You do if you pay monthly, I am looking at my credit file now and I can see my car insurance listed.
Insurer back charging me £1000+
- Thread starter NVP
- Start date
You do if you pay monthly, I am looking at my credit file now and I can see my car insurance listed.
The potential risk for back charging the past year where nothing has been claimed is zero. Nobody is asking for a full refund - I'm not sure where you're going with that. He paid a premium based on the risk disclosed, even though it was the wrong disclosure and risk. No risks presented, no claim was made.
Back charging suggests the insurer is going to back insure the past year on the risks that have now been disclosed. Risks that are known to be zero - no claims took place. The only possible cost could be for claims that are yet to present during this period, which would doubtless be denied by the insurer's terms stating that that was incorrect disclosure and that the policy is subsequently void.
I refer you to my other post.
I'm sorry, I thought I was referring to something that goes on a credit file that isn't "only added when you take out a credit agreement".
I didn't realise that in doing so it would also entail posting the full administrative process. I presume a timeline would also be necessary?
It's not the same sort of thing though, the courts can apply it through legal process. A company can't add entries to your credit file for "debts" that haven't been obtained credit agreements just because they believe you owe them money. They can get into serious trouble if they do things like that.
Which is the point I'm making.
Argue that with the entire motor insurance industry and the FCA then because they disagree with you.
A claim can arise years down the line, I got a letter asking for 5.5k back in 2012 for a minor bump that occurred in 2009 because some ambulance chaser had convinced the woman I nudged that she was injured. My insurer at the time covered it and I was no longer insured with them, a single phone call and it was dealt with as I was still covered for that time period in that vehicle.
I might be missing some of the details on this one as most people paid up and given that it's been a few years my memory is probably a bit sketchy.
You're right. A company can't. They have to go to court and get a CCJ against you.
Except The_Abyss whilst a bit loose in his phrasing is referring to where no accident has taken place.
If a claim does arise from an accident and your policy has been voided, they can come after you for the full amount of the claim (not just the extra you would have paid with correct disclosure).
Policies are voided all the time at claim stage and I haven't seen an insurer pursue third party costs from the person it was claimed against.
They won't void the policy, if they do they have to issue a full refund, done that a few times and got some serious verbal abuse.
If the consumer pays in one lump sum no credit agreement is entered into and a company would need to obtain a CCJ for it be recorded on your credit file.
If the consumer pays monthly then they entered into a credit agreement and an insurance company wouldn't need to go down the CCJ. route.
They won't void the policy, if they do they have to issue a full refund, done that a few times and got some serious verbal abuse.
Actually it depends on the level of non-disclosure.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/6/schedule/1/enacted
See clauses 2 and 5.
Also returning premiums and avoiding any future claims isn't a bad thing. Unsurprisingly you'll find people lying with their details actually do have a higher likelihood of having a late injury claim get reported.
Last edited:
A lot of people just assume that any debt = credit file entry for not paying it
I know...
Which is my point, a company can't just make entries on your credit file for "debts" that they believe you owe, and to get a CCJ they have to get a court to agree that there is a debt and that you owe it. In the case of situations where there isn't any credit, this is going to be difficult to unlikely when it comes it. But then you only get a registed CCJ if they find in the company's favour and you still refuse to pay.
Yeah, which I said above, you have to be really naughty to get it voided, if it was multiple Drink drive bans it'd get voided as they would probably not have covered him in the first place.
If you cancel your insurance direct debit on month 9 but leave it running until half way through month 11 then it remains unpaid, if he just cancels the DD but not the policy then surely this is the case?
I can see my insurance policies on my file along with my mobile contract, if I just stop paying them you say it'll not record I missed payments?
I see the point you're making there, and hadn't considered that claims could manifest years after the original policy was written. But surely in that instance the liability, as always, remains with the individual. If the claim was made during period which the individual had since disclosed that there were additional risk factors to consider, the insurer would not cover these liabilities under the prevailing policy at the time - non-disclosure of risks, and the individual is liable.
There are two options for a claim during the period of insurance where there is insufficient disclosure, using this example: the insurer re-insures the original period using the new risk factors and the policy holder pays the increased premium (which is the closest thing we have to the OP's original post) or the insurer denies responsibility for the claim and it subsequently needs to be met by the individual alone.
The insurer in the OP's instance appears to be suggesting that there's only one option. I believe there's another, with all the liability falling upon him / her as a result of the non-disclosure.
Interesting either way.
There are two options for a claim during the period of insurance where there is insufficient disclosure, using this example: the insurer re-insures the original period using the new risk factors and the policy holder pays the increased premium (which is the closest thing we have to the OP's original post) or the insurer denies responsibility for the claim and it subsequently needs to be met by the individual alone.
The insurer in the OP's instance appears to be suggesting that there's only one option. I believe there's another, with all the liability falling upon him / her as a result of the non-disclosure.
Interesting either way.
The insurer remains liable under the road traffic act and has to pay out in the same way that if I barry my car up to the point they wouldn't have covered it and if they do void the policy they still have to pay out to the third party but would then have to recover the costs from me. They wouldn't have to cover my claim for my own car in this instance though.
A case of someone in a barried up Corsa mowing someone down at a zebra crossing springs to mind, I spent a good 30 mins getting screamed at by his dad who insisted he was going to tell us about all the modifications next week as they had only just been fitted (he also tried to claim she jumped on his sons bonnet), such an amusing conversation. We wanted quite a lot of money back on that one iirc.
Probably preferable to pay up in any way as it'll likely cost more to insure in future disclosing voided policies on top of the SP50.
If we all got the cheapest policies by not disclosing information (or giving false details) on the basis that if there was a claim we would be liable for the costs of the claim, then that wouldnt actually qualify as insurance. Therefore Iamzod is correct - it has to be this way, and the OP is going to be out of pocket.