Insurance

[Terah]

I've just received a letter referenced "Claims Underwriting Database Check" from my insurers (Carole Nash). This is in relation to an at fault claim made on my car insurance earlier in the year that hadn't been reported when my bike insurance renewed.

It was my wife who had the accident so it didn't occur to me I needed to declare it for the bike.

The original premium was £130 and they're after a further £60 to keep me insured. I understand there's a requirement to report these things but it's quite galling to have to pay almost 50% extra for something that had nothing to do with me.

I only renewed two months ago so asked what would happen if I cancelled my insurance - according to their customer services I'd only get £18 back if I cancelled now (due to fixed charges), and probably not even that as they would count the additional £60 as being due.

Anything I can do other than a) pay up, or b) cancel and take the hit?

[Bibio]

hhhmmm sticky one. if your wife is on your car insurance then it's you who made the claim even though it was your wife that had the accident as its your insurance policy. on the other hand if your wife has her own insurance then tell them to go do one.

i hate this no claims parlava as you cant change your car no claims to a bike and viceaversa but if you have a claim it effects both policy's. suppose its just another way to rob you.

pay up and get the wife her own bloody car.

[Wideboy]

my bike claim was separate from my car insurance, i even had elephant confirm this when i bought my new car last year. i have it in writing

[ThePone]

Likewise. I had a bike crash 3 years ago and declared it to car insurance and they said it didnt affect car insurance as accident was on a bike so not relevant. Car insurance is with admiral.

[sv_rory]

My dad had exactly the same prblem, hes with carole nash too, Ive never had this with any company I've used I even asked one company several years back when i smashed the cage up if i had to declare on the bike insurance and they said no!

[TamSV]

Carole Nash do want to know about any accidents or claims you've had on other vehicles so they're right that it should have been declared.

Try running your details through their website with and without that accident and see if it actually makes a difference to the premium you're quoted. That might give you something to negotiate.

If it checks out that they're due an additional premium then the maths of it are going to mean it's probably best to just swallow it and pay up.

I know it's annoying but it's better you're getting it sorted now and not after you've made a bike claim when the consequences could have been a bit more serious.

EDIT: Do they know it was your wife that had the accident? The database wouldn't necessarily have that info. It might make a difference.

[squirrel_hunter]

As I understand it they ask the question have "You" had an accident or claim when you take the policy out. From what I can tell you have answered the question correctly and to the best of your knowledge. I cannot see how this should now effect your premium on your bike. I would question them on this.

If they attempt to stick to their position inform them that you will complain and take them to the Financial Ombudsman and that it will cost them £500 regardless of the outcome of the case. Remind them how much your premium is and how much extra they want to charge you. Then ask them if they still want to waste £300.

[TamSV]

As I understand it they ask the question have "You" had an accident or claim when you take the policy out. From what I can tell you have answered the question correctly and to the best of your knowledge. I cannot see how this should now effect your premium on your bike. I would question them on this.

The question is generally "have you had any accidents, claims or losses". The Carole Nash site explains this relates to other vehicles and other drivers. There is a specific answer in the relevant drop-down box for Terah's circumstances.

If they attempt to stick to their position inform them that you will complain and take them to the Financial Ombudsman and that it will cost them £500 regardless of the outcome of the case. Remind them how much your premium is and how much extra they want to charge you. Then ask them if they still want to waste £300.

It would take up to 8 weeks to get to the point where the ombudsman could even look at it. During that time Terah would need to pay the premium anyway or his insurance would be cancelled.

The complaint is about pricing and, as such, is doomed to failure everytime. It wouldn't be a chargeable complaint even if it got to the ombudsman. The vast majority of ombudsman claims don't attract a case fee.

That's IF this premium is actually going to the insurer. If it's just a broker fee alone then it's just a money making exercise and that's not on. They should give a breakdown of the £60 so you can see what, if anything, is going to the insurer.

There is a good argument that it shouldn't be affecting pricing so, if I was the OP, I'd try the online quote thing and also let them know the accident involved wife and car. If no further forward it might then be worth phoning up tomorrow and getting a quote on some made up info and ask if a car accident involving your wife needs to be disclosed. If you're told no, get the salespersons name and thank them.

Your next call is then to the complaints dept to get your £60 waived.

[squirrel_hunter]

The question is generally "have you had any accidents, claims or losses". The Carole Nash site explains this relates to other vehicles and other drivers. There is a specific answer in the relevant drop-down box for Terah's circumstances.

That assumes it was done on the net as oopposedto the phone as I have assumed. I've not looked at their site so am unable to say if the question is clear, but you'd have to assume not as if there is an option that fit Terah's ccircumstance then I assume as a fine upstanding member of ssocietyhe would have provided the information as requested.

Gosh, there's ala lotf assumptions there, my bad.

But I would still have to disagree with their interpretation. If it was over the phone and I were Terah with the information I have here on being asked have "You", I would say no.

It would take up to 8 weeks to get to the point where the ombudsman could even look at it. During that time Terah would need to pay the premium anyway or his insurance would be cancelled.

Yep, but hopefully on reminding them of the complaint procedure it wouldn't come to that...

The complaint is about pricing and, as such, is doomed to failure everytime. It wouldn't be a chargeable complaint even if it got to the ombudsman. The vast majority of ombudsman claims don't attract a case fee.

I would disagree with the complaint being about pricing. I see it as CN failing to einquireas to the facts of the insurance correctly and then changing their minds at a later date. 2 months later. That is an unacceptable time frame as it falls outside of the 16 day cancellation period. Now as everything is on computer, why has it taken 2 months to run a simple check?

As for the case being chargeable, the information I read on the OmOmbudsman'site didisagreesith you. Yes a company would have 3 free cases and I have no idea if CN have reached that limit, but I'd take a guess, however I'd also guess also that the call cecenteranager that you'd have to speak to wouldn't know either.

But if the case is about price and doomed to failure it doesn't matter. Even if it isn't chargeable it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if Terah even takes it that far. All you are doing is reminding them that you know the system and are willing to play it. Giving them the option of honoring their original price or end up paying more than the premium is worth for the priprivilege his money. You are playing against a call cencenternager who may and or may not know more about the system then you. It's a bit like a game of poker, bluff.

There is a good argument that it shouldn't be affecting pricing so, if I was the OP, I'd try the online quote thing and also let them know the accident involved wife and car. If no further forward it might then be worth phoning up tomorrow and getting a quote on some made up info and ask if a car accident involving your wife needs to be disclosed. If you're told no, get the salespersons name and thank them.

Your next call is then to the complaints dept to get your £60 waived.

I'd agree with that, do a little digging. Arm yourself with information and politely put your case forward.

[TamSV]

That assumes it was done on the net as oopposedto the phone as I have assumed. I've not looked at their site so am unable to say if the question is clear, but you'd have to assume not as if there is an option that fit Terah's ccircumstance then I assume as a fine upstanding member of ssocietyhe would have provided the information as requested.

Gosh, there's ala lotf assumptions there, my bad.

But I would still have to disagree with their interpretation. If it was over the phone and I were Terah with the information I have here on being asked have "You", I would say no.

I think this was a renewal so it would have been a bit of paper or an e-mail. Terah probably didn't speak to anyone or answer any questions. It's entirely understandable that he didn't disclose the claim and, in the event of a subsequent claim on the bike insurance, the information contained about disclosure of material facts on the renewal documentation would need to be looked at if his insurer wanted to avoid payment. Incidentally, I think they'd be struggling to get away with avoiding a claim in these particular circumstances.

However, the information has now come to light and IF it genuinely affects that insurers pricing then they're entitled to the correct premium.

I would disagree with the complaint being about pricing. I see it as CN failing to einquireas to the facts of the insurance correctly and then changing their minds at a later date. 2 months later. That is an unacceptable time frame as it falls outside of the 16 day cancellation period. Now as everything is on computer, why has it taken 2 months to run a simple check?.

So you don't disclose the facts (innocently or otherwise) and it's up to the insurer to find out the truth within a reasonable timescale? As a point of principle you know that can't be right.

The insurer isn't obliged to check your facts. Plenty of them will only check the database AFTER you've had a claim, and then you might be in the ****.

As for the case being chargeable, the information I read on the OmOmbudsman'site didisagreesith you. Yes a company would have 3 free cases and I have no idea if CN have reached that limit, but I'd take a guess, however I'd also guess also that the call cecenteranager that you'd have to speak to wouldn't know either.

The case fee is only charged if the complaint progresses to investigation. On reviewing the insurers final response, most of them don't make it that far. Alot of complaints have no merit so they don't get charged. Otherwise you could make a living phoning insurance companies all day demanding £100 or you'll complain about their annoying adverts or the state of their car park.

But if the case is about price and doomed to failure it doesn't matter. Even if it isn't chargeable it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if Terah even takes it that far. All you are doing is reminding them that you know the system and are willing to play it. Giving them the option of honoring their original price or end up paying more than the premium is worth for the priprivilege his money. You are playing against a call cencenternager who may and or may not know more about the system then you. It's a bit like a game of poker, bluff.

It's certainly true that you need to make it clear you're making a formal complaint. The phone jockeys can usually only "resolve" a complaint if they do it the same day. Unfortunately, most of them think that a customer shouting "**** you" and slamming down the phone is a resolution. If you make it clear you're taking the matter further then it has to go higher and someone who actually knows what they're talking about deals with it (or the operator quietly lets you off because he doesn't want to take another complaint to that ***** of a manager :)). If you do get to the complaints manager they've got a lot more scope than the phone operators to do a deal or flex the company rules.

Hopefully the OP will get this one sorted out.

[squirrel_hunter]

I think this was a renewal so it would have been a bit of paper or an e-mail. Terah probably didn't speak to anyone or answer any questions.

Good point I missed that.

However, the information has now come to light and IF it genuinely affects that insurers pricing then they're entitled to the correct premium.

As its a renewal I think from memory they state in their letter that if circumstances have changed to notify them. Going from what I've read here I would think that circumstances have remained the same as I would not have made a claim. However I should add that if the wife is a named rider on the bike insurance then of course the claim should be declared.

So you don't disclose the facts (innocently or otherwise) and it's up to the insurer to find out the truth within a reasonable timescale? As a point of principle you know that can't be right.

No I've not said that. They ask a number of questions which you should answer correctly, and that I do. To say I don't disclose facts for any reason is quite misleading, how as an average man on the street am I to know what facts should be disclosed, hence them asking me questions. Keeping with Terah's example his wife making a claim regardless if it was on his car is not him making a claim and thus I feel is quite reasonable that this isn't disclosed as if I were in his situation I would not think it was a fact that was important.

But that is where the checks come in to highlight if there is a discrepancy so it can be investigated. However these checks should be made within a reasonable time frame.

Now assuming a few things here such as the incident with the wife didn't happen the day before the renewal of the bike and was already in the system then why did it take 2 months to find out? Insurance companies always say that they cross check the details and as its all done on computer it does not take 2 months. Would it be fair if they checked the day before the expiry of the years policy and then asked for the difference? Thats why there is a reasonable time frame, 16 days (distance selling rules, or a contract cooling off period, its been sometime since I checked which one) whereby the policy can be canceled.

So as a point of principle yes if you have provided the information as requested in good faith then if there is a problem it should be addressed within a reasonable time frame.

The insurer isn't obliged to check your facts. Plenty of them will only check the database AFTER you've had a claim, and then you might be in the ****.

No they are not obliged to check, but they all claim they do. If this is discovered after a claim then they will ask for the difference in premium, where we would be having the same conversation. Its unlikely that the insurer would withdraw cover if as we have here the insurance holder has disclosed the information they thought they needed to in good faith. And then there is alwys the Ombudsman to turn to... Unless of course there is an allegation of fraud, but thats a different kettle of fish.

The case fee is only charged if the complaint progresses to investigation. On reviewing the insurers final response, most of them don't make it that far. Alot of complaints have no merit so they don't get charged.

But the complaint may make it that far and cost the company. And its that unsurety in the system that you can use to your advantage.

Otherwise you could make a living phoning insurance companies all day demanding £100 or you'll complain about their annoying adverts or the state of their car park.

While I can't condone blackmail or extortion, I can't help but think this is an excellent idea to get rid opera singers, rodents, and awful cover versions of the Village People greatest hit among, many, many more from my and everyone else's life.

[TamSV]

Keeping with Terah's example his wife making a claim regardless if it was on his car is not him making a claim and thus I feel is quite reasonable that this isn't disclosed as if I were in his situation I would not think it was a fact that was important.

Terah's wife didn't make a claim - she had the accident. It's Terah's car and his policy. He made the claim - no-one else could have done so. If a cheque was issued his name would have been on it.

I agree it's totally understandable that he wouldn't think of disclosing it, but it does need to be disclosed.

But that is where the checks come in to highlight if there is a discrepancy so it can be investigated. However these checks should be made within a reasonable time frame.

It's not how things are at the moment. The law hasn't kept up with how people are buying insurance these days - often online and totally absent of any advice.

The principle of Utmost Good Faith gives insurers a pretty powerful tool to avoid claims if they're so inclined and the average bloke in the street doesn't always have sufficient understanding to keep himself right.

I think the obligations need to shift a bit further towards the insurer, and I'm sure that will happen, but the law always struggles to keep up with reality.

how as an average man on the street am I to know what facts should be disclosed.

Ah come on that's easy - Marine Insurance Act (1906) "Every circumstance is material which would influence the judgement of a prudent underwriter in fixing a premium or whether he will take a risk"

Yeah, exactly.

While I can't condone blackmail or extortion, I can't help but think this is an excellent idea to get rid opera singers, rodents, and awful cover versions of the Village People greatest hit among, many, many more from my and everyone else's life.

I'm on board with that. Although the "Chang Kaka Waa Waa" 70's pron soundtrack I'm using as my telephone "on hold" music has been going down quite well recently.

[Terah]

Terah's wife didn't make a claim - she had the accident. It's Terah's car and his policy. He made the claim - no-one else could have done so.

Correct, although when it was being handled I hadn't considered it in that way.

I renewed over the phone, so I can't recall if I was asked the question, and if I was exactly how the question was worded. After renewal I received a Statement of Fact, and the relevant question on it would be:


Have you or any other person who may ride had an accident or loss (fire, theft or any other cause whatsoever) in the last three years involving any motor vehicle (of any kind) whether owned, ridden, or in custody? This includes any accident or loss not covered or claimed under an insurance policy, and whether at fault or not. (If yes, please give details below)


At first reading of that I assumed I had correctly answered the question with 'No'. Re-reading it now I can see how it could be argued that this applies to my case, but it certainly isn't clear or obvious (to me).

As I understand it they ask the question have "You" had an accident or claim when you take the policy out. From what I can tell you have answered the question correctly and to the best of your knowledge. I cannot see how this should now effect your premium on your bike. I would question them on this.

That's how I read the question, and it was certainly done correctly to the best of my knowledge, but as above that may not have been technically correct to their question. (Also, wife is not on the bike policy)

Ah come on that's easy - Marine Insurance Act (1906) "Every circumstance is material which would influence the judgement of a prudent underwriter in fixing a premium or whether he will take a risk"


If only I had read that when renewing, it would all have been much clearer :)

I called them yesterday before posting, and after explaining the situation the customer services bloke said he would check with the underwriter and came back and confirmed they still wanted the additional premium - whether this really went to an underwriter or if he just checked with a supervisor I don't know.

As advised I'll do a bit more digging - I'm particularly interested in whether that extra £60 really is what they would have charged if I'd disclosed originally, or whether there's a punitive element in it.

I have 14 days to pay up to maintain cover, so once I have more info I'll write them more formally to explain and try and get them to justify the additional cost, and the expectation of disclosure. If I don't get anywhere I'll probably just pay up.

There should be a level of 'reasonableness' in the conditions of any contract, but I'll not hold my breath.

[Spank86]

Ah come on that's easy - Marine Insurance Act (1906) "Every circumstance is material which would influence the judgement of a prudent Nunderwriter in fixing a premium or whether he will take a risk".

I think you've gotten confused, the man said underwriter, not underwater.:p:-D

[-Ralph-]

Bibio - dont confuse 'no claims discount' with 'accidents'. The former is exactly that, a discount you are given, I have no claims discounts on bike and car and one does not affect the other. In fact the car no claims, the insurer has agreed to apply the discount to two policies with them as their way if giving a multi car discount, so actually I have three no claims discounts although traditionally insurance companies didnt allow that.

If I have an accident however, I have to declare it on both car and bike policies (4 vehicles across 3 policies), but it will only affect my no claims discount on 1 policy.

[-Ralph-]

Squirrel Hunter - I haven't read all your posts, but as I'm sure Tam will have pointed out, your very first line was wrong. Have 'You' had an accident or made a claim? Yes he has, he made a claim, it is him that insured for his girlfriend to drive the car. She is his liability.

It is also his responsibility to inform his insurer of the accident regardless of what questions were asked at the time.

Your first line being wrong lead me to conclude 'OK, doesnt know what he's talking about', so I didn't read the rest, but I can see there are lots of long posts and debate on the subject.

Tam however is one of the few people on the forum who really does know his onions on the subject of insurance. Listen to him.

[squirrel_hunter]

Terah's wife didn't make a claim - she had the accident. It's Terah's car and his policy. He made the claim - no-one else could have done so.

I didn't know it worked that way, and it would appear I wasn't alone in that... And that then highlights the problem of how can a company sell something to a customer that they do not fully understand? Reminds me of that little PPI thing and we've all seen whats happening with that one.

I would still do the extra digging and look at complaining and letting the company know this as it may get you somewhere. It has worked for me in the past...

[MisterTommyH]

Have you or any other person who may ride had an accident or loss (fire, theft or any other cause whatsoever) in the last three years involving any motor vehicle (of any kind) whether owned, ridden, or in custody? This includes any accident or loss not covered or claimed under an insurance policy, and whether at fault or not. (If yes, please give details below)

Hang on a minute. All the arguments I'm seeing are stating that because Terah would have had to make the CLAIM then he should have declared it. Above is apparently what the question was, and it says nothing about have you (Terah) made a claim.

It quite clearly says accident or loss (I'm taking loss to mean theft / fire not financial loss - please correct me if I'm wrong).

So, as Terah hasn't himself had the accident. And Mrs Terah is not 'any other person who may ride' (I presume) then he has in fact done nothing wrong by not highlighting the claim.

Again, have Carol Nash just brought this up because there is A claim logged against the policy without checking to see who it was?

[TamSV]

Hang on a minute. All the arguments I'm seeing are stating that because Terah would have had to make the CLAIM then he should have declared it. Above is apparently what the question was, and it says nothing about have you (Terah) made a claim.

It quite clearly says accident or loss (I'm taking loss to mean theft / fire not financial loss - please correct me if I'm wrong).

So, as Terah hasn't himself had the accident. And Mrs Terah is not 'any other person who may ride' (I presume) then he has in fact done nothing wrong by not highlighting the claim.

Again, have Carol Nash just brought this up because there is A claim logged against the policy without checking to see who it was?

Terah's property (the car) was damaged so the loss was his - he has the insurable financial interest in the car so he did suffer a loss.

In insurance terms, a "loss" is anything that would have been covered by the policy concerned. They are actually looking for information that is more far reaching than just claims.

As an example, you might be comprehensively insured and suffer damage to your vehicle which you could have claimed for, but decide to fix yourself. Alternatively, the damage is cosmetic and you decide just to leave it unrepaired. Or maybe you hit a third party and just pay for his damage yourself rather than deal with it via the insurance.

None of the above examples are "claims", but they are all "losses".

Most people probably don't realise that and, as a result, I would guess it's one of the biggest areas of accidental non-disclosure.

[mattSV]

Squirrel Hunter - I haven't read all your posts, but as I'm sure Tam will have pointed out, your very first line was wrong. Have 'You' had an accident or made a claim? Yes he has, he made a claim, it is him that insured for his girlfriend to drive the car. She is his liability.

It is also his responsibility to inform his insurer of the accident regardless of what questions were asked at the time.

Your first line being wrong lead me to conclude 'OK, doesnt know what he's talking about', so I didn't read the rest, but I can see there are lots of long posts and debate on the subject.

Tam however is one of the few people on the forum who really does know his onions on the subject of insurance. Listen to him.

**** - he insured his car for both his wife AND girlfriend to drive :notworthy:\\:D/:smt031:safe: