Can an insurance company still make you pay for something you dont own anymore?

[dominatrix1]

I had my bike stolen and the insurance company found a technicality in the contract so they never paid out. I cancelled the direct debit. They have now threatend to get the bailiffs round to collect £96 of remaining payments to insure a bike I dont even own any more.

This cant be legal can it?

 

[Diddums]

Go on, tell us, what did you tell porkies about to get cheaper insurance?

 

[JohnnyG]

You cancelled the DD but not the insurance policy?

 

[fez]

You paid for insurance which they provided, you stopped paying, you are in breach of the contract. I don't see what the issue is here. If you take out a contract for sky sports and then decide not to watch it you can't just stop paying for it at your leisure.

Put it this way, how happy would you be if the insurance company just randomly stopped covering you and stopped your payments without telling you and then you needed to claim.

 

[silversurfer]

I wouldnt pay them, you told them the bike was gone. If anything go the other way, if they want to argue the insurance was never valid or something then make sure they pay back the entire premium because you were never an eligible customer. Heard that plenty of times

 

[ANDARIAL]

I wouldnt pay them, you told them the bike was gone. If anything go the other way, if they want to argue the insurance was never valid or something then make sure they pay back the entire premium because you were never an eligible customer. Heard that plenty of times

+1
I like the sound of this
If insurance co is saying the insurance was invalid it should be them who repay not you

 

[StevieP]

What was the "technicality" in respect of the claim? If no claim was made then I don't see why you wouldn't have had some sort of a refund (maybe not pro-rata, depending on the circumstances, but you should have got something) - did they refund some but it didn't clear the balance on the direct debit or did they give you nothing?

 

[RetiredGreyFox]

+1
I like the sound of this
If insurance co is saying the insurance was invalid it should be them who repay not you

He said it was a technicality so he could have eg told them he had an 750cc but it was a 1000cc therefore he gave false information and that is his fault.
I think you can get insurance without an MOT but your insurance is invalid if they find out, or your MOT could run out.
It all depends on the technicality.

 

[wez130]

I think we need to know this technicality to help decide what you should do.

 

[BeatSpec]

I wouldnt pay them, you told them the bike was gone. If anything go the other way, if they want to argue the insurance was never valid or something then make sure they pay back the entire premium because you were never an eligible customer. Heard that plenty of times

The insurance most likely was valid though, as per the terms in the agreement.

 

[dowie]

I wouldnt pay them, you told them the bike was gone. If anything go the other way, if they want to argue the insurance was never valid or something then make sure they pay back the entire premium because you were never an eligible customer. Heard that plenty of times

but it isn't clear they have done that

if you leave your doors and windows unlocked when you go on holiday and get burgled your insurance company might say the claim isn't valid, however if you've agreed to buy contents insurance for the whole year, paid by instalments, you don't just get to ditch your agreement part way through the year as a result

 

[hyperseven]

Doubt it's just a threat they will have no qualms in passing it onto a collection agency.

 

[Rexxar]

Not sure on the Legality of it but i'm definitely interested in knowing what the Technicality was to make sure mine isn't the same!

 

[RetiredGreyFox]

It's hard to give an answer when they post & run

 

[Werewolf]

What was the technicality?

The insurance contract could be entirely valid and the money owed but still no payout under quite a lot of conditions (for example if you said you were putting the bike in a garage overnight but you left it on the street).

 

[Tefal]

Surely once the bike was a total loss they should have concled the remainder of the policy

 

[Werewolf]

Surely once the bike was a total loss they should have concled the remainder of the policy

The outstanding money would still have been owed unless the policy cancelled properly as per the terms of the contract.
If the money had been paid in full up front he probably wouldn't have received any back without cancelling the policy, at which point he may or may not have got some back depending on what the pro rata rate and cancellation fees worked out as.

Cancelling the DD isn't cancelling the insurance correctly.

 

[Destination]

Surely once the bike was a total loss they should have concled the remainder of the policy

He should have yes.
He should have, it was his policy.
They were not paying out, thus in theory could have paid out later in the term if a suitable circumstance arose.

 

[ron3003]

In order to be covered for theft my lads motorbike insurance demands the bike has Smartwater treatment. Should it be stolen it must be on the current Smartwater database which incurs an annual payment.
If you don't keep paying to stay on their register then even though the bike is Smartwater treated the insurance wont payout if it's stolen.
Perhaps it's this kind of technicality that is being referred to.

 

[muon]

You can't just cancel a direct debit. You have to cancel the insurance.

But in answer to your question, you can just ignore it as they won't do anything. They are probably chasing all of it because their system shows an open claim. When you cancel insurance (in this case initiated by them) on monthly payments with an open claim, all of it instantly becomes due.