Insurance: Is this legit?

[Raize]

Story goes, car off road for 3 years SORN'd, put back on road after being MOT'd and taxed and insured. Insurers phone up in a couple weeks and say "Ah, well, the car had been off the road for 3 years so there is probably something wrong with it, hence we are going to increase the premium".

I read this story on a review site, does this sound like a legit story? Surely the MOT is proof that the car is not dangerous/has something wrong with it, and they have no right to increase the premium like that?

[10 Pence Short]

I would guess it's bullst. It's either bullst from the insurer's phone monkey trying to explain a hike or a bullst story from someone on the internet.

[redstu]

Sounds like bks to me.
Do insurers routinely look at previous vehicle cover?

[Ganglandboss]

An MOT is not proof that a vehicle is safe. It is a record that the vehicle has passed the prescribed inspections and tests defined by VOSA. The scenario would be legit as the insurer can charge whatever premium they like, providing they do not breach anti-discrimination laws. The story sounds like b*ll*cks though.

[Countdown]

Raize said:

Story goes, car off road for 3 years SORN'd, put back on road after being MOT'd and taxed and insured. Insurers phone up in a couple weeks and say "Ah, well, the car had been off the road for 3 years so there is probably something wrong with it, hence we are going to increase the premium".

I read this story on a review site, does this sound like a legit story? Surely the MOT is proof that the car is not dangerous/has something wrong with it, and they have no right to increase the premium like that?

Complete bo11ox.

It's passed an MOT, therefore it's reached the required safety standard. The insurers have no basis for suggesting there's something wrong with it. They probably haven't even asked.

Hypothetical situation - Bloke A restores car which has been SORN for 300000 years, taxes/MOTs car and sells to bloke B. how would Bloke B know it's been SORN in order to be able to declare it to his insurers? It doesn't happen because it's irrelevant.

[Ganglandboss]

Countdown said:

Raize said:

Story goes, car off road for 3 years SORN'd, put back on road after being MOT'd and taxed and insured. Insurers phone up in a couple weeks and say "Ah, well, the car had been off the road for 3 years so there is probably something wrong with it, hence we are going to increase the premium".

I read this story on a review site, does this sound like a legit story? Surely the MOT is proof that the car is not dangerous/has something wrong with it, and they have no right to increase the premium like that?

Complete bo11ox.

It's passed an MOT, therefore it's reached the required safety standard. The insurers have no basis for suggesting there's something wrong with it. They probably haven't even asked.

Hypothetical situation - Bloke A restores car which has been SORN for 300000 years, taxes/MOTs car and sells to bloke B. how would Bloke B know it's been SORN in order to be able to declare it to his insurers? It doesn't happen because it's irrelevant.

If there was a policy in force and they tried to reject a claim for the reason stated, they would have their arse kicked. The policy is a civil contract and they can base premiums on what they wish (within certain rules).

When I passed my test, you could argue I'd passed a required safety standard but I still got bent over to insure a 1.1 Punto.

[Noger]

10 Pence Short said:

I would guess it's bullst. It's either bullst from the insurer's phone monkey trying to explain a hike or a bullst story from someone on the internet.

I would say that makes them better people than you.

Anyway, continue to look down on people. We all look down on you.

ETA

Please play nicely. TYIA

Edited by Big Al. on Saturday 23 February 14:12

[Raize]

So how far can this mid-term changes extend?

Oh, the weather is forecast to be a rainy month in your region, driving in the rain is dangerous. Premiums go UP!

Isn't this open to absolutely massive abuse by the insurers?

[Noger]

Yes. But insurers get massive abuse here it seems.

As usual the mods are in thrall to PH "royalty".

Why not edit "monkeys" too ?

[LoonR1]

Noger said:

Yes. But insurers get massive abuse here it seems.

As usual the mods are in thrall to PH "royalty".

Why not edit "monkeys" too ?

Completely agree, using that description is highly offensive to many.

Raize said:

So how far can this mid-term changes extend?

Oh, the weather is forecast to be a rainy month in your region, driving in the rain is dangerous. Premiums go UP!

Isn't this open to absolutely massive abuse by the insurers?

What has it got to do with "mid term change"? The person referred to in the OP has just put a car back on the road ie just insured it.

As for the rest of your ridiculous comment, grow up. It's pathetic.

[slinky]

There are no PH royalty.

Monkeys is hardly being used in an offensive context here.

[Frix]

Unless you are a call centre worker

[LoonR1]

slinky said:

There are no PH royalty.

Monkeys is hardly being used in an offensive context here.

Again, I disagree. If a description was needed then "jockey" might have been more appropriate. I'm struggling to see how referring to someone as a "monkey" can be a term of endearment.

[Raize]

LoonR1 said:

As for the rest of your ridiculous comment, grow up. It's pathetic.

But is there really anything to stop it from happening?

What's to stop an enterprising insurer from offering by far the lowest quotes on all comparison sites, but stating arbitrary reasons to vastly increase the premium shortly into the policy with an alternative for the customer to cancel the policy at huge cost to themselves (as stated in small print, no pro rata refunds)? And of course customer has duty of disclosure so in theory, any at all reasonable excuse to increase the premium is valid. The insurer could even intentionally leave out important questions when first quoting the customer, and it would still be the customer at fault here under duty of disclosure.

Edited by Raize on Saturday 23 February 19:49

[Nigel Worc's]

LoonR1 said:

slinky said:

There are no PH royalty.

Monkeys is hardly being used in an offensive context here.

Again, I disagree. If a description was needed then "jockey" might have been more appropriate. I'm struggling to see how referring to someone as a "monkey" can be a term of endearment.

FFS who cares, lets not get precious !

On topic (unusual for me), I swapped my bike insurance over last year, because I sold my bike, to another bike I have, that hasn't been taxed, mot'd, or insured, since October 1986.

It is now ready for mot, but still hasn't been yet, insurance company couldn't care less in my case.

[streaky]

LoonR1 said:

slinky said:

There are no PH royalty.

Monkeys is hardly being used in an offensive context here.

Again, I disagree. If a description was needed then "jockey" might have been more appropriate. I'm struggling to see how referring to someone as a "monkey" can be a term of endearment.

Until someone thought it non-PC, we used "monkeys" to describe workers who did repetitive tasks mindlessly. Now, you might think the PC brigade to be right to ban the use of the work in this context ... however, these workers were employed by the opposition overseas. Made us chuckle.

Streaky

[LoonR1]

Raize said:

But is there really anything to stop it from happening?

What's to stop an enterprising insurer from offering by far the lowest quotes on all comparison sites, but stating arbitrary reasons to vastly increase the premium shortly into the policy with an alternative for the customer to cancel the policy at huge cost to themselves (as stated in small print, no pro rata refunds)? And of course customer has duty of disclosure so in theory, any at all reasonable excuse to increase the premium is valid.

Pretty well everything relating to insurance contracts is stopping this happening. You buy a policy priced for the year. Unless you've chosen not to declare a material fact, then the terms stand for the full year and the insurer can not change them at all.

Of course, you can change them at any time by wanting to alter any aspect of your cover.

[Raize]

LoonR1 said:

Pretty well everything relating to insurance contracts is stopping this happening. You buy a policy priced for the year. Unless you've chosen not to declare a material fact, then the terms stand for the full year and the insurer can not change them at all.

Is there a strictly defined list of facts that can be considered material for the purposes of calculating insurance premiums?

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications...

Been reading that, quite interesting. Unfortunately it's from 2005 and cites ICOB as being the up to date regulations. But ICOB apparently expired in 2008. What replaced ICOB? I'm having trouble finding out.

Edited by Raize on Saturday 23 February 20:14

[Raize]

http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/areas/consumer...

article said:

The duty to disclose may operate as a trap for consumers, who are usually unaware that the duty exists.

Ho hum.

[Raize]

I think I'll be putting off driving or buying any insurance until Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012 comes into force this year. Until then it's just too dangerous...
6 April apparently.

Edited by Raize on Saturday 23 February 20:41