse to pay out for own losses, but I guess 3rd party losses remain indemnified.
At the end of the day, are they just looking to bounce claims, or are they just looking to reduce fraud by forcing V5 changes?
I insured by vehicle online with DL and there was no issue with the register keeper being a legal entity - they also retained the V5 following the claim, and the replacement vehicle V5 was also in a company name- no problems. This was however 3 or so years back and motor insurance fraud would appear to have advanced significantly since then.
bltamil1 said:
I may be misunderstanding this, but isn't it just that they expect the RK to be the policyholder?
Most insurance policies I have seen (the usual Internet quote type stuff) usually require this, or at least assume this.
Not at all. Our mondeo is insured in my wifes name, with me named, as she is the main driver. She is neither the owner, nor the RK and it says that on her insurance policy.Most insurance policies I have seen (the usual Internet quote type stuff) usually require this, or at least assume this.
I have only ever dealt with them via phone, since 2009 when they sent a renewal notice that was nearly £200 more than the "new business" quotation.
I cancelled the renewal, and they do an "exit survey" to ask why you wish to leave.
I told them I had been given a cheaper quotation after a mail shot - and when they asked who with, I said DirectLine!
As far as I recall I was only ever asked if I owned the vehicle... not who the RK was.
I don't doubt it is their policy having seen your posts of the online T & Cs - I was asking if they could make this assumption legally, and am now questioning why like me, they seem to have failed to have realised until now - when they have been party to changing it FROM me to my son on the first place.
As far as I can tell, the premiums I was quoted before, and paid were/are exactly the same no matter what is on the RK document, so if the only discrepancy is the name on the RK document, just what is the point of it, and why make cancelling my insurance the only option, instead of just suggesting that I change the RK details back?
Most of the renewals since 2009 have been made by my wife - and twice when making changes I have had to come to the phone to confirm my wife can deal with it on my behalf - but not others.
There seems to be a lack of consistency in the call centre staff.
Yesterday I discovered another glitch which has gone unnoticed.
Our main vehicle is driven daily by my wife over short journeys, but I drive all our longer journeys, family holidays etc., and therefore do the most mileage, so I checked to see who is main driver and who is named - and lo and behold, the garage who took our last car in part ex last April, registered the new vehicle in my wife's name despite my being the purchaser and name on the finance papers, as she went to pick it up.
DirectLine have not yet picked up that I am main driver on that policy, but NOT the registered keeper despite being told this by my wife when she transferred the vehicle insurance over!
Not to worry - Admiral are taking over both policies in a few days!
I cancelled the renewal, and they do an "exit survey" to ask why you wish to leave.
I told them I had been given a cheaper quotation after a mail shot - and when they asked who with, I said DirectLine!
As far as I recall I was only ever asked if I owned the vehicle... not who the RK was.
I don't doubt it is their policy having seen your posts of the online T & Cs - I was asking if they could make this assumption legally, and am now questioning why like me, they seem to have failed to have realised until now - when they have been party to changing it FROM me to my son on the first place.
As far as I can tell, the premiums I was quoted before, and paid were/are exactly the same no matter what is on the RK document, so if the only discrepancy is the name on the RK document, just what is the point of it, and why make cancelling my insurance the only option, instead of just suggesting that I change the RK details back?
Most of the renewals since 2009 have been made by my wife - and twice when making changes I have had to come to the phone to confirm my wife can deal with it on my behalf - but not others.
There seems to be a lack of consistency in the call centre staff.
Yesterday I discovered another glitch which has gone unnoticed.
Our main vehicle is driven daily by my wife over short journeys, but I drive all our longer journeys, family holidays etc., and therefore do the most mileage, so I checked to see who is main driver and who is named - and lo and behold, the garage who took our last car in part ex last April, registered the new vehicle in my wife's name despite my being the purchaser and name on the finance papers, as she went to pick it up.
DirectLine have not yet picked up that I am main driver on that policy, but NOT the registered keeper despite being told this by my wife when she transferred the vehicle insurance over!
Not to worry - Admiral are taking over both policies in a few days!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff