SORN invalidates insurance?!
Discussion
Hi all,
My father has just put his V12V into storage for the winter and decided it would be worth taking advantage of the simplified car tax system to SORN the car and offset the cost of storage.
Dutifully he called his insurers, Admiral, to advise them of the car's new home for the winter and in the call he mentioned the car was SORN'd as of today. They cancelled his policy on the spot as they state that to SORN a car in the UK invalidates insurance as the car must be taxed to be legal to drive on the road and by SORN'ing it he has invalidated his insurance.
Now, the car is fully insured by the storage business he's using but being a prudent fellow he thought having his own insurance would still be sensible. Admiral advise they cannot sell him insurance for the purpose of storage (not even TPF&T) as there is no insurable risk if he cannot drive it.
I can see their point to some degree but there must surely be some people who SORN the car on their driveway etc that must fall foul of this?
Would be interested to hear other's comments.
Cheers
James
My father has just put his V12V into storage for the winter and decided it would be worth taking advantage of the simplified car tax system to SORN the car and offset the cost of storage.
Dutifully he called his insurers, Admiral, to advise them of the car's new home for the winter and in the call he mentioned the car was SORN'd as of today. They cancelled his policy on the spot as they state that to SORN a car in the UK invalidates insurance as the car must be taxed to be legal to drive on the road and by SORN'ing it he has invalidated his insurance.
Now, the car is fully insured by the storage business he's using but being a prudent fellow he thought having his own insurance would still be sensible. Admiral advise they cannot sell him insurance for the purpose of storage (not even TPF&T) as there is no insurable risk if he cannot drive it.
I can see their point to some degree but there must surely be some people who SORN the car on their driveway etc that must fall foul of this?
Would be interested to hear other's comments.
Cheers
James
Is it any concern that when he needs to insure the car again, he will have to disclose that the previous insurance policy was cancelled?
Or does this count as him cancelling it (as he was notifying the insurer of a change that had to cancel it)?
What type of car is it? Will the insurance policy at the storage unit not cover its value?
Or does this count as him cancelling it (as he was notifying the insurer of a change that had to cancel it)?
What type of car is it? Will the insurance policy at the storage unit not cover its value?
Hi Jimmy,
As mentioned above, the car (an Aston Martin V12 Vantage) is fully insured by the storage business during the time it is with them. I think it was just that having his own policy in place seemed sensible and his insurance isn't much these days anyway. I think he felt that the £200 or so from the road tax seemed like a sensible saving and went some way to cover the storage costs.
He won't have to declare that he has been refused insurance or anything simply that Admiral said they don't need to insure the car as there is no reason if it cannot be driven. There is some logic in there albeit skewed.
As mentioned above, the car (an Aston Martin V12 Vantage) is fully insured by the storage business during the time it is with them. I think it was just that having his own policy in place seemed sensible and his insurance isn't much these days anyway. I think he felt that the £200 or so from the road tax seemed like a sensible saving and went some way to cover the storage costs.
He won't have to declare that he has been refused insurance or anything simply that Admiral said they don't need to insure the car as there is no reason if it cannot be driven. There is some logic in there albeit skewed.
On the one hand I can see the Admiral are being responsible about it. If the car is in storage then their policy is possibly inappropriate.
Also I think there's a difference between insurance being cancelled and being refused. I was concerned when a company did not want to renew my home cover. Turns out it was too many bathrooms! I mentioned it to the next insurer and they said not to worry.
Also I think there's a difference between insurance being cancelled and being refused. I was concerned when a company did not want to renew my home cover. Turns out it was too many bathrooms! I mentioned it to the next insurer and they said not to worry.
James B said:
Dutifully he called his insurers, Admiral, to advise them of the car's new home for the winter and in the call he mentioned the car was SORN'd as of today. They cancelled his policy on the spot as they state that to SORN a car in the UK invalidates insurance as the car must be taxed to be legal to drive on the road and by SORN'ing it he has invalidated his insurance.
Ask the muppet on the other end of the phone to point to which bit of the Ts & Cs say that.http://www.admiral.com/existing-customers/policy-d...
A quick search through the PDF says the word "tax" is used once - as part of "taxiing", "VED" is also only used as part of a longer word, and neither "excise" or "SORN" are used at all.
That's what i think my father was so surprised at. He's perfectly happy to pay and they know the car won't be driven so why on earth would they want to cancel his policy?!
I usually sorn my Vanquish each year but i wouldn't want to uninsure it as, god forbid, someone decided to remove it from my garage I would not want to be having a chat with my home insurers about the car that should at least have had TPF&T cover. It just seems bonkers to me.
I usually sorn my Vanquish each year but i wouldn't want to uninsure it as, god forbid, someone decided to remove it from my garage I would not want to be having a chat with my home insurers about the car that should at least have had TPF&T cover. It just seems bonkers to me.
Is it possible this is related to the FCA's Fair Treatment of Customers guidelines?
Particularly "Outcome 2: Products and services marketed and sold in the retail market are designed to meet the needs of identified consumer groups and are targeted accordingly."
If you think about the PPI mis-selling scandal and subsequent fines - would you want to be explaining why customers were sold something for many more perils than they would be exposed to?
Worth a chat with an underwriter - rather than someone in Customer Services I think. Could require an injection of common sense.
Particularly "Outcome 2: Products and services marketed and sold in the retail market are designed to meet the needs of identified consumer groups and are targeted accordingly."
If you think about the PPI mis-selling scandal and subsequent fines - would you want to be explaining why customers were sold something for many more perils than they would be exposed to?
Worth a chat with an underwriter - rather than someone in Customer Services I think. Could require an injection of common sense.
Hoofy said:
I'd suggest trying another insurance company.
Also, how do you know the storage company has suitable insurance? "Because they said so."?
But that just seems such a hassle surely just for SORNing a car?Also, how do you know the storage company has suitable insurance? "Because they said so."?
The storage business is well known to me and very well run. The owner himself has a collection of cars that would rival many on here and all is very much above board.
krisdelta said:
Is it possible this is related to the FCA's Fair Treatment of Customers guidelines?
Particularly "Outcome 2: Products and services marketed and sold in the retail market are designed to meet the needs of identified consumer groups and are targeted accordingly."
If you think about the PPI mis-selling scandal and subsequent fines - would you want to be explaining why customers were sold something for many more perils than they would be exposed to?
Worth a chat with an underwriter - rather than someone in Customer Services I think. Could require an injection of common sense.
Kris, I did wonder if there could be something like that as they deem there to be no insurable risk and thus anyone paying for a policy from them would be paying for something they don't need. Still, they didn't seem willing to waive the £40 odd cancellation cost.Particularly "Outcome 2: Products and services marketed and sold in the retail market are designed to meet the needs of identified consumer groups and are targeted accordingly."
If you think about the PPI mis-selling scandal and subsequent fines - would you want to be explaining why customers were sold something for many more perils than they would be exposed to?
Worth a chat with an underwriter - rather than someone in Customer Services I think. Could require an injection of common sense.
James B said:
krisdelta said:
Is it possible this is related to the FCA's Fair Treatment of Customers guidelines?
Particularly "Outcome 2: Products and services marketed and sold in the retail market are designed to meet the needs of identified consumer groups and are targeted accordingly."
If you think about the PPI mis-selling scandal and subsequent fines - would you want to be explaining why customers were sold something for many more perils than they would be exposed to?
Worth a chat with an underwriter - rather than someone in Customer Services I think. Could require an injection of common sense.
Kris, I did wonder if there could be something like that as they deem there to be no insurable risk and thus anyone paying for a policy from them would be paying for something they don't need. Still, they didn't seem willing to waive the £40 odd cancellation cost.Particularly "Outcome 2: Products and services marketed and sold in the retail market are designed to meet the needs of identified consumer groups and are targeted accordingly."
If you think about the PPI mis-selling scandal and subsequent fines - would you want to be explaining why customers were sold something for many more perils than they would be exposed to?
Worth a chat with an underwriter - rather than someone in Customer Services I think. Could require an injection of common sense.
It may be worth your Dad chatting to Locktons or Hiscox who are far more geared up to non-standard risk profiles - and higher value cars.
Perhaps you should "take one for the team" and look after your Dad's car over the winter? It's what family is all about
You'd be surprised how grippy they are in the cold once you've warmed the tyres through. Edited by krisdelta on Monday 31st October 14:07
James B said:
Hoofy said:
I'd suggest trying another insurance company.
Also, how do you know the storage company has suitable insurance? "Because they said so."?
But that just seems such a hassle surely just for SORNing a car?Also, how do you know the storage company has suitable insurance? "Because they said so."?
The storage business is well known to me and very well run. The owner himself has a collection of cars that would rival many on here and all is very much above board.
motco said:
I have two SORNed cars in my garage and both are insured - one has no MoT. How would I get it to the test station without insurance? I cannot tax it without MoT and cannot drive it to the test centre without insurance cover but can do so without tax.
agree. think someone at Admiral is getting confused. as I have stated above, friend had insurance for over 5 years on a car on axle stands with no MOT or VED.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff