Cat D insurers

[PaulQ]

2 hours ago, A-Plan Insurance said:

‘Insurance is set up on a basis of utmost good faith, which is a duty to voluntarily disclose, accurately and fully, all facts material to the risk being proposed, whether requested or not.’ (2016-2017 CII Insurance Legal and Regulatory)
 

Apparantly not according to many on this thread..............

[EXY]

25 minutes ago, PaulQ said:

Apparantly not according to many on this thread..............

So it would seem

I am with Paul on this one, total honesty.

Imagine having a big off at the ring and having your insurance invalidated because you did NOT think to mention your car was a Cat C/D just to save a few quid or be a clever Todger. Makes me shiver just thinking about it

I often wonder how the twunts in this world sleep at night!

[cj225]

29 minutes ago, EXY said:

So it would seem

I am with Paul on this one, total honesty.

Imagine having a big off at the ring and having your insurance invalidated because you did NOT think to mention your car was a Cat C/D just to save a few quid or be a clever Todger. Makes me shiver just thinking about it

I often wonder how the twunts in this world sleep at night!

 

Again, missing the point.    What if you had your insurance invalidated because the previous private seller didn't (because they don't have to) mention your car was a Category D?   

It's not about lying, or with-holding information.

 

Imagine if your insurance was invalidated because your insurer decided that they didn't insure drivers who have dogs.   

 

 

If it's that important, the insurance should be required to tell you.   It's their database.

[cj225]

Not to be a pain here, and it'll sound bad because you are a rep of an insurer, and I'm not, but...

3 hours ago, A-Plan Insurance said:

When a vehicle is written off the insurer at the time of total loss would have destroyed the log book. The owner of the vehicle that retained the salvage would have had to request a new log book from DVLA, to re-register the vehicle with DVLA as a Cat C or D. (https://www.gov.uk/scrapped-and-written-off-vehicles/insurance-writeoffs)

This isn't strictly true.  This will only occur if the insurer claims the vehicle as part of the settlement.  In the even that the owner opts to purchase the car (the 'salvage') back, the logbook will remain in the possession of the owner, and even the MOT is still valid for a Category D write off.

I know in the past that a Cat C would have the logbook surrendered and you'd need a VIC to be able to reapply for a logbook, but that was scrapped a 12 months ago and I don't know if the above will now apply to a Cat C car too.

In the past I have bought cars from auction, been given the V5C slip, and only then when applying for a logbook was I told that the car was a write off.  That's from a car auction company (in Ellesmere Port) that actually charged you £30 for a 'Equifax check' (yet never picked up on the ones that were actually write offs...).  They also once sold me (very briefly) a 206 in the auction that I checked myself, as I found lots of filler, and it turned out it was a Cat A write off!  No typo, it had been written off at a week old as Cat A and somehow ended up back on the road!   (anecdotally, they also sold me a 306 Cab that turned out to be outstanding stolen, which the insurer then decided to write off when I reported it out of honesty.  I wouldn't recommend the said company if they are still running).

 

In that time I had insured (but not driven, as they stayed in the compound) both cars in good faith, and at no time did the insurer ask, or inform me if the car was on any register.

 

 

 

After all, it's their (as collective members and administrators) register.   Why aren't the insurers volunteering this information?

[bagss2]

45 minutes ago, EXY said:

Imagine having a big off at the ring and having your insurance invalidated because you did NOT think to mention your car was a Cat C/D just to save a few quid or be a clever Todger. Makes me shiver just thinking about it

Vast majority of insurers specifically exclude th'Nurburgring in their small-print, so if you do have a 'big off' it's just you and your credit card... 

 

Cheers, Baggers.

[EXY]

14 hours ago, cj225 said:

 

Again, missing the point.    What if you had your insurance invalidated because the previous private seller didn't (because they don't have to) mention your car was a Category D?   

It's not about lying, or with-holding information.

 

Imagine if your insurance was invalidated because your insurer decided that they didn't insure drivers who have dogs.   

 

 

If it's that important, the insurance should be required to tell you.   It's their database.

I think the POINT is that Paul DOES know it is Cat  rated.

If on the other hand you happen to be a useless stupid gormless Twunt and don't k is one end of your ar*e from the other and everything is always someone else's fault, well then that's OK then

[EXY]

14 hours ago, bagss2 said:

Vast majority of insurers specifically exclude th'Nurburgring in their small-print, so if you do have a 'big off' it's just you and your credit card... 

 

Cheers, Baggers.

I was referring to someone who planned on racing round the ring AND had cover in place

Vast amount of UK insurers don't cover track days either! Yet most on here WILL be covered.

[cj225]

5 hours ago, EXY said:

I think the POINT is that Paul DOES know it is Cat  rated.

If on the other hand you happen to be a useless stupid gormless Twunt and don't k is one end of your ar*e from the other and everything is always someone else's fault, well then that's OK then

If you know your car is on the insurance register, fair enough.  The point is, not many people would know, and even HPI use that statement in their marketing.  Because of this, is it fair that those who don't know would be punished by voided insurance?  No.  If you've never HPI'd (or equiv) your car, and purchased it in good faith from a private seller, it doesn't make you an inferior person.

 

The additional point is that at absolutely no time during the process of buying insurance will you get asked this question.  If you don't get asked, and especially if the form or person doesn't say "Do you know any additional details about your car that you haven't disclosed", then at what point is the insuree doing anything wrong?  For answering questions they weren't asked? (Also, at what point is a non-car person going to know anything about what 'Cat D' means?  You only have to search on google for such a term to see hoards of people on sites like 'Mums Net' who are oblivious to such terms.  )

More to the point, it's not a question at all - as the insurer has the database to know, and in theory all they would be doing is testing your knowledge.  Hardly fair to do so, as it's essentially leaving the validity of a policy down to a persons word.   It would be much better for an insurer to flag such issues up when quoting or insuring a car - however, we know this won't happen, as the ABI apparently sell this data and wouldn't want to give it away for free.  Surely the fact that car sales sites such as Motors.co.uk and AutoTrader are doing this gratis is an indication that the insurers need to roll with the times though.

 

I don't see why you're being so blatantly (and unnecessarily) abusive about this.  "useless stupid gormless Twunt and don't k is one end of your ar*e from the other and everything is always someone else's fault" doesn't exactly read well, and the way you're throwing it about makes it personal.   It makes it look like you're not open minded about opinions that aren't your own.

 

At the end of the day, no one on here has told anyone to lie, nor has anyone said they have (or plan to) buy misrepresented insurance.   The biggest point which is being missed (when you say 'dishonest') is this:

How can a person be classified as a liar (dishonest) when they've neither been asked, nor have answered a question?

[PaulQ]

 I'm surprised noone has mentioned the insurance act after what A-Plan wrote yesterday.

 

 

 

[cj225]

10 minutes ago, PaulQ said:

 I'm surprised noone has mentioned the insurance act after what A-Plan wrote yesterday.

Because it's not worth the words it is comprised of, legally speaking.  It's a catch all, and so vague that it isn't useful.   The relevant governing bodies elaborate on this to the point where it makes it clear why it's daft.

 

I worked as an insurance policy quality assessor before moving to the South, so I'm not talking out of my ar*e, but as my opinion clearly isn't sufficient, I will elaborate a little.

 

 

To start, just a bit of contrast as to the "if you don't volunteer information, you're dishonest" thing - does anyone who owns a dog ever get asked by the insurer?  Do they disclose that the dog goes in the car?

If not, they must be dishonest (judging by some of the replies) and their insurance must be void.   If this seems hyperbolic, it isn't - it's just subjective.  It's actually plausible that having an un-tethered animal in the vehicle would pose more of a risk than a car which has MOT and is fully roadworthy, but once had a scratch on the bumper.

You could take it further, and question:

- Should a non-standard CD player (or entertainment unit) should be declared as a modification.  

- Or non-standard mats, as these could obstruct the pedals (if not manufacturer approved for that vehicle) and cause an accident.  

- Non-original equipment tyres should be declared, as cheap tyres may increase stopping distances and road handling detrimentally.  

- If you use a SatNav in the windscreen, this would fail and MOT and could distract the driver.  Should this be declared when obtaining a quote?

 

Whilst I personally believe the above is more plausible as material factors of risk, the real truth behind what A-Plan quoted is defined by the FOS as:

"A "material" fact is one which would influence an underwriter when they were deciding whether to accept the risk, and the terms and conditions that should apply. If a customer fails to disclose (or misrepresents) a material fact and this induces the insurer to accept the proposed risk, the legal remedy is to "avoid" the policy. This means the insurer is entitled to treat the policy as though it never existed. Unless fraud is involved, the insurer will normally return the premium and will not pay out on any claim made under the policy."

 

So, in order to legally justify what is a material fact, it would need to be stated as such within the policy conditions.  Norwich Union (now Aviva) used to do that, and I think most insurers should still do, as they say things like if you're a "celebrity", professional sportsperson or journalist then you wouldn't be able to obtain a quote.

 

For sake of a loosey goosey statement though, the ABI initially stated "insurers should ask clear questions about facts they considered material" (i.e. not establish a voiding statement and rely on the uninformed party to endorse it).   This again changed in 2005 when the ICOB was brought in.

Rule 7.3.6 of the ICOB states:

Quote

 

an insurer must not:

1 - unreasonably reject a claim made by a customer;

2 - except where there is evidence of fraud, refuse to meet a claim made by a retail customer on the grounds:

     - of non-disclosure of a fact material to the risk that the retail customer could not reasonably be expected to have disclosed;

     - of misrepresentation of a fact material to the risk, unless the misrepresentation is negligent

 

The above points are particularly relevant to the discussion, as per my points, as per "the retail customer could not reasonably be expected to have disclosed".  This would depend the circumstances, but as insurance companies fully facilitate online quotes and the purchase of insurance online, based on the information provided (as that's what you check), then it would be quite difficult for an insurer to provide that a retail customer should have been expected to disclose this.

 

For referenceable clarity, however, ICOB 4.3 states:

Quote

In relation to ICOB 4.3.2(3), an insurance intermediary should make clear to the customer what the customer needs to disclose. For example, in relation to private medical insurance, this could include any existing medical condition where relevant, or in relation to motor insurance, any modifications carried out to the vehicle.

 

 

So, in the event of an insurer making out this is an issue that would void a policy, you'd simply escalate a complaint to the FOS, whose guidelines are:

Quote

 

Taking account of the law and good industry practice, we approach non-disclosure/misrepresentation cases in three stages. We summarise these three stages below, before describing each one in a little more detail.

1 - When the customer sought insurance, did the insurer ask a clear question about the matter which is now under dispute-

2 - Did the answer to that clear question induce the insurer; that is, did it influence the insurer’s decision to enter into the contract at all, or to do so under terms and conditions that it otherwise would not have accepted-

3 - Only if the answers to both (1) and (2) are "yes", do we go on to consider whether the customer’s misrepresentation was an honest mistake, a dishonest attempt to mislead or due to some degree of negligence.

 

 

So, in this case, the answer to (1) would be "No", as the insurer did not ask the question (unless they suddenly start doing so, which they probably should).  Insurer would have no justification to refuse a claim.

[T24RES]

I enjoyed reading that,  thank you @cj225

[cj225]

1 minute ago, T24RES said:

I enjoyed reading that,  thank you @cj225

No problems.

The FSA is a really informative source of information.   If you wanted to explore this particular subject more, this link is useful:

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/misrepresentation-and-non-disclosure.htm

 

You'll see some additional points that were too long (I know!) for my other reply, especially under "what doesn't need to be disclosed", especially with respect to "information that we decide the insurer should reasonably be expected to know" (taking into account whose register the total losses are on...).

[cj225]

Just to add to this, I've just checked and the numbering is out of date for the ICOB references (7.3.6 is now pretty much the whole of section 8.1).  Information is still the same, but they've now padded the ICOB with references to e-commerce, distance selling, and some PPI-related fallout (establishing sufficient suitability, advised sales etc.)

If you're having trouble sleeping... https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/ICOBS.pdf

[Stuart21UK]

5 hours ago, cj225 said:

The FSA is a really informative source of information.  Unless you call them and ask for specific guidance and then they tell you to read pdf's containing hundreds of pages of unclear information (or refer to the online manuals that are just as bad), things still not being clear, as an alternative they suggest you take legal advice (from whom, who knows!)

corrected for accuracy (BTW they've been the FCA for a few years now (think they got sick of being mixed up with the Food Standards Agency)

 

Having read the thread with one eye stuck closed (need to go to bed..) I think the bottom line is if it's 'material' and you knew it, then you should disclose it...

Ultimately insurance is generally taken to reassure you that should the worst happen then you will be covered, it makes no sense not to state something that may be a material fact (if you are aware of it) and then worry that you may not be covered in the event of a claim...

[cj225]

5 hours ago, boxsternoob56 said:

Having read the thread with one eye stuck closed (need to go to bed..) I think the bottom line is if it's 'material' and you knew it, then you should disclose it...

Essentially, the governing bodies wouldn't look at it that way.

Their stance is "if it is material, the insurer should be asking about it".

 

The fact that they don't must mean:

- they don't care, or;

- they are negligently handling insurance sales

 

The category status is irrelevant to all but value, as these cars as held to the same standard as any other on the road (MOT).  By the logic of considering this "material", I would counter that anyone who doesn't disclose the full condition of their vehicle is equally at fault, as you can have a non category write off that still looks like Father Ted's raffle Montego

 

[Stuart21UK]

But it is relevant if it affects value....

[Jimmymack]

Another thing that has recently changed is that Insurers are now asking if you have attended driver awareness courses, this is obviously people were choosing to go on  a course than pick up points. The only reason for the insurers asking this must be to load your premium the same way they would if you disclosed points.

I'm thinking that Insurers cannot find out if someone has attended such a course themselves.

Speed awareness courses are "designed" to retrain the driver and make them a better driver, this flies in the face of insurers who load the premium siting that you are a higher risk. Police obviously see them as a slap on the wrist for someone who has erred, but not badly. 

Apparently 1.2m drivers were offered a speed awareness course in 2015, in monetary terms, if they took the points then the premium loading for a first offence (3 points) is around 12%, the average insurance premium in the UK is £520, 12% of this is @£62, if you multiply that by 1.2m then the insurers could have just earned themselves an additional £74,400,000.

No wonder they are all asking the question now, and who will choose to go on a course if penalty avoidance is their main objective?

 

[cj225]

7 hours ago, boxsternoob56 said:

But it is relevant if it affects value....

 

Dents, scrapes and overall condition affects value too.  Perhaps more so than something on V Car.  Even more so with 'unrecorded' salvage.

 

Like I said, if it is important and material, it is down to the insurer to disclose it (especially from a regulatory point of view).

[Stuart21UK]

3 hours ago, cj225 said:

 

Dents, scrapes and overall condition affects value too.  Perhaps more so than something on V Car.  Even more so with 'unrecorded' salvage.

 

Like I said, if it is important and material, it is down to the insurer to disclose it (especially from a regulatory point of view).

Bottom line is the intelligent person would check anything that may need disclosing, only the fool would rely on the premise that 'if they didn't ask then it doesn't matter'...then risk non-payout in the event of a claim OR if we use your advice, have to pursue the 'large' insurance company via FOS or the courts because they failed to pay out...

Surely asking the question (of the insurer) is easy enough at proposal (does it matter the car is Cat D?)...if they say yes then you go elsewhere and if not you have effectively disclosed and have nothing to worry about....

The regulator/FOS shouldn't come into this argument its just common sense to ask the question (for an obvious potential disclosable event whereas a scratched alloy is not really the same thing is it really?!) so as not to leave yourself with the worry of non-payout (and fight in the future as a result).

I dont need you to post a response, as I am pretty sure you will disagree with me, that being the case lets just assume you accepted my view and move on  .

 

[cj225]

4 minutes ago, boxsternoob56 said:

Bottom line is the intelligent person would check anything that may need disclosing, only the fool would rely on the premise that 'if they didn't ask then it doesn't matter'...then risk non-payout in the event of a claim OR if we use your advice, have to pursue the 'large' insurance company via FOS or the courts because they failed to pay out...

Surely asking the question (of the insurer) is easy enough at proposal (does it matter the car is Cat D?)...if they say yes then you go elsewhere and if not you have effectively disclosed and have nothing to worry about....

The regulator/FOS shouldn't come into this argument its just common sense to ask the question (for an obvious potential disclosable event whereas a scratched alloy is not really the same thing is it really?!) so as not to leave yourself with the worry of non-payout (and fight in the future as a result).

I dont need you to post a response, as I am pretty sure you will disagree with me, that being the case lets just assume you accepted my view and move on  .

 

 

It wasn't advice to "not disclose".   It's a discussion about how insurance works, and how most companies will try and blame the policyholder for not doing their job for them.

 

It's wrong that insurance companies try to worm out of honouring a contract.  If something is material, it is their responsibility.  That's why the regulator is there, and offers clear advice (something many people, even insurance brokers apparently aren't aware of).

Nothing to do with being 'intelligent' or not.  It's shocking how some of you lot think people who don't share you opinion are inferior.

[cj225]

I will also add that any time I ask a sensible question to explore your points of view, you gloss over it with the same unsupported opinion.  Why try and have a debate if you're not capable of discussion?

[Stuart21UK]

...at no point have you acknowledged my opinion as valid, so why would I do the same in return?

All I have seen is you quote chapter and verse on a 'them and us' basis, the way I read your posts is that you have a serious chip on your shoulder with insurance companies. 

Maybe you should just be upfront, ask if something needs disclosing and have a less stressful life, oh and try and take cover from a reputable firm that doesn't try to get out of paying in the first place...

The regulator is an ass (if you still work in the industry you will already know this) and the Ombudsman can take a view either way too....no-one in their right mind should enter into a legal contract of any sort where they are not sure of the conditions

So I repeat, is it not easier to ask and not to worry, irrespective of FCA regulations or otherwise (which are often non-prescriptive anyway and open to interpretation)?

[cj225]

32 minutes ago, boxsternoob56 said:

...at no point have you acknowledged my opinion as valid, so why would I do the same in return?

All I have seen is you quote chapter and verse on a 'them and us' basis, the way I read your posts is that you have a serious chip on your shoulder with insurance companies. 

Maybe you should just be upfront, ask if something needs disclosing and have a less stressful life, oh and try and take cover from a reputable firm that doesn't try to get out of paying in the first place...

The regulator is an ass (if you still work in the industry you will already know this) and the Ombudsman can take a view either way too....no-one in their right mind should enter into a legal contract of any sort where they are not sure of the conditions

So I repeat, is it not easier to ask and not to worry, irrespective of FCA regulations or otherwise (which are often non-prescriptive anyway and open to interpretation)?

 

Because it isn't valid - by creating a product that relies on voluntary information that is not legally allowed to affect the use of the policy, you create a system that punishes policyholders based on random factors.  That's wrong on many levels.

 

When the insurance industry has created a system that is supposed to be robust, where you obtain a quote for, and purchase, a policy online.  There is no opporunity to 'ask', nor is there a need to 'worry'.   The contract is established and the terms are clear.  What you are doing is suggesting that everyone should try and guess what the insurer might need to know, like a game.  

 

As I said before, there are a large proportion of drivers who don't know the history of their vehicle, so shouldn't (and aren't) expected to know.  100% of insurers know the history of your vehicle.  Where is the fairness.

What you and the others keep clinging onto is the paradigm of someone knowing (that the insurers need the information) and not disclosing through some sort of deception, which is a straw man argument.

 

So, my questions are:

 

1) If the insurance companies have easy access to know whether your car is on the insurance register, and they consider that it might affect the policy, then why do they not ask the question?  It's completely within their abilities, so perhaps that should be the issue you focus your energy on, not blaming customers or calling them stupid and/or suggesting they are inferior.

2) As you consider that all material facts should be disclosed without being prompted, I assume you disclose (when asking for a quote):

- Whether any children under 16 will ever go in the vehicle (not just whether you have any kids)
- Any scratches, dents or marks on the vehicle which you think might affect the value of the car
- Whether you have a dashcam or satnav fitted which may obstruct the view out of the swept area of the windsceen
- Your current tyre tread depths
- Whether you take hands free calls whilst driving
- Zunsport grilles as a 'modification'

 

Where do you stop?  What's next, providing your hair colour for life insurance quotes 'just in case', declaring hereditary hair loss as a long term health condition?

 

 

I've asked these already and been ignored, so to bring them into context, is it easier to ask and not worry?  Only if you know.  But based on the above, how far do you go?  The over arching point is that you're not supposed to be the one making up the questions - they are.  Anything they don't ask is considered to not be material to the risk.

 

As another member mentioned above, should all drivers be mentioning if they have ever been on speed awareness courses when the insurer asks how many points they have?   Would it be acceptable for an insurer to refuse a claim because of this, if they never bothered to ask, simply stating "you're obviously an unintelligent foolish twunt for not telling us about that thing we didn't ask about".

 

[EXY]

On 01/11/2016 at 3:17 PM, cj225 said:

If you know your car is on the insurance register, fair enough.  The point is, not many people would know, and even HPI use that statement in their marketing.  Because of this, is it fair that those who don't know would be punished by voided insurance?  No.  If you've never HPI'd (or equiv) your car, and purchased it in good faith from a private seller, it doesn't make you an inferior person.

 

The additional point is that at absolutely no time during the process of buying insurance will you get asked this question.  If you don't get asked, and especially if the form or person doesn't say "Do you know any additional details about your car that you haven't disclosed", then at what point is the insuree doing anything wrong?  For answering questions they weren't asked? (Also, at what point is a non-car person going to know anything about what 'Cat D' means?  You only have to search on google for such a term to see hoards of people on sites like 'Mums Net' who are oblivious to such terms.  )

More to the point, it's not a question at all - as the insurer has the database to know, and in theory all they would be doing is testing your knowledge.  Hardly fair to do so, as it's essentially leaving the validity of a policy down to a persons word.   It would be much better for an insurer to flag such issues up when quoting or insuring a car - however, we know this won't happen, as the ABI apparently sell this data and wouldn't want to give it away for free.  Surely the fact that car sales sites such as Motors.co.uk and AutoTrader are doing this gratis is an indication that the insurers need to roll with the times though.

 

I don't see why you're being so blatantly (and unnecessarily) abusive about this.  "useless stupid gormless Twunt and don't k is one end of your ar*e from the other and everything is always someone else's fault" doesn't exactly read well, and the way you're throwing it about makes it personal.   It makes it look like you're not open minded about opinions that aren't your own.

 

At the end of the day, no one on here has told anyone to lie, nor has anyone said they have (or plan to) buy misrepresented insurance.   The biggest point which is being missed (when you say 'dishonest') is this:

How can a person be classified as a liar (dishonest) when they've neither been asked, nor have answered a question?

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.

[Glyn]

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.