Car Insurance Woes (Claim)

Morthoseth · 27 Mar 2013 at 17:01

As a preface to this, I have not read the small print, I am passing on a story second hand from my mother who has been in tears on the phone to MoreThan today.

Right, last week my brother who is a named driver on my parents policy for a car had a small collision on a roundabout on his way to work. He doesn't own a car, and thus hasn't had insurance on his own (He is 23, only just started work, so low income etc)

Now the guy he hit took his details, and made a claim as you would normally - and as my brother was under 25 the excess was going to be £600 and not the normal, lower amount - this was fair enough, and that was happily going to be paid.

Now my brother had a telephone call today to go through the incident, and said that the crash happened whilst he was on his way to work. Now as a result, they are trying to drop out of paying for anything at all - they say as he was commuting, the insurance would not cover him (as I said at the top of this post, it may well be clearly stated in the fine print, I have not read it personally).

As such if everything goes their way the whole bill (for their car, and the other drivers car) would go to us instead.

Has anybody else had a similar experience? I know there is a lot of animosity towards people being named drivers on policies rather than have policies of their own, but without a car (or room to keep one currently) he didn't really have very much choice.

If it makes any difference, the job he was travelling to was a one off - he works in Liverpool and takes the train on the days he works, this was for a separate company and happened only the once (it probably doesn't matter, but still)

Any advice welcome, I can pass it on.

Thanks

rodenal · 27 Mar 2013 at 17:06

If he can prove that he normally gets the train and this was just a one off type journey I doubt they will be able to stick to that line for long. Best read the t&c's like you say but this will just be the insurance co looking for an early out.

It's a bit like stating your car is garaged, when 9 times out of 10 it is - but the day you leave it out it's stolen, they would never get away with not paying out (unless you had no garage or your car didn't fit in it etc)

They are also obliged to cover the third party costs regardless of how they try and take the claim on your mothers car

Shad · 27 Mar 2013 at 17:32

rodenal said:
If he can prove that he normally gets the train and this was just a one off type journey I doubt they will be able to stick to that line for long. Best read the t&c's like you say but this will just be the insurance co looking for an early out.

It's a bit like stating your car is garaged, when 9 times out of 10 it is - but the day you leave it out it's stolen, they would never get away with not paying out (unless you had no garage or your car didn't fit in it etc)

Except what he should've done is contact the insurer before travelling to make sure he had business/commuting cover.

Matt82 · 27 Mar 2013 at 19:01

You need the policy doc.

This could get painful. Insurance co is a business, if there is a way they can avoid paying they'll be all over it

rodenal · 27 Mar 2013 at 21:47

Shad said:
Except what he should've done is contact the insurer before travelling to make sure he had business/commuting cover.

Should have, yes. But the insurer simply will not get away with refusing a claim for someone with no commuting cover who can prove they do not regularly use the car for commuting.

There is (at least taking the op at face value) no attempt to deceive or defraud here, insurers cannot remove cover or refuse a claim because a small mistake has been made on the part of the policyholder despite the fact they like put across the impression that this is the case.

Hades · 27 Mar 2013 at 21:52

rodenal said:
Should have, yes. But the insurer simply will not get away with refusing a claim for someone with no commuting cover who can prove they do not regularly use the car for commuting.

There is (at least taking the op at face value) no attempt to deceive or defraud here, insurers cannot remove cover or refuse a claim because a small mistake has been made on the part of the policyholder despite the fact they like put across the impression that this is the case.

Why is that? Surely if he's not insured to drive while communting then when commuting, even once, he's simply not insured?

Biohazard · 27 Mar 2013 at 22:01

You could try and find a previous case that has been brought forward to the ombudsman?

Shad · 27 Mar 2013 at 22:16

rodenal said:
But the insurer simply will not get away with refusing a claim for someone with no commuting cover who can prove they do not regularly use the car for commuting.

I wouldn't count on it! What if this was just day 1 of a new commuting regiment? What if the insurers take the view that the insured used public transport to commute because they knew they couldn't use the insured vehicle.

It might seem a bit harsh but I'd be surprised if they've got a leg to stand on unfortunately.

SGWills · 27 Mar 2013 at 22:17

sounds as though its his mother's insurance company trying to recover the cost back from you. The reason being is that the indemnity level for the insurance company would drop from fully contractual to RTA. An RTA insurer has the right to recover the cost from the driver. The reason for RTA is that although on cover the driver has breached his T&C, same as when you drink drive etc. So the insurance company would pay out for third party damages etc and then seek them back from the drive.

by saying it was a one time thing is difficult to prove or disprove that this is the case, whats to say in a few months time, he might 'need' to drive to work again?

If your looking at bringing the FOS in to the claim, i would recommend ringing the insurance company, explain he was not aware of restrictions of his use of vehicle and offer to include the cover to be correct straight away, update his occupation if you havent done so already and advise that you will pay the difference in premium for the policy if there is one, This will show that you have tried everything in your power to correct the policy.

It may work it may not, but that would be my advice, however downside is he has breached the T&C so the ball is more in the insurance company's court than his

RedMogg · 27 Mar 2013 at 22:40

Check policy docs before doing anything - most Social, Domestic & Pleasure cover includes commuting to a regular place of work, provided there is no further business use.
There are exceptions - Saga policies, budget insurers etc, but most mainstream insurers, covering people of working age, accept commuting as part of daily driving...
I would be more concerned that the insurer will also look into his use of the vehicle regarding being a named driver as opposed to the main driver. Be clear not to make out your folks were "fronting" the policy for him.
Best of luck!

Gribs · 27 Mar 2013 at 22:46

From the sounds of it it seems like the insurers think the policy is fronted. Is the car normally used by either of your parents to travel to their place of work? Do they have other cars?

Maccapacca · 27 Mar 2013 at 22:47

They should only recalculate the premium not invalidate the insurance unless they are trying to say they wouldn't cover commuting.

Morthoseth · 28 Mar 2013 at 07:02

My mother is the main driver on the policy and uses the car the most. They have a Mitsubishi Outlander and the policy holder is my dad, and a ford focus convertible and the policy holder is my mum.

As a random question, if you can't afford a car and insurance for yourself and are a named driver - how are you supposed to get to work? Avoid driving all together? The ironic thing being if he'd randomly decided to go on a jolly to London and the same thing happened it would be perfectly fine, its a shame driving isn't just counted as driving, really!

Thanks for the advice so far, i'll have a read of the policy doc soon :-)

rodenal · 28 Mar 2013 at 07:24

Shad said:
I wouldn't count on it! What if this was just day 1 of a new commuting regiment? What if the insurers take the view that the insured used public transport to commute because they knew they couldn't use the insured vehicle.

It might seem a bit harsh but I'd be surprised if they've got a leg to stand on unfortunately.

It's honestly unlikely, if this went as far as arbitration the first question that would be asked is "would the insurer have covered this driver for commuting?" If the answer is yes then they will not be looked on favourably for not simply adjusting the premium from what could conceivably be an error on the policy holders part. R.e using public transport because they can't use the car - simple come back to that is that it is not the named drivers car, therefore they don't use it to go to work.

If it went far enough for the policy holder to have to claim back through civil courts I honestly can't see the insurer coming out with a favourable verdict....unless there are other factors at play, i.e suspected fronting / other potentially fraudulent information or they simply wouldn't have covered that driver for commuting.

Gribs · 28 Mar 2013 at 12:57

Morthoseth said:
My mother is the main driver on the policy and uses the car the most. They have a Mitsubishi Outlander and the policy holder is my dad, and a ford focus convertible and the policy holder is my mum.

So do your parents just have two cars? If not you're going to a have a very hard time as it'll look like fronting if the accident involved a third car.

Jono8 · 28 Mar 2013 at 13:46

Morthoseth said:
My mother is the main driver on the policy and uses the car the most. They have a Mitsubishi Outlander and the policy holder is my dad, and a ford focus convertible and the policy holder is my mum.

So the accident was on a third car? What type age of vehicle was it? What is the third car for if they both have their own car anyway?

Black Dynamite · 28 Mar 2013 at 14:42

I would imagine it will be in the terms and conditions or statement of fact that were provided when the policy was taken out, so go through it carefully.

You can never trust an insurance company and if they can they'll avoid paying out. My sister had a claim a few years ago and they tried to take the cost of repairing the central reservation from the pay out for her car, which would have left her with next to nothing. I read her terms and conditions and in black and white it said something like "£10,000 cover for any damage to roads / central reservation etc".

Clearly trying to pull a fast one. My sister ended up kicking up a stink, claimed they were trying to commit fraud to make their money back and explained she would be making a complaint to the FSA. Then and only then did they admit their mistake and offer the full amount with a written apology so never take your insurance companies word for something, always challenge it!

Kick up a stink if they refuse, prove it was a one off and make it difficult for them. Really it all depends on what is said in the terms and conditions but if your brother isn't covered for commuting I can't see them backing down unfortunately.

Gribs said:
So do your parents just have two cars? If not you're going to a have a very hard time as it'll look like fronting if the accident involved a third car.

Also this.

Pestilence · 28 Mar 2013 at 14:43

Jono8 said:
So the accident was on a third car? What type age of vehicle was it? What is the third car for if they both have their own car anyway?

If that's the case... oh dear. They're gonna be all over you for Fronting (whether it's actually been the intention or not).

muon · 28 Mar 2013 at 18:42

edit: nvm, just saw the fronting issues.

Morthoseth · 28 Mar 2013 at 21:42

Not sure which part has been misinterpreted. There are two cars, the Outlander = Parents and myself insured (I also have my own car / fully comp). My mother owns the Focus and he is a named driver on that policy.

There is no third car, apologies for confusion - he does not own a car.

Car Insurance Woes (Claim)

Tea Drinker