Jump to content
www.BoXa.net
PaulQ

Cat D insurers

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, EXY said:

Ever since I have e been buying insurance there has ALWAYS been a caveat that if YOU know of something that COULD affect the cover you MUST DISCLOSE it.

I do not scour the T&Cs to see if they include it still, instead I behave responsibly AND honestly and simply tell them anything I feel is relevant then hope it is reciprocated,. Simples. ?

This, exactly. ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Glyn said:

I must say CJs viewpoints to me are so valid, This thread started as a CAT listed car and knowing that should you declare it when obtaining insurance - well yes you should and indeed volunteer it without being asked - The insurance company know it anyway so it sort of gives credibility to your integrity.

A CAT car would be obvious to just about everyone that it should be declared - but there must be future owners further along the line that either didn't pay attention when they bought it privately or the seller didn't declare it that wouldn't be aware of the cars history.

The point CJ makes and I fully agree with him - is that the average Joe cannot be expected to know everything about a car - cannot be expected to know just what the insurance needs declaring for them to assess risk and therefore as the company offers insurance they are the ones that determine the factors that constitute risk and base their premium on that risk, so if a question isn't asked how would a person know what is relevant.

CJs point is that provided you have answered the questions the insurance company ask with due diligence and honesty then the company couldn't legally withdraw cover because a relevant fact was omitted or not mentioned.

They could of course threaten that but that for me would result in a breach of contract claim and the unfair contract terms act.

Provided that the company hasn't been deliberately misled, lied to, manipulated maliciously then the omission of a relevant fact wouldn't invalidate insurance cover.

Can't argue with you Glyn,

BUT, and here is the BUT, the world is chock full of liars and thieves who would tell a lie that would send you to jail just to get themselves out of the situation.

Also MOST on here are NOT your average Joe. IF they lack the nous to be able to recognise a CAT car they have the sense to entrust it to someone who does.

I fully agree with your final paragraph and would add that anyone who has NOT been honest should have cover withdrawn and then treated as uninsured, jail the fellers and ban them from driving forever IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/3/2016 at 1:02 PM, EXY said:

I wasn't referring to YOU particularly as a USELESS GORMLESS TWUNT, strange you take offence easily;)

However there are no shortage of idiots who are really not safe to let out by themselves though, AGAIN I am not necessarily referring to you in particular ;)

IMHO a LOT of what you are saying is irrelevant for the following reasons;

He DOES know it is a CAT car.

Ever since I have e been buying insurance there has ALWAYS been a caveat that if YOU know of something that COULD affect the cover you MUST DISCLOSE it.

I do not scour the T&Cs to see if they include it still, instead I behave responsibly AND honestly and simply tell them anything I feel is relevant then hope it is reciprocated,. Simples. ?

As always it is the chancer, wasters and liars who try to get ahead that ruin it for everyone, look at IFAs, there are honest ones about like Stu, but also a lot of less honest ones.

Thankyou!

I suspect that you, like I, have wasted finger energy there though...wait for the reply (popcorn at ready)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glyns answer covered it.

 

I've worked in insurance, in complains, in mis-selling and in conjunction with the FSA (when it was called that).   If you don't want my advice, don't take it.  Doesn't make you correct, and there's an absolute wealth of information out that (include that which I point you directly towards) that explains why it's incorrect (again, exactly as Glyn puts it).

 

I've asked plenty of questions, and posed plenty of scenarios, none of you were able to answer or respond to them - says it all.

Edited by cj225

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, cj225 said:

Glyns answer covered it.

So, do you agree with his first paragraph then..........that you should declare a CAT D car when obtaining insurance ?

A simple yes or no will do :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, PaulQ said:

So, do you agree with his first paragraph then..........that you should declare a CAT D car when obtaining insurance ?

A simple yes or no will do :)

If they ask, then yes obviously. If they don't ask, then clearly they don't need to know, or as they are an insurance company, they realise that they don't need to ask as they have access to the information and would check it anyway.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Nobbie said:

If they ask, then yes obviously. If they don't ask, then clearly they don't need to know, or as they are an insurance company, they realise that they don't need to ask as they have access to the information and would check it anyway.

I know that you wouldn't offer the information unless asked from earlier on the thread, but I was interested in what CJ would do, being that he seemed to agree with Glyns comments

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/11/2016 at 7:00 PM, Glyn said:

I must say CJs viewpoints to me are so valid, This thread started as a CAT listed car and knowing that should you declare it when obtaining insurance - well yes you should and indeed volunteer it without being asked - The insurance company know it anyway so it sort of gives credibility to your integrity.

The whole of CJ's argument is based on the fact that there is no need to offer ANY information unless asked ,yet you would do just that, offer that information about the car being CAT listed without being asked..................

Funny how when myself, Exy etc pointed this out earlier in the thread, all we get is " Your missing the point " and chaper and verse on why there is no need to tell them !

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, boxsternoob56 said:

Thankyou!

I suspect that you, like I, have wasted finger energy there though...wait for the reply (popcorn at ready)

You're welcome ?

I wonder if the insurance companies have access to your/our medical records?

Last time I applied for Life Insurance there were quite a few questions they neglected to ask BUT being an honest Joe I brought them up as I felt they were relevant mostly because if there was ever a need to claim it would affect my nearest and dearest. I might not even be there to benefit?

I mean who hasn't had an STD :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, EXY said:

You're welcome ?

I wonder if the insurance companies have access to your/our medical records?

Last time I applied for Life Insurance there were quite a few questions they neglected to ask BUT being an honest Joe I brought them up as I felt they were relevant mostly because if there was ever a need to claim it would affect my nearest and dearest. I might not even be there to benefit?

...no they don't always write to your GP (probably only about 20% of the cases we do, do they go to the GP for info) and so specifically they (the life company) state in the proposal that you should not rely, and withhold valid information on the form assuming that they will subsequently find it out...as of course they would not know it if they dont write to the GP, hence this could invalidate the cover by virtue of non-disclosure....

In some respects I know, and agree, with what CJ is saying and apply a similar principle with clients going through a life proposal BUT, and here's the point...if it's not clear whether you think you should disclose or not, then your sensible option is to do so...it makes absolutely no sense taking insurance out and then worrying about whether it would pay out if the worst happened (and it may be the next of kin who have the issues, not you)...

Sure if its clear it doesnt need disclosing, then I don't encourage anyone to do so but, but if you are not sure then you should IMO.. NOTE my greater experience is life/ critical illness/ income protection/ unemployment and buildings/contents...

...the question originally was 'I know its Cat D should I disclose' and I think that's sufficient knowledge to be sensible to ask the question....unless you are applying online then maybe not...maybe I made the wrong assumption that cover would be arranged with a broker or company by phone or face to face as I don't generally frequent those god-awful comparison websites! But then again maybe the fact that you cant 'disclose' or check if you need to do so on an automated system is a reason to speak to a person to arrange your cover instead anyway...we have a couple of sponsors on the forum I am sure will be happy to receive calls..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, boxsternoob56 said:

...the question originally was 'I know its Cat D should I disclose'

Quote from the Department of Transport's "Buying repaired 'written off' vehicles - A Consumer Guide" :

" Following Purchase

• If you haven’t already, inform your insurer that the vehicle has previously been declared a total loss:

  ─ If you fail to do so, your insurer can reject any claim you may make on the grounds of non-disclosure."

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/470496/buying-repaired-written-off-vehicles.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jon61 said:

Quote from the Department of Transport's "Buying repaired 'written off' vehicles - A Consumer Guide" :

" Following Purchase

• If you haven’t already, inform your insurer that the vehicle has previously been declared a total loss:

  ─ If you fail to do so, your insurer can reject any claim you may make on the grounds of non-disclosure."

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/470496/buying-repaired-written-off-vehicles.pdf

BOOM!

lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jon61 said:

Quote from the Department of Transport's "Buying repaired 'written off' vehicles - A Consumer Guide" :

" Following Purchase

• If you haven’t already, inform your insurer that the vehicle has previously been declared a total loss:

  ─ If you fail to do so, your insurer can reject any claim you may make on the grounds of non-disclosure."

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/470496/buying-repaired-written-off-vehicles.pdf

They may well reject your claim, but legally the insurance company would have to pay out if they didn't ask the question.

And so it goes on :)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, PaulQ said:

They may well reject your claim, but legally the insurance company would have to pay out if they didn't ask the question.

And so it goes on :)

 

 

And whilst that is all fine and dandy what idiot wants that sort of hassle?

As I said with life insurance a non/disputed payment won't affect me but my nearest and dearest.

Don't know about you but IMHO that's no way to run a railroad?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Jon61 said:

Quote from the Department of Transport's "Buying repaired 'written off' vehicles - A Consumer Guide" :

" Following Purchase

• If you haven’t already, inform your insurer that the vehicle has previously been declared a total loss:

  ─ If you fail to do so, your insurer can reject any claim you may make on the grounds of non-disclosure."

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/470496/buying-repaired-written-off-vehicles.pdf

Good find Jon ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, PaulQ said:

They may well reject your claim, but legally the insurance company would have to pay out if they didn't ask the question.

And so it goes on :)

 

This is the point.   It's not so much "Don't tell them", it's "If they don't ask for information, they are not legally allowed to consider it".  (they may try to reject a claim, but not with legal justification).

 

My question, quite simply, is "Why don't they ask?".  

Edited by cj225

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EXY said:

And whilst that is all fine and dandy what idiot wants that sort of hassle?

As I said with life insurance a non/disputed payment won't affect me but my nearest and dearest.

Don't know about you but IMHO that's no way to run a railroad?

 

I said the same back on page 2.

CJ says it isn't hassle.

Why anyone would want to put themselves in a position where they might have to go to court

to get an insurance company to pay up is beyond me, but there you go.

 

 

On 30/10/2016 at 9:00 PM, PaulQ said:

I hear what your saying, but I think most people would tell their insurance company if they knew their car was a cat c/d.

Same with declaring modifications/factory options etc. Its all well and good pleading ignorance, but who wants the

potential hassle come claim time ? Not me

It isn't hassle.

Scenario:

Insurer "Hi, why didn't you tell us your car was a Category D repaired insurance write off?"

Driver "I don't know what the hell you are talking about"

Insurer "Your car was previously a Category D total loss and you didn't tell us"

Driver "How am I supposed to know that?"

 

Wouldn't have any legs in court if the issuer tried to refuse a claim, as there would be substantial reasonable doubt.

 I imagine a court would ask why the insurer didn't know from there outset, as it is information they had access to at the point of taking a premium.

 

Completely unrelated to modifications, as we're talking and something that an insurer knows more about than the average driver.

 

Beyond this, I've never known an insurer to care, probably due to the above. If it was a factor, it would either be a question on the online form, or they would have an API to check this during the process (like Auto trader do)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PaulQ said:

 

I said the same back on page 2.

CJ says it isn't hassle.

Why anyone would want to put themselves in a position where they might have to go to court

to get an insurance company to pay up is beyond me, but there you go.

 

 

It isn't hassle.

Scenario:

Insurer "Hi, why didn't you tell us your car was a Category D repaired insurance write off?"

Driver "I don't know what the hell you are talking about"

Insurer "Your car was previously a Category D total loss and you didn't tell us"

Driver "How am I supposed to know that?"

 

Wouldn't have any legs in court if the issuer tried to refuse a claim, as there would be substantial reasonable doubt.

 I imagine a court would ask why the insurer didn't know from there outset, as it is information they had access to at the point of taking a premium.

 

Completely unrelated to modifications, as we're talking and something that an insurer knows more about than the average driver.

 

Beyond this, I've never known an insurer to care, probably due to the above. If it was a factor, it would either be a question on the online form, or they would have an API to check this during the process (like Auto trader do)

 

For the second part, that's exactly it.  It seems like the suggest is for the owner (many of which would be clueless about such things) to know more than the insurer in this instance, where in reality it's the exact opposite - the insurer is the expert and the source of the information, in practical terms.

 

For the first part, I'm not sure why you would mention court - you would only go to court if you had no insurance or if there was some more serious issue going on.  In the event of a refused claim, it would be nothing to do with court, you'd simply fill out a form and unleash the FCA (or as I knew them, FSA) who would simply bill the insurer for their (used to be several hundred pounds) and say "honour the claim you useless so and so's".

 

 

 

If there was ever a valid case for one of those petitions, it should be for insurers to provide the policyholder of any relevant information they hold (such as total loss etc.). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, cj225 said:

For the first part, I'm not sure why you would mention court

Because you wrote the following:

 

"Wouldn't have any legs in court if the issuer tried to refuse a claim, as there would be substantial reasonable doubt.

 I imagine a court would ask why the insurer didn't know from there outset, as it is information they had access to at the point of taking a premium"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, PaulQ said:

Because you wrote the following:

 

"Wouldn't have any legs in court if the issuer tried to refuse a claim, as there would be substantial reasonable doubt.

 I imagine a court would ask why the insurer didn't know from there outset, as it is information they had access to at the point of taking a premium"

 

But that was a response to everyone else talking about court on page 2?  i.e. it wouldn't go to court, as it would be frivolous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, cj225 said:

 

But that was a response to everyone else talking about court on page 2?  i.e. it wouldn't go to court, as it would be frivolous

Really ? I'll quote again what you wrote when I said it was "hassle"

 

It isn't hassle.

Scenario:

Insurer "Hi, why didn't you tell us your car was a Category D repaired insurance write off?"

Driver "I don't know what the hell you are talking about"

Insurer "Your car was previously a Category D total loss and you didn't tell us"

Driver "How am I supposed to know that?"

 

Wouldn't have any legs in court if the issuer tried to refuse a claim, as there would be substantial reasonable doubt.

 I imagine a court would ask why the insurer didn't know from there outset, as it is information they had access to at the point of taking a premium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding of the situation is as follows:

For a long time, insurance was based on the insured person's obligations to disclose anything that could be material to the insurer, when taking out or renewing their insurance. It is clearly difficult for laymen to understand in all cases what would or wouldn't be material, but the basis of the contract between the two parties was still written that way. It inevitably caused some disputed over claims - more so in insurances like home & motor than long term (life) insurance. Because of this, the law changed in 2013 with the Consumer Insurance Act, which put more onus on insurance companies to ask specific questions, rather than rely on the catch-all duty to disclose. Nevetheless, that Department of Transport document was written after that new Act came into force, so they still seem to think this is something that - if you know it - you should volunteer to your insurer (Note the issue in this thread wasn't about the situation where the insured didn't know his car was a Cat D).

A few other relevant points:
- complaints against insurers from individuals (ie consumers, rather than businesses) very rarely come to court; they are normally settled by the ombudsman's ruling (which is binding on the insurer, but not on the insured - they could still take it to court of they wished but the costs would be astronomical, which is precisely why the ombudsman's bureau exists). Even though they are quite sympathetic to genuine consumer complaints, the ombudsman still finds in favour of the customer in typically less than a third of motor insurance cases.
- the situation of disputed claims is also not a simple Accept/Reject decision - even if the ombudsman decides that an insurer should not be allowed to void the contract for inadvertent non-disclosure (as they might have done in the past), the outcome might be that the claim is allowed, but the insurance policy would be recalculated as if the information had been disclosed at outset and the insurance issued on the basis of the higher risk - ie lower sum insured would have been offered for the premium paid - so the insured could still get back less than they were expecting.
- the situation is different if the insured is a business rather than a consumer - often a business is deemed to be a more sophisticated buyer of services, and a higher level of understanding is expected of them, so they often get less favourable treatment in law than consumers. The 2013 Act above does not apply to business insurance.

In practice, I think claims are more often (still) rejected because the customer has incorrectly answered the question at renewal "Has anything changed since the last renewal?" when they've changed eg occupation or employment status, but don't think to say so because they don't understand that it affects their premium. The reason the insurer has asked for this information originally however is because it does.

I also think that it makes sense to tell your insurer something relevant even if they don't ask. Contrary to some people's views, insurance companies are not simply trying to rip off their customers. If they were, they would make massive profits every year (they don't), and their share prices would significantly outperform other sectors (they don't). Even if the ombudsman might be likely to find in your favour, it would be unwise to rely on this as an alternative to being open in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, PaulQ said:

Really ? I'll quote again what you wrote when I said it was "hassle"

 

It isn't hassle.

Scenario:

Insurer "Hi, why didn't you tell us your car was a Category D repaired insurance write off?"

Driver "I don't know what the hell you are talking about"

Insurer "Your car was previously a Category D total loss and you didn't tell us"

Driver "How am I supposed to know that?"

 

Wouldn't have any legs in court if the issuer tried to refuse a claim, as there would be substantial reasonable doubt.

 I imagine a court would ask why the insurer didn't know from there outset, as it is information they had access to at the point of taking a premium.

That's the context of why they wouldn't refuse a claim and why it wouldn't go to court - it would be ridiculous.  The whole reason i posted that was the talk in the posts before about court.

 

Just go back to page 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, cj225 said:

That's the context of why they wouldn't refuse a claim and why it wouldn't go to court - it would be ridiculous.  The whole reason i posted that was the talk in the posts before about court.

 

Just go back to page 2

What on earth are you talking about ?

Court was never even mentioned in any of the posts before yours.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, PaulQ said:

What on earth are you talking about ?

Court was never even mentioned in any of the posts before yours.

 

Look at Glyns post on page 2 near the top.

 

This thread is getting odd

Edited by cj225

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×