Car insurance - Policy Void
Discussion
Hi,
I'm hoping someone can help with regards to this, it's quite lengthy but please bare with me.
My brother was in an accident in his car which ended up being a write off.
Couple days after the crash he bought a cheap car to run to work and back in. He phoned the insurance company to insure it and they advised him to fill his details out online then call them as it was quicker than relaying it all over the phone apparently.
He done this and filled out all required details. Online the question said 'Have you made any insurance claims in the last 5 years?'.
He clicked no as the claim had yet to be made, the car was at a car where it was recovered to. At this point he advised them he had a crash but had yet pursued a claim or decided to claim.
He called them and confirmed all details and they asked if any PENDING driving convictions, he said no. They said have you made any claims, he said no.
Two weeks later they contacted him advising the policy was being cancelled as he hadn't advised them of the claim that he had recently made. He said he hadn't made a claim and that the question regarding convictions said 'pending', the claims one did not say pending.
They said they can see the oversight and misunderstanding but due to having a claim he no longer meets their criteria and are ending the policy based on this.
So they haven't said 'We're ending it because you lied' they're just saying they're ending it because he doesn't meet the criteria which will now cause him to have massively inflated premiums because he has had a policy voided.
The ombudsman agreed the questions were poorly worded and weren't asked correctly on the phone but after having contact the insurance company to have it removed as a 'good will gesture', the insurance company have told the ombudsman that they won't remove the void from his record as it's in line with their company policy.
I appreciate people will have their own view on this but I'm just wondering if this will affect him for life or is there a chance of an insurance company insuring him if he explains the misunderstanding.
Thanks for any help or advice.
I'm hoping someone can help with regards to this, it's quite lengthy but please bare with me.
My brother was in an accident in his car which ended up being a write off.
Couple days after the crash he bought a cheap car to run to work and back in. He phoned the insurance company to insure it and they advised him to fill his details out online then call them as it was quicker than relaying it all over the phone apparently.
He done this and filled out all required details. Online the question said 'Have you made any insurance claims in the last 5 years?'.
He clicked no as the claim had yet to be made, the car was at a car where it was recovered to. At this point he advised them he had a crash but had yet pursued a claim or decided to claim.
He called them and confirmed all details and they asked if any PENDING driving convictions, he said no. They said have you made any claims, he said no.
Two weeks later they contacted him advising the policy was being cancelled as he hadn't advised them of the claim that he had recently made. He said he hadn't made a claim and that the question regarding convictions said 'pending', the claims one did not say pending.
They said they can see the oversight and misunderstanding but due to having a claim he no longer meets their criteria and are ending the policy based on this.
So they haven't said 'We're ending it because you lied' they're just saying they're ending it because he doesn't meet the criteria which will now cause him to have massively inflated premiums because he has had a policy voided.
The ombudsman agreed the questions were poorly worded and weren't asked correctly on the phone but after having contact the insurance company to have it removed as a 'good will gesture', the insurance company have told the ombudsman that they won't remove the void from his record as it's in line with their company policy.
I appreciate people will have their own view on this but I'm just wondering if this will affect him for life or is there a chance of an insurance company insuring him if he explains the misunderstanding.
Thanks for any help or advice.
JoPo1 said:
The ombudsman agreed the questions were poorly worded and weren't asked correctly on the phone but after having contact the insurance company to have it removed as a 'good will gesture', the insurance company have told the ombudsman that they won't remove the void from his record as it's in line with their company policy.
See below.ging84 said:
what do you mean the ombudsman agreed?
Was this a phone call to the ombudsman for some advice, or did they actually make a final decision in his favour?
Seems very unlikely they would go against the ombudsman
If the Ombudsman has made a ruling which the consumer has accepted the insurer doesn't have any choice.Was this a phone call to the ombudsman for some advice, or did they actually make a final decision in his favour?
Seems very unlikely they would go against the ombudsman
Parliament has given the Ombudsman that power.
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/faq/business...
Company policy cannot trump it. Some insurers seem to think they can rewrite the law.
We need to know whether a final ruling has been made and, if so, exactly what it said.
It really is a bit dumb to say "no" to the claim question though when he KNOWS there has been an accident and that a claim is going in. I mean is he seriously claiming to be entitled to say no to that one?
In any event insurers always cover themselves by asking about incidents, not just claims. I strongly suspect your brother hasn't given you the full picture on that bit and called it "claims". It really is standard stuff in insurance contracts and has been for years.
So the ombudsmen was completely right. Your brother has very clearly sought to use circumstances to try and pull a fast one and he's been caught doing it. He should count himself lucky that the insurer hasn't called the police and charged him with attempt to defraud. In your post you mention the language they used, but really I think they were being diplomatic. If in doubt seek a letter from the insurer putting the reason for the decline in writing - it may help to have that as he seeks insurance elsewhere.
Which leads me to... you now need to inform your brother that having his policy terminated for this is a declarable material fact to any future insurer. Insurers do share details of fraudulent applications so he really will be doing himself no favours at all if he fails to mention this in future. That's the penalty to pay for telling lies to the modern insurance industry. They are three steps ahead of simple diddling like this.
In any event insurers always cover themselves by asking about incidents, not just claims. I strongly suspect your brother hasn't given you the full picture on that bit and called it "claims". It really is standard stuff in insurance contracts and has been for years.
So the ombudsmen was completely right. Your brother has very clearly sought to use circumstances to try and pull a fast one and he's been caught doing it. He should count himself lucky that the insurer hasn't called the police and charged him with attempt to defraud. In your post you mention the language they used, but really I think they were being diplomatic. If in doubt seek a letter from the insurer putting the reason for the decline in writing - it may help to have that as he seeks insurance elsewhere.
Which leads me to... you now need to inform your brother that having his policy terminated for this is a declarable material fact to any future insurer. Insurers do share details of fraudulent applications so he really will be doing himself no favours at all if he fails to mention this in future. That's the penalty to pay for telling lies to the modern insurance industry. They are three steps ahead of simple diddling like this.
Edited by corozin on Tuesday 14th November 01:48
1. Why didn't he just insure the new car on his existing policy and SORN the damaged one?
2. If taking another policy did he also try to use his NCD on this second policy? This might explain why he doesn't fit the new criteria!
3. The Consumer Insurance Act means that policyholders must take reasonable care to answer questions - he was being a smart guy saying no to the claim question.
4. Cancelling and voiding are two very different things. It sounds in the original post like the policy is cancelled, are the insurer also saying that he is being added to a fraud database for his conduct?
Overall I think you have no argument to the policy being cancelled, but it would be harsh to add to a fraud database. But the story is lacking key information.
2. If taking another policy did he also try to use his NCD on this second policy? This might explain why he doesn't fit the new criteria!
3. The Consumer Insurance Act means that policyholders must take reasonable care to answer questions - he was being a smart guy saying no to the claim question.
4. Cancelling and voiding are two very different things. It sounds in the original post like the policy is cancelled, are the insurer also saying that he is being added to a fraud database for his conduct?
Overall I think you have no argument to the policy being cancelled, but it would be harsh to add to a fraud database. But the story is lacking key information.
bradjsmith88 said:
1.
4. Cancelling and voiding are two very different things. It sounds in the original post like the policy is cancelled, are the insurer also saying that he is being added to a fraud database for his conduct?
Overall I think you have no argument to the policy being cancelled, but it would be harsh to add to a fraud database. But the story is lacking key information.
To which fraud database do you refer?4. Cancelling and voiding are two very different things. It sounds in the original post like the policy is cancelled, are the insurer also saying that he is being added to a fraud database for his conduct?
Overall I think you have no argument to the policy being cancelled, but it would be harsh to add to a fraud database. But the story is lacking key information.
JoPo1 said:
My brother was in an accident in his car which ended up being a write off.
,,,he advised them he had a crash but had (not? yet pursued a claim or decided to claim.
What did he hit? It may well not be his choice as to whether to claim or not, unless he fancies paying for the damage he caused out of his own pocket.,,,he advised them he had a crash but had (not? yet pursued a claim or decided to claim.
desolate said:
bradjsmith88 said:
1.
4. Cancelling and voiding are two very different things. It sounds in the original post like the policy is cancelled, are the insurer also saying that he is being added to a fraud database for his conduct?
Overall I think you have no argument to the policy being cancelled, but it would be harsh to add to a fraud database. But the story is lacking key information.
To which fraud database do you refer?4. Cancelling and voiding are two very different things. It sounds in the original post like the policy is cancelled, are the insurer also saying that he is being added to a fraud database for his conduct?
Overall I think you have no argument to the policy being cancelled, but it would be harsh to add to a fraud database. But the story is lacking key information.
Personally I found the OP a little confusing but it is early in the morning
ZOLLAR said:
It's possible he maybe referring to IFR or CIFAS but in reality what the OP describes won't come anywhere near that, plus they'd have to formally decline it as a breach of their fraud condition which doesn't appear to be the case.
Personally I found the OP a little confusing but it is early in the morning
Do insurance companies share information with these databases?Personally I found the OP a little confusing but it is early in the morning
As far as I am aware there is no central database for this sort of stuff - if there is I'd like to know because I want to use it!
desolate said:
ZOLLAR said:
It's possible he maybe referring to IFR or CIFAS but in reality what the OP describes won't come anywhere near that, plus they'd have to formally decline it as a breach of their fraud condition which doesn't appear to be the case.
Personally I found the OP a little confusing but it is early in the morning
Do insurance companies share information with these databases?Personally I found the OP a little confusing but it is early in the morning
As far as I am aware there is no central database for this sort of stuff - if there is I'd like to know because I want to use it!
Naturally the information shared is two way and likely in a similar manner to the IFB.
ZOLLAR said:
I'll be honest and say I don't know the exact mechanism as to how the information is shared however both agencies are ones that we log with if the criteria our underwriters set is met.
Naturally the information shared is two way and likely in a similar manner to the IFB.
I would imagine that you would only share information such as this once the fraud has reached a very serious stage (eg fraudulent claim payment) if you share information at the sort of level outlined by the OP I'd be really interested to know.Naturally the information shared is two way and likely in a similar manner to the IFB.
desolate said:
ZOLLAR said:
I'll be honest and say I don't know the exact mechanism as to how the information is shared however both agencies are ones that we log with if the criteria our underwriters set is met.
Naturally the information shared is two way and likely in a similar manner to the IFB.
I would imagine that you would only share information such as this once the fraud has reached a very serious stage (eg fraudulent claim payment) if you share information at the sort of level outlined by the OP I'd be really interested to know.Naturally the information shared is two way and likely in a similar manner to the IFB.
If the insurer was accusing the OPs brother of fraud, he'd know about it without a doubt.
ZOLLAR said:
It's possible he maybe referring to IFR or CIFAS but in reality what the OP describes won't come anywhere near that, plus they'd have to formally decline it as a breach of their fraud condition which doesn't appear to be the case.
Personally I found the OP a little confusing but it is early in the morning
Yes likely one of the above, or SIRA. The story is very confusing, and of course it could be watered down. We just don't know. And really all the OP wants to know is can he get insured again ever. To which the answer is yes.Personally I found the OP a little confusing but it is early in the morning
bradjsmith88 said:
Yes likely one of the above, or SIRA. The story is very confusing, and of course it could be watered down. We just don't know. And really all the OP wants to know is can he get insured again ever. To which the answer is yes.
Can you point me in the direction of SIRA?I am pretty sure that information like this is currently getting shared formally, but I would really like to know if it is, even on an "opt in" informal basis.
desolate said:
bradjsmith88 said:
Yes likely one of the above, or SIRA. The story is very confusing, and of course it could be watered down. We just don't know. And really all the OP wants to know is can he get insured again ever. To which the answer is yes.
Can you point me in the direction of SIRA?I am pretty sure that information like this is currently getting shared formally, but I would really like to know if it is, even on an "opt in" informal basis.
There's quite a few different products around, I imagine it depends what specifically you're looking for or what your exposure is i.e. policy fraud (identity, compromised cards, ghost brokering) or claim fraud (ML, Staged).
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff