Insurance voided due to car having PPF! HELP PLEASE!
Discussion
MrBnz said:
After what seemed like forever the insurance company provided information to the Ombudsman and a decision had been made that the insurance company did NOT do anything wrong and that there was no case to argue!
....
Another decision was made and this time in MY FAVOUR! The insurance company of course have rejected this and it is now in the process of a final decision as of last week. This means that another adviser will have a look at the case and will make a final decision...
If the Insurance Ombudsman works like the Financial one, first there's an Adviser's decision, and if you disagree it goes to the Actual Ombudsman whose decision is final.....
Another decision was made and this time in MY FAVOUR! The insurance company of course have rejected this and it is now in the process of a final decision as of last week. This means that another adviser will have a look at the case and will make a final decision...
I wonder what level of Ombudsman you're at, as you say 'another adviser'.
Having one's policy cancelled on a technicality is one thing; facing £10K premiums for years afterwards strikes me as ridiculous.
MrBnz said:
Hi All
Sorry for the lack of communication or feedback on this case its taken forever to get to the point it has.
Without giving too much away as the case is STILL ONGOING ill give you all a quick break down of whats gone down so far.
Ombudsman had asked for details regarding the case and as to what had happen, i provided all the information required and then it was a waiting game to see what the insurance company cam back with. After what seemed like forever the insurance company provided information to the Ombudsman and a decision had been made that the insurance company did NOT do anything wrong and that there was no case to argue!
I appealed against this as i felt the situation at hand was not understood, i was asked to provide further details for example date of purchase of the car when the PPF was carried out ECT. After providing this information and taking pictures of my car as well as providing proof of the same car for sale with and with out PPF, in the meantime i asked that the Ombudsman listen to all the telephone conversations it seems that the insurance company played a little trick and got caught out as the phone conversations proved that what i was saying all along was correct and i did not carry out the job of PPF after purchasing the car despite me providing the information to the insurance company before they cancelled me insurance. I also pointed out on comparisons website there is no where to declare PPF.
Another decision was made and this time in MY FAVOUR! The insurance company where told they did not act correctly and the PPF has not visual or performance enhancement and that exactly what the word modification means. the Ombudsman have now asked the insurance company to put things right by doing the following:
1. Pay for the repairs for the car if it has been carried out already by my self if not then to get the car repaired.
2. if i have sold the car then to pay the difference as i may have lost money due to the damage.
3. To remove any marks of my name (having insurance declined) and to ensure my record going forward is kept clean.
4. to pay the difference in premiums as it had shot up as i had to declare insurance being declined previously.
5. To pay compensation for messing me around.
The insurance company of course have rejected this and it is now in the process of a final decision as of last week. This means that another adviser will have a look at the case and will make a final decision. i was told this could take a couple of months however as its an older case they expect it to be quicker.
Now its a waiting game and i feel that the Ombudsman have fully taken into account everything and have told the insurance company and that they have not made things clear at all and its unfair what they have done i am very hopeful this will be sorted in my favour !
FINGERS CROSSED!!!
Are we due an update, MrBnz?Sorry for the lack of communication or feedback on this case its taken forever to get to the point it has.
Without giving too much away as the case is STILL ONGOING ill give you all a quick break down of whats gone down so far.
Ombudsman had asked for details regarding the case and as to what had happen, i provided all the information required and then it was a waiting game to see what the insurance company cam back with. After what seemed like forever the insurance company provided information to the Ombudsman and a decision had been made that the insurance company did NOT do anything wrong and that there was no case to argue!
I appealed against this as i felt the situation at hand was not understood, i was asked to provide further details for example date of purchase of the car when the PPF was carried out ECT. After providing this information and taking pictures of my car as well as providing proof of the same car for sale with and with out PPF, in the meantime i asked that the Ombudsman listen to all the telephone conversations it seems that the insurance company played a little trick and got caught out as the phone conversations proved that what i was saying all along was correct and i did not carry out the job of PPF after purchasing the car despite me providing the information to the insurance company before they cancelled me insurance. I also pointed out on comparisons website there is no where to declare PPF.
Another decision was made and this time in MY FAVOUR! The insurance company where told they did not act correctly and the PPF has not visual or performance enhancement and that exactly what the word modification means. the Ombudsman have now asked the insurance company to put things right by doing the following:
1. Pay for the repairs for the car if it has been carried out already by my self if not then to get the car repaired.
2. if i have sold the car then to pay the difference as i may have lost money due to the damage.
3. To remove any marks of my name (having insurance declined) and to ensure my record going forward is kept clean.
4. to pay the difference in premiums as it had shot up as i had to declare insurance being declined previously.
5. To pay compensation for messing me around.
The insurance company of course have rejected this and it is now in the process of a final decision as of last week. This means that another adviser will have a look at the case and will make a final decision. i was told this could take a couple of months however as its an older case they expect it to be quicker.
Now its a waiting game and i feel that the Ombudsman have fully taken into account everything and have told the insurance company and that they have not made things clear at all and its unfair what they have done i am very hopeful this will be sorted in my favour !
FINGERS CROSSED!!!
Hopefully sorted in your favour. Axa certainly haven’t done themselves any favours here….
chr15b said:
is dashcam considered a modification? its surely no different to plugging a phone in to charge (or in my case use wired carplay) ?
Well, it was on the list of declarable items, so thought I'd better declare the lot.Declaring the mods didn't seem to affect the premium much/at all, as the premium stays around the £250 mark (5000 mile limit)...and was £600 when I was doing 30,000 miles per year in it.
Edited by mmm-five on Wednesday 22 November 09:17
mmm-five said:
chr15b said:
is dashcam considered a modification? its surely no different to plugging a phone in to charge (or in my case use wired carplay) ?
Well, it was on the list of declarable items, so thought I'd better declare the lot.Declaring the mods didn't seem to affect the premium much/at all, as the premium stays around the £250 mark (5000 mile limit)...and was £600 when I was doing 30,000 miles per year in it.
Edited by mmm-five on Wednesday 22 November 09:17
Tommo87 said:
Yup. It’s not unknown for expensive modification to be excluded for replacement on a like-for-like basis.
Well, one of the reasons I put aftermarket suspension was that my basic maths showed the OE/Genuine BMW suspension parts worked out more expensive than the Bilstein coil-overs I fitted when I felt the originals items were past their best at 100k miles.
Hi All
I FINALLY have an update! After almost coming to 1 year since the incident took place!
This will be a juicy read!
Final Decision from the ombudsman
What happened
Mr A’s car was damaged by a third party, so he claimed on his policy with AXA. When his
car was inspected it was discovered it had a clear paint protection film (PPF) applied to the
bodywork.
AXA reviewed the claim and decided to decline it, avoid Mr A’s policy and refund his
premium. It said this was because Mr A’s car was modified and if it had known about the
PPF wrap then it wouldn’t have covered his car. Mr A didn’t think this was fair and
complained, he didn’t agree the PPF was a modification as it hadn’t changed how the car
looked and was there to protect the paint.
AXA reviewed the complaint and didn’t uphold it. It maintained its position that Mr A had
failed to take reasonable care when taking out the policy. It said the PPF was what is known
as a “wrap” and Mr A should have declared it when taking the policy out. AXA said if he had
then it wouldn’t have offered him a policy. Mr A didn’t think that was fair and brought his
complaint here
What I’ve decided – and why
I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and
reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint.
The relevant law in this case is The Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations)
Act 2012 (CIDRA). This requires consumers to take reasonable care not to make a
misrepresentation when taking out a consumer insurance contract (a policy). The standard
of care is that of a reasonable consumer.
And if a consumer fails to do this, the insurer has certain remedies provided the
misrepresentation is - what CIDRA describes as - a qualifying misrepresentation. For it to be
a qualifying misrepresentation the insurer has to show it would have offered the policy on
different terms or not at all if the consumer hadn’t made the misrepresentation.
CIDRA sets out a number of considerations for deciding whether the consumer failed to take
reasonable care. And the remedy available to the insurer under CIDRA depends on whether
the qualifying misrepresentation was deliberate or reckless, or careless.
AXA thinks Mr A failed to take reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation when he
took out the policy online. Mr A originally used an aggregator site and then was put through
to AXA.
I’ve looked at the question Mr A was asked which says: “Has the car been modified in any
way?” There is an explanation next to the question which says: “A modification is any
change to the manufacturer’s original specification or features. That includes things like new
stereos, body kits or spoilers, alloy wheels, new paintwork and any performance
enhancement.
I’m therefore not persuaded he’s failed to take reasonable
care not to make a misrepresentation. And so, it follows that AXA has no remedies under
CIDRA.
I’ve therefore looked at the impact on Mr A from AXA unfairly avoiding his policy. AXA
refunded his premium and declined his claim. Mr A’s explained that due to the avoidance
he’s had to do temporary repairs and that the insurance premiums have increased.
I asked our investigator to let both parties know that I intended to direct AXA to:
1. Remove any adverse entries related to the cancellation placed on any
internal or external databases
2. Pay the claim in line with the terms and conditions of the policy. Mr A has
said he’s paid £1,585 for temporary repairs. If these aren’t lasting and
effective repairs, then AXA will need to re-do the repairs to ensure the
damage caused in the accident is repaired to acceptable industry standards
3. Pay Mr A the £1,585 he paid for the temporary repairs, as he shouldn’t have
had to pay for them. 8% simple interest per year needs to be added to this
amount to compensate him for not having the money
4. Pay Mr A £350 as compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused
My final decision
For the reasons explained above, my final decision is that I uphold this complaint. I require
AXA Insurance UK Plc to:
1. Remove any adverse entries related to the avoidance placed on any
internal or external databases and provide Mr A with a letter confirming it
avoided the policy in error.
2. Pay the claim in line with the terms and conditions of the policy. Mr A has
said he’s paid £1,585 for temporary repairs. If these aren’t lasting and
effective repairs, then AXA will need to re-do the repairs to ensure the
damage caused in the accident is repaired to acceptable industry
standards.
3. Pay Mr A the £1,585 he paid for the temporary repairs, as he shouldn’t
have had to pay for them. 8% simple interest per year needs to be added
to this amount, calculated from the date Mr A paid for the repairs until the
date of settlement.
4. As AXA is paying the claim it’s entitled to the premium. If AXA seeks
payment for this, it will need to deduct what Mr A paid for his new policy,
for the time it would overlap with his policy with AXA.
5. Pay Mr A £350 as compensation for the distress and inconvenience
caused
Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr A to accept or
reject my decision
I WON THE CASE!!!
I have accepted the terms above and i am now waiting on AXA to get in contact with me they have 4 weeks from the 13th November to get touch and rectify the problems! I haven't heard from them thus far and eagerly awaiting their call so i can finally get out of them what i should've in the 1st place!
I FINALLY have an update! After almost coming to 1 year since the incident took place!
This will be a juicy read!
Final Decision from the ombudsman
What happened
Mr A’s car was damaged by a third party, so he claimed on his policy with AXA. When his
car was inspected it was discovered it had a clear paint protection film (PPF) applied to the
bodywork.
AXA reviewed the claim and decided to decline it, avoid Mr A’s policy and refund his
premium. It said this was because Mr A’s car was modified and if it had known about the
PPF wrap then it wouldn’t have covered his car. Mr A didn’t think this was fair and
complained, he didn’t agree the PPF was a modification as it hadn’t changed how the car
looked and was there to protect the paint.
AXA reviewed the complaint and didn’t uphold it. It maintained its position that Mr A had
failed to take reasonable care when taking out the policy. It said the PPF was what is known
as a “wrap” and Mr A should have declared it when taking the policy out. AXA said if he had
then it wouldn’t have offered him a policy. Mr A didn’t think that was fair and brought his
complaint here
What I’ve decided – and why
I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and
reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint.
The relevant law in this case is The Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations)
Act 2012 (CIDRA). This requires consumers to take reasonable care not to make a
misrepresentation when taking out a consumer insurance contract (a policy). The standard
of care is that of a reasonable consumer.
And if a consumer fails to do this, the insurer has certain remedies provided the
misrepresentation is - what CIDRA describes as - a qualifying misrepresentation. For it to be
a qualifying misrepresentation the insurer has to show it would have offered the policy on
different terms or not at all if the consumer hadn’t made the misrepresentation.
CIDRA sets out a number of considerations for deciding whether the consumer failed to take
reasonable care. And the remedy available to the insurer under CIDRA depends on whether
the qualifying misrepresentation was deliberate or reckless, or careless.
AXA thinks Mr A failed to take reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation when he
took out the policy online. Mr A originally used an aggregator site and then was put through
to AXA.
I’ve looked at the question Mr A was asked which says: “Has the car been modified in any
way?” There is an explanation next to the question which says: “A modification is any
change to the manufacturer’s original specification or features. That includes things like new
stereos, body kits or spoilers, alloy wheels, new paintwork and any performance
enhancement.
I’m therefore not persuaded he’s failed to take reasonable
care not to make a misrepresentation. And so, it follows that AXA has no remedies under
CIDRA.
I’ve therefore looked at the impact on Mr A from AXA unfairly avoiding his policy. AXA
refunded his premium and declined his claim. Mr A’s explained that due to the avoidance
he’s had to do temporary repairs and that the insurance premiums have increased.
I asked our investigator to let both parties know that I intended to direct AXA to:
1. Remove any adverse entries related to the cancellation placed on any
internal or external databases
2. Pay the claim in line with the terms and conditions of the policy. Mr A has
said he’s paid £1,585 for temporary repairs. If these aren’t lasting and
effective repairs, then AXA will need to re-do the repairs to ensure the
damage caused in the accident is repaired to acceptable industry standards
3. Pay Mr A the £1,585 he paid for the temporary repairs, as he shouldn’t have
had to pay for them. 8% simple interest per year needs to be added to this
amount to compensate him for not having the money
4. Pay Mr A £350 as compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused
My final decision
For the reasons explained above, my final decision is that I uphold this complaint. I require
AXA Insurance UK Plc to:
1. Remove any adverse entries related to the avoidance placed on any
internal or external databases and provide Mr A with a letter confirming it
avoided the policy in error.
2. Pay the claim in line with the terms and conditions of the policy. Mr A has
said he’s paid £1,585 for temporary repairs. If these aren’t lasting and
effective repairs, then AXA will need to re-do the repairs to ensure the
damage caused in the accident is repaired to acceptable industry
standards.
3. Pay Mr A the £1,585 he paid for the temporary repairs, as he shouldn’t
have had to pay for them. 8% simple interest per year needs to be added
to this amount, calculated from the date Mr A paid for the repairs until the
date of settlement.
4. As AXA is paying the claim it’s entitled to the premium. If AXA seeks
payment for this, it will need to deduct what Mr A paid for his new policy,
for the time it would overlap with his policy with AXA.
5. Pay Mr A £350 as compensation for the distress and inconvenience
caused
Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr A to accept or
reject my decision
I WON THE CASE!!!
I have accepted the terms above and i am now waiting on AXA to get in contact with me they have 4 weeks from the 13th November to get touch and rectify the problems! I haven't heard from them thus far and eagerly awaiting their call so i can finally get out of them what i should've in the 1st place!
Fabulous news, and justice has been done. That must be a massive relief.
Like so many cases where things get messier and messier, it all comes down to one very simple thing. In this case, it hinged on “A modification is any change to the manufacturer’s original specification or features. That includes things like new stereos, body kits or spoilers, alloy wheels, new paintwork and any performance enhancement.'
I think AXA were stupid to let it get that far, but I guess they thought you'd give up and go away.
Like so many cases where things get messier and messier, it all comes down to one very simple thing. In this case, it hinged on “A modification is any change to the manufacturer’s original specification or features. That includes things like new stereos, body kits or spoilers, alloy wheels, new paintwork and any performance enhancement.'
I think AXA were stupid to let it get that far, but I guess they thought you'd give up and go away.
Simpo Two said:
Fabulous news, and justice has been done. That must be a massive relief.
Like so many cases where things get messier and messier, it all comes down to one very simple thing. In this case, it hinged on “A modification is any change to the manufacturer’s original specification or features. That includes things like new stereos, body kits or spoilers, alloy wheels, new paintwork and any performance enhancement.'
I think AXA were stupid to let it get that far, but I guess they thought you'd give up and go away.
Honestly it has been a massive relief the horrible heart sinking feeling i get ever time i received an email from them was not nice at all!Like so many cases where things get messier and messier, it all comes down to one very simple thing. In this case, it hinged on “A modification is any change to the manufacturer’s original specification or features. That includes things like new stereos, body kits or spoilers, alloy wheels, new paintwork and any performance enhancement.'
I think AXA were stupid to let it get that far, but I guess they thought you'd give up and go away.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff