|
I've hesitated to comment until now, but I think everyone who has responded has missed one aspect of the OP's case.
I have no sympathy for the fraudsters and the careless who fail to ensure information given to insurers is accurate. However, what the OP is asking for is support for the time-limiting of the penalty. He says, "It's fair to punish offenders but not for life, this needs to be time limited like penalty points on a license."
Now, let's debate what the punishment for such transgressions should be - but no-one seems to be doing this. Maybe everyone believes there should be no time limit.
Edited by FP on 08/02/2019 at 16:26
|
|
Good point, FP: I think the problem is that the blunderbuss approach inherent in cumputerised systems means that the insurer can't tell the difference between a fraudster and someone who has made a mere error. So the lifetime penalty is meant to be a deterrent, but it clobbers everyone (and probably doesn't deter a committed fraudster - not much does).
I've no great sympathy for insurers, but their contracts are ones of utmost good faith - they have to believe a lot of what customers tell them.
Hence the need for customers to check, and check again.
|
|
I work with a small Lease Brokerage Company and for the past 9+ years we've had a Fleet/ Trade policy with various Insurance Companies with ever increasing premiums.
Two weeks ago we decided that enough was enough and we would insure our own cars individually.
After 42 years of no claims against me, I insured, or should I say, I tried to insure my car with E-Sure. They are the most intransigent Company I have ever come across in terms of actually accepting such proofs. They would not accept a letter from the Broker that we used , or from the Company that held the insurance cover, with me as a named driver, and I ended up cancelling the Policy before they could void it. No appeal. IDIOT COMPANY....don't even try to talk sense to them.
I'm now with Direct Line...... I think, as they need to accept my proofs that I mailed today, and which they state in a phone call "should" be acceptable.
Lesson: If you've had Company Car Insurance and are switching to a personal Policy, stay away from E-Sure. They've obviously been scammed before and now void everyone.
|
|
Well I speak as I find insofar as I had a policy with Esure from 2010 up to last year and I didn't find them to be intransigent nor an idiot company and whenever I tried to talk sense to them, they listened.
Moved away from them purely due to another company providing a more competitive renewal figure but would havd stayed with them had the sums added up. I'd go back with them if the figures were OK.
BUT, I didn't claim - and only then do we get to find out whether we made the right choice or not.
|
|
I've been with Esure since about 2004, and have found them to be very accommodating to long-term customers like myself, especially if wanted to update my policy mid-year, where they've waived their fee for doing so each time (I haven't done this that often - about 3-4 times, once when I changed my car and the other three when I needed to up my mileage estimate quite a bit after changing jobs).
Whether they would be so nice should I make a mistake on my policy forms etc in the future, that's another kettle of fish.
|
|
|
|
The only time I investigated a policy with Esure, I got the impression that they didn't want your business if you had ever had a claim before. Made me wonder what they would do if you claimed against their policy.
|
The only time I investigated a policy with Esure, I got the impression that they didn't want your business if you had ever had a claim before. Made me wonder what they would do if you claimed against their policy.
Fair point, as I have yet to test their claims department.
|
|
I was with them for a few years until last year, their renewals were the same or slightly cheaper compared to price comparison sites. Anyway my car got vandalised and had to make an 'at fault' claim, no issues and the car was repaired quickly. The renewal after that was ok too, just not as good as some others for a change. I guess issues can come down to what individual you're dealing with at the time of calling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I had motorcycle insurance with E-Sure. They insisted that the bike had to be trailered to an MOT test station to get an MOT after the last one had run out. They said it was totally illegal to use a motorcycle on the road without an MOT despite me reminding them of the usual arrangement of making an appointment etc and that their policy required that in order for the policy to remain valid the MOT had to be valid at all times.They added it was a specific restriction from their underwriters.
The phone conversation got quite heated when I suggested they change their underwriters and I cancelled the policy. A total bunch of muppets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the problem is that it cannot always be differentiated between someone who made a genuine mistake and deliberate fraud. I agree that in some, very limited circumstances where neither party would be financially inconvenienced there could be grounds for leniency , but only if the insurance firm believed so and waived their right to punish the policy holder.
I would hope that the reason for a policy to be voided (and not just a one line explanation) would be worth having on file, and not just the voiding, so any future insurer could see that in some limited circumstances, like a credit rating, their score could improve (and thus future starting premiums lowered) by demonstrating a more thorough approach to filling in the forms, etc.
Whether a time limit could also be included, I'm not sure, as there does appear to be one for declaring fault claims and points on our licence (even if they've since been removed). I suppose it depends upon the severity of the transgression to get their policy voided, especially if the matter was referred to the Police.
|
|
|
|
It also needs to be nited that under the Insurance Act 2015 it has become harder for insurance companies to avoid contracts of insurance where the customer has been careless rather than fraudulent. If the person would not have had their policy voided under the new act, should they continue to be punished?
|
|
I have great deal of sympathy for the OP.
Mistakes are made even with careful checking and a lifetime affect of your insurance status is unacceptable. Even genuine criminals eventually have their history wiped and tax mistakes are ignored after six years.
I once filled out an online car insurance form absolutely accurately. The quote was acceptable so proceeded. They took my money and failed to issue the documentation. I rang them only to discover that thay classed a Chartered Surveyor in the same class as an estate agent and refused to cover me. They refused to refund me until I threatened them with the Ombudsman.
So insurance companies are like every company ; they try to find a sneaky way of keeping your money. If I did that I would be struck off. Nowadays I simply say I am a director of a property services company (which is true).
|
|
I suppose the question is often how can a person definitively prove the 'mistake' wasn't deliberate? They can 'come forward' to 'admit' they made an error and to pay the difference (say if they hadn't had any claim in the intervening period), but what happens if that person was lying and did so to temporarily reduce their premium because, at the time, they couldn't afford to pay the higher premium? How could they prove they weren't doing this?
I do have some sympathy given the number of cases where insurers blatantly rip-off and lie to customers, but, in my view, two wrongs don't make a right. Whilst time-limiting 'offences' may be prudent in some limited circumstances (where a genuine mistake COULD be proven), I would not be in favour of it across the board.
|
|
I am sympathetic to the petition, as I think there is far too much bobbing-and-weaving, ducking-and-diving opportunism and greed in many areas of financial services, insurance especially. I trust none of the "refuse to sign" brigade would ever take up cudgels against, say, Ryanair, for a cancelled ticket or exorbitant charge for one tiny mistake?
It is truly baffling that the UK is now the only country in the WORLD where a car insurance policy is tied to the driver (two drivers if you're lucky!) and virtually rules out any other driver taking the wheel unless exhaustively vetted and approved by the said insurance firm. In Spain, as one example, once a car is insured, any adult driver over 25 - from any country! - can drive it on 3rd party cover. Insurance companies do not delve into how many points (a "clean licence" may lead to a 10% discount, otherwise a valid licence is a valid licence); what precise line of work, has Sir ever been convicted of cruelty to slugs?; sorry, which postcode was that? or the like.
In case of an oversight, if an undisclosed risk factor comes to light, it's usually a question of paying the excess with maybe a small admin charge, but there's no question of cancelling cover or refusing to pay out for a claim except for extreme cases where a driver does not have a licence. It means that the BIBs don't spend all their time pinging uninsured cars on ANPR and catching and convicting errant drivers - there are, simply, far fewer errant drivers in countries where car insurance is operated justly, rather than dominated by private equity firms out to get all they can in a helpless, captive market.
And finally - if a driver misses a payment(s) on the policy, rather than cancel the cover, the year's insurance cover is honoured and the insurance company chases up the debt as a separate issue.Non-payment of a debt in Spain can ultimately lead to all bank accounts in one's name being frozen, so very few people risk that.
Edited by Bilboman on 11/02/2019 at 18:49
|
|
" It is truly baffling that the UK is now the only country in the WORLD where a car insurance policy is tied to the driver"
Agree 100% - and it's the only country in europe AFAIK where you don't have to carry your documents, licence, insurance green card etc. The YouTube videos of traffic police stops in the UK are comedy gold, where the cops spend hours at the side of the road attempting to find out who the driver is and who is insured to drive the car they've just stopped - total nonsense!
|
" It is truly baffling that the UK is now the only country in the WORLD where a car insurance policy is tied to the driver"
Agree 100% - and it's the only country in europe AFAIK where you don't have to carry your documents, licence, insurance green card etc. The YouTube videos of traffic police stops in the UK are comedy gold, where the cops spend hours at the side of the road attempting to find out who the driver is and who is insured to drive the car they've just stopped - total nonsense!
ID cards would solve a lot..
|
" It is truly baffling that the UK is now the only country in the WORLD where a car insurance policy is tied to the driver"
Agree 100% - and it's the only country in europe AFAIK where you don't have to carry your documents, licence, insurance green card etc. The YouTube videos of traffic police stops in the UK are comedy gold, where the cops spend hours at the side of the road attempting to find out who the driver is and who is insured to drive the car they've just stopped - total nonsense!
ID cards would solve a lot..
Or a requirement to carry your driving licence when driving - a UK DL is as good as an identity card as it also has or should have the driver's current address on it.
|
|
BUT, why not bring back that requirement, and the requirement to have an insurance certificate and (if needed) mot certificate in the vehiclle.
The removal of tax discs hasn't helped either.
|
BUT, why not bring back that requirement, and the requirement to have an insurance certificate and (if needed) mot certificate in the vehiclle.
The removal of tax discs hasn't helped either.
Many insurance companies only issue certificates electronically, so easy to forge - the police rely on MIB and/or a phone call to the insurer.
MoT certificate is only truly valid on the day of the test.
Tax disks were easy to forge.
|
|
|
|
