Insurance tries to void friends policy following accident.

[Integroo]

For not disclosing a named driver's points. Refused to pay out on a written off car initially. There were four policies with the same company, with one individual being an authorised user to discuss all four. All four were named drivers on each others policies. The authorised user rung up at the time to declare the points, giving only the number plate for the policy of the driver with the points. Insurer didn't update the others.

After a lengthy argument caved in, accepting they should have updated, and agreed to cover the loss. However, they did demand 500 in backdated premiums to reflect the increase - for each of the three policies. So 1500 quid.

Not sure if I feel the insurer is in the right or the wrong here. Certainly one to watch out for!

[Krikkit]

Sounds like the insurer has reluctantly made it right in the end, sounds like an arse though.

[bradjsmith88]

The insurer would not be able to show that the person in question had failed to take reasonable care.

Section 3:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/6/content...

So its charging what it would have done, had it updated all of the policies.

The sticking point on paying the premium might be if consumer(s) could have changed insurer, or removed driver at renewal cycle to save the premium, and if he was driving at time of claim?

Edited by bradjsmith88 on Tuesday 19th September 16:18

[Integroo]

bradjsmith88 said:

The insurer would not be able to show that the person in question had failed to take reasonable care.

Section 3:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/6/content...

So its charging what it would have done, had it updated all of the policies.

The sticking point on paying the premium might be if consumer(s) could have changed insurer, or removed driver at renewal cycle to save the premium, and if he was driving at time of claim?

Edited by bradjsmith88 on Tuesday 19th September 16:18

The impression I got is that the £500 is some sort of penalty rather than necessarily purely backdated premiums - surely three points to a named driver wouldn't have made each policy increase by £500?

[768]

Integroo said:

The impression I got is that the £500 is some sort of penalty rather than necessarily purely backdated premiums - surely three points to a named driver wouldn't have made each policy increase by £500?

It's a very round number.

The problem is... how can you prove otherwise?

[JimbobVFR]

Integroo said:

The impression I got is that the £500 is some sort of penalty rather than necessarily purely backdated premiums - surely three points to a named driver wouldn't have made each policy increase by £500?

I agree it does sound expensive for 3 points if a clean licence but I'm not sure the OP actually conforms the circumstances, could be more than 3 and it could be 3 added onto an existing number of points.

[popeyewhite]

768 said:

Integroo said:

The impression I got is that the £500 is some sort of penalty rather than necessarily purely backdated premiums - surely three points to a named driver wouldn't have made each policy increase by £500?

It's a very round number.

The problem is... how can you prove otherwise?

It's a penalty by any other name. And they charge it because they can.

[Sheepshanks]

Integroo said:

The impression I got is that the £500 is some sort of penalty rather than necessarily purely backdated premiums - surely three points to a named driver wouldn't have made each policy increase by £500?

I'm guessing it's not the sort of insurer where you could do an online quote with and without the points as a check?

He could make a formal complaint but the whole arrangement sounds unusual so maybe he doesn't want to rock the boat?

[Cold]

Insurance company in acting like a money grabbing shark shocker.

[kiethton]

Had this big argument with an insurer named after a large mammal last year.

Story:

Pulled over feb for speeding on M25
Policy renews in April
Receive court documents through in August, July charge date
Given 6 points in September, points registered to the Feb offence date

I call up the insurer on an unrelated matter and tell them then. Have a letter and call 2 weeks later demanding an extra £300 (50% of total policy cost) and that they'd be taking it from the details they had on file in 2 weeks.

I cancelled the card (so they couldn't take it in the meantime) and said that wasn't on as I couldn't theoretically disclose something that a. Hadn't happened and b. May not even happen (how was I to know they wouldn't file late/I also plead NG, initially anyway)

After a bit of back and forth, and then seeing the document with the charge date on it the request for extra was dropped.

Thing is a good chunk of the cost was in admin fees which isn't on either. That and when comparing policies at the time it made about £80 of difference in quote price

[Sheepshanks]

kiethton said:

Pulled over feb for speeding on M25
Policy renews in April

Does that insurer require you tell them about pending prosecutions? Some do, some don't.

[kiethton]

Sheepshanks said:

kiethton said:

Pulled over feb for speeding on M25
Policy renews in April

Does that insurer require you tell them about pending prosecutions? Some do, some don't.

If you've not been charged nothing's pending...

Plus why should you be liable to pay for something if you're later found not guilty/they don't actually prosecute

[popeyewhite]

kiethton said:

After a bit of back and forth...

Rings a bell.

July - lorry hits my Jeep
August - at renewal I inform ins. co of incident - "don't worry let us know what happens"
February - All settled, no fault. Let them know what happened.
March - demand for £400 from ins.co for intervening months (Aug-Mar) because the result of the claim was pending ie I was neither at fault or not.

Went ballistic, eventually got letter of apology.

Renewal next August - policy rises from £280 to £890. Settled it at £320 in the end after yet another prolonged fight.

[Sheepshanks]

kiethton said:

If you've not been charged nothing's pending...

Plus why should you be liable to pay for something if you're later found not guilty/they don't actually prosecute

I suppose it could be argued that a decision on whether to proceed or not is pending. Like claims that are on-going, if the outcome is you're in the clear then they should refund any additional premium.

I honestly don't know whether you're supposed to tell them or not. Insurance generally is done on the basis of utmost good faith - you're supposed to tell each other everything that might be relevant. However the Ombudsman has ruled that for consumers insurance companies have to ask specific questions now.

[popeyewhite]

Sheepshanks said:

Like claims that are on-going, if the outcome is you're in the clear then they should refund any additional premium.

Agearse didn't see it that way at all. Not in my case. A kind of Shroedinger's Cat situation where I existed in the dual state of guilty/not guilty - and as far as those chumps were concerned this gave them the right to demand money BECAUSE I MIGHT HAVE BEEN GUILTY. If I hadn't laughed I'd have wept.

[bradjsmith88]

Integroo said:

The impression I got is that the £500 is some sort of penalty rather than necessarily purely backdated premiums - surely three points to a named driver wouldn't have made each policy increase by £500?

Not necessarily, but is this driver named on more than one of the policies? There's more to it than that. It might be £505.16 but the insurer have rounded it down. But given the heavy regulation figures can't be plucked out of the air. The Ombudsman would ask for confirmation of the premium amount being correct, but that sort of info is company sensitive.

[Integroo]

bradjsmith88 said:

Integroo said:

The impression I got is that the £500 is some sort of penalty rather than necessarily purely backdated premiums - surely three points to a named driver wouldn't have made each policy increase by £500?

Not necessarily, but is this driver named on more than one of the policies? There's more to it than that. It might be £505.16 but the insurer have rounded it down. But given the heavy regulation figures can't be plucked out of the air. The Ombudsman would ask for confirmation of the premium amount being correct, but that sort of info is company sensitive.

Yes, the driver is named on all of the policies.