Cat D insurers

[Araf]

1 minute ago, cj225 said:

This thread is getting odd

I can't believe it still has legs.

It started as an interesting debate, but now people are so entrenched in their views, that neither side will change their opinion and it really doesn't matter one way or the other.  Those that will volunteer information will carry on doing so, and those who only answer direct questions will continue in the same vein.

 

We're all different and life goes on.

[PaulQ]

7 minutes ago, cj225 said:

Look at Glyns post on page 2 near the top.

 

This thread is getting odd

I just did, there is nothing.

Getting odd ?...........think we are well past that

 

[PaulQ]

2 minutes ago, Araf said:

I can't believe it still has legs.

It started as an interesting debate, but now people are so entrenched in their views, that neither side will change their opinion and it really doesn't matter one way or the other.  Those that will volunteer information will carry on doing so, and those who only answer direct questions will continue in the same vein.

 

We're all different and life goes on.

That pretty much sums it up Ian

 

[cj225]

On 19/10/2016 at 7:24 PM, Glyn said:

I change my insurance every year - usually the lowest cost, I'm in that sector that want to be legal, If they don't pay out when needed then quite happy to take them to court for breach of contract or unfair contract terms, negligence - indeed whatever I can throw at them.

 

1 hour ago, PaulQ said:

I just did, there is nothing.

Getting odd ?...........think we are well past that

 

See the above quote.  

At the end of the day, when you've seen how nasty insurance companies can be, and when you've had to follow their guidance to deny claims for things that are not the policyholder's fault, you tend not to side on their legally unenforceable misselling. 

 

If you answer every question they ask fully and honestly, that's as much as should be expected.  If these things are an issue, they should be asking/providing. Makes no sense not to.

 

[PaulQ]

11 minutes ago, cj225 said:

See the above quote.  

At the end of the day, when you've seen how nasty insurance companies can be, and when you've had to follow their guidance to deny claims for things that are not the policyholder's fault, you tend not to side on their legally unenforceable misselling. 

Thanks missed that one.

I fully agree with the points you are making..........the only difference being I would tell them about the cat status, same as Glyn.

 

[PaulQ]

3 hours ago, Jon61 said:

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.

Thanks for the information Jon

 

[Stuart21UK]

5 hours ago, Jon61 said:

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.

this is exactly it...

[Stuart21UK]

3 hours ago, PaulQ said:

Thanks missed that one.

I fully agree with the points you are making..........the only difference being I would tell them about the cat status, same as Glyn.

 

I think we all need to accept that CJ has an 'anti' insurance company view (as inferred in his last post) and nothing anyone can say is going to make him realise that its simply common sense (for some of us) to disclose something you actually know may affect a future claim, to check, so it does not give rise to future issues rather than just playing dumb and answering the questions asked (then relying on the Ombudsman service or court as necessary).

...and of course on the subject of Ombudsman (not the FSA/FCA as he keeps implying), before they will look at it, the insured needs to have gone through the Insurer's own complaints procedure (up to 8 weeks)..and after that the Ombudsman does not make an immediate ruling either...demonstration of why its just easier, if you know or are worried about something just to ask the question at insurance proposal time..save yourself the grief..

BTW reference to 'odd scrapes' comparably having to be declared (and whether I own a dog, did you say too?!) etc is just ridiculous CJ...if I have a kerbed alloy then it's not important i.e. the value of the car is negligibly affected by it when compared to it being Cat D (assuming you knew it was, as you can only declare what you knew).

[cj225]

36 minutes ago, boxsternoob56 said:

I think we all need to accept that CJ has an 'anti' insurance company view (as inferred in his last post) and nothing anyone can say is going to make him realise that its simply common sense (for some of us) to disclose something you actually know may affect a future claim, to check, so it does not give rise to future issues rather than just playing dumb and answering the questions asked (then relying on the Ombudsman service or court as necessary).

...and of course on the subject of Ombudsman (not the FSA/FCA as he keeps implying), before they will look at it, the insured needs to have gone through the Insurer's own complaints procedure (up to 8 weeks)..and after that the Ombudsman does not make an immediate ruling either...demonstration of why its just easier, if you know or are worried about something just to ask the question at insurance proposal time..save yourself the grief..

BTW reference to 'odd scrapes' comparably having to be declared (and whether I own a dog, did you say too?!) etc is just ridiculous CJ...if I have a kerbed alloy then it's not important i.e. the value of the car is negligibly affected by it when compared to it being Cat D (assuming you knew it was, as you can only declare what you knew).

You're acting like your simply looking for a reason with this and don't seem capable of an objective view (as indicated by the passive aggressive nature of your posts).  Regardless, I'll rise above that and assume you're not..

 

If they don't ask the question (especially on an online form) it cannot be considered as material information.  In no circumstances, not at all.   It would be pretty damn difficult for an insurer to prove you knew, and or that they clearer stated they needed to know (as asking the question would be enough, but they don't!).  It's not enough to simply say "if you don't tell us something then we can cancel your cover" unless you have provided false information or otherwise incorrectly answered a question. 

The reality is, insurers seldom care (not at all, in my experience) and simply adjust the value of the vehicle to suit.  For the 10,0000th time you've ignored it, the point I've made is not "don't tell them if you know", but "why aren't they asking if they need to know".

 

 

I think it's perfectly considered material as to whether you own a dog or any bodywork damage.  I don't know why you've quoted "odd scrapes" as what I actually said was "Dents, scrapes and overall condition affects value too" - so not 'odd scrapes', but overall condition.   I'm sure you'd value your car much higher than one with a bad respray, full of filler, scratched all over and dog chewed/scratched seats - and not negligibly either.  Perhaps even more so than a Cat D car.    

Think about the value of these two - Both black 981s on the quote, both not written off, but in different condition...

 

If the one of the left was in an accident, the insurer would pay out on the assumption it looked like the one on the right, no?  That would be quite fraudulent, surely?

 

With this in mind if someone joined the forum with a ropey Boxster, would you ask if they'd voluntarily told the insurance they had a poor example?  If no, would you label them as a "useless gormless twunt"?

 

What about current mileage?  Insurers never ask for the vehicle mileage, but do you voluntarily quote your odometer to the insurer?  a 200k mile 10 plate Boxster would be worth at least half that of a 40k one.

 

 

If you're going to take a view, you can't make it selective to suit your opinion - at least with a Cat C/Cat D car, it's possible for an owner not to be aware of these - no one can claim ignorance for having a higher mileage or beaten up car.

[Stuart21UK]

5 minutes ago, cj225 said:

You're acting like your simply looking for a reason with this and don't seem capable of an objective view (as indicated by the passive aggressive nature of your posts).  Regardless, I'll rise above that and assume you're not..

If they don't ask the question (especially on an online form) it cannot be considered as material information.  In no circumstances, not at all.   It would be pretty damn difficult for an insurer to prove you knew, and or that they clearer stated they needed to know (as asking the question would be enough, but they don't!).  It's not enough to simply say "if you don't tell us something then we can cancel your cover" unless you have provided false information or otherwise incorrectly answered a question. 

The reality is, insurers seldom care (not at all, in my experience) and simply adjust the value of the vehicle to suit.  For the 10,0000th time you've ignored it, the point I've made is not "don't tell them if you know", but "why aren't they asking if they need to know".

I think it's perfectly considered material as to whether you own a dog or any bodywork damage.  I don't know why you've quoted "odd scrapes" as what I actually said was "Dents, scrapes and overall condition affects value too" - so not 'odd scrapes', but overall condition.   I'm sure you'd value your car much higher than one with a bad respray, full of filler, scratched all over and dog chewed/scratched seats - and not negligibly either.  Perhaps even more so than a Cat D car.    

Think about the value of these two - Both black 981s on the quote, both not written off, but in different condition...

If the one of the left was in an accident, the insurer would pay out on the assumption it looked like the one on the right, no?  That would be quite fraudulent, surely?

With this in mind if someone joined the forum with a ropey Boxster, would you ask if they'd voluntarily told the insurance they had a poor example?  If no, would you label them as a "useless gormless twunt"?

What about current mileage?  Insurers never ask for the vehicle mileage, but do you voluntarily quote your odometer to the insurer?  a 200k mile 10 plate Boxster would be worth at least half that of a 40k one.

If you're going to take a view, you can't make it selective to suit your opinion - at least with a Cat C/Cat D car, it's possible for an owner not to be aware of these - no one can claim ignorance for having a higher mileage or beaten up car.

You accuse me of being passive agressive? Being incapable of an objective view? Having a selective view too?

You have done nothing more than repeat yourself about a dozen times (and completely fail any acknowledgement of anyone else's slightly opposing viewpoint) talk about pot, kettle, black...whereas if you re-read those posting against you they are not entirely disagreeing with your point about unfair contract terms etc (including me) just that it makes more sense to tell them something you have reasonable expectation that 'maybe' will affect acceptability to save YOU more hassle in the future if it did..

The examples you give are plain ridiculous...dog owner? minor scrapes? and wtf are the pictures above about? You know that this would constitute insurance fraud if you tried to claim for full value when you knew the car was damaged pre-accident...so why post it?

You know I'd like to have called you a ****** **** about 4 pages ago but I thought that would be a tad too aggressive, unfriendly, unnecessary and would probably get the thread locked or deleted, maybe I should have done so then at least we wouldnt have to listen to your constant inane drivel...

Oh and BTW its FCA not FSA and its the FOS who would take the complaint not the FSA/FSA...at least if you are going to pretend you know what you are talking about (from experience in your past working life, I assume)...get it right...you even argued about 'court action' for three posts when you mentioned it...

at least you gave me a reason to get PS out to play...

 

 

 

 

 

 

[cj225]

A predictable response.  0 questions answered, even in a reading comprehension suited to the attitude.  Why bother having a debate when you can throw passive aggressive comments and insults around... 

[Stuart21UK]

lol...what's hilarious is that you can't see that you do exactly what you accuse me of...it's not a debate if you repeat yourself 40 times 

 

[Bike Loon]

This still going? ??

[Araf]

4 hours ago, Bike Loon said:

This still going? ??

 I'm in for the long-haul now.  

[Jason986S]

Thank you for the entertainment whilst eating my lunch in subway. I've learnt little, but have been oddly entertained.

Would have been better to have witnessed this discussion with you folks in person over a pint! Gulp.

[cj225]

2 hours ago, Jason986S said:

Thank you for the entertainment whilst eating my lunch in subway. I've learnt little, but have been oddly entertained.

Would have been better to have witnessed this discussion with you folks in person over a pint! Gulp.

When someone can't make a point without throwing insults, it speaks volumes for their point (not you)

The problem is, a few are so busy frothing at the mouth that they can't see that they have built a straw man!

 

At no point has anyone in the thread suggested lying to an insurer.  The point I've been making is that it's just not practical for people to know (which has been interpreted as "blatantly lie").

 

The question has been "why don't they ask", which no one wants to acknowledge.

 

Worst of all is that there are posters who don't seem capable of reading a post to understand their point and yet are trolling in here like they've won a point that no one made!

 

Also, I've been asking why there are double standards on "you should tell an insurer everything you know even if they don't ask". Apparently this only applies to this topic, not other things which can significantly affect value (mileage and condition).

 

I'll wait patiently to be insulted again for no valid reason at all.....

 

[Stuart21UK]