ADUK Archive

Friend of mine is in dispute with a brooker as to the figure for a canceled insurance policy. The brooker said they would draw the money from his debit card and have stop replying to his dispute letters. They have passed the account to a debt collector who have told him that they won't release his no claims even though the policy is canceled with the insurance company as the outstanding amount of £88.00. He has reinsured the same car and sent his previous no claims proof which is the same as he canceled mid term.

So he has 4 years on the same car with another insurer on one policy and car. The debt collector has told him this fraud as you cant transfer/no claims to a another policy while money is owing to the previous insurer/brooker.

Is that right as I cant find that anywhere and he has been told they can't hang on to his no claims. They said its in the RTA but I can't find it?

I'd be surprised if this is in the RTA - don't see why it would show insurance policy details - that's between your friend and the insurer.

The RTA will show you have to to have 3rd party insurance as a minumum. Any disputes between your friend and the insurer come under normal contract law but obviously if you have void insurance then that's where the RTA comes in I guess. The fraud allegation is because you can't say you have a no claims record unless the previous insurer agrees - I suppose your friends insurance is void until this is sorted.

There is an insurance ombudsman service to help resolve disputes:

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/consumer/complaints.htm

But in the meantime I would be honest with the new insurer and make sure he's covered.

The TRAFFIC ANSWERS site may be a good place to ask this question

martine wrote:I'd be surprised if this is in the RTA - don't see why it would show insurance policy details - that's between your friend and the insurer.

The RTA will show you have to to have 3rd party insurance as a minumum. Any disputes between your friend and the insurer come under normal contract law but obviously if you have void insurance then that's where the RTA comes in I guess. The fraud allegation is because you can't say you have a no claims record unless the previous insurer agrees - I suppose your friends insurance is void until this is sorted.

There is an insurance ombudsman service to help resolve disputes:

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/consumer/complaints.htm

But in the meantime I would be honest with the new insurer and make sure he's covered.

Thanks the insurer has been paid by the brooker and they are happy the policy is closed. Its the brooker the dispute is with and so he is covered in my mind. The wild claim was made by the debt recovery agent for them and I think they are telling blaintant lies!

If debt recovery agencies are involved, I'd be going to Citizens Advice or seeking legal help pronto. Debt collecting agencies have a nasty habit of accumulating fees and I'd want to be sure that if I was legally liable for the money, I could sort it out quickly before it increased above a manageable amount...

As said, I don't think this would be covered by the RTA and the no-claims represents the value you have at the close of the previous year's policy. I can believe that an insurer wouldn't issue a letter stating no-claims if there was money outstanding on the account, but presumably the date on the letter he sent will be different to the date he took out the new insurance policy and so questions may be asked?

Chris

Ask Kris and Russ over at 5ive-0

martine wrote:The RTA will show you have to to have 3rd party insurance as a minumum.

As an aside, I always understood that the minimum is "RTA insurance", which is less than 3rd party, tho' I don't know the exact difference & I've never seen it offered.

And you used to be able to not have any insurance if you posted a bond (of £50,000 iirc). This was used by large fleets like the post office before the PO/BT split

jbsportstech wrote:... they won't release his no claims even though the policy is canceled with the insurance company as the outstanding amount of £88.00. He has reinsured the same car and sent his previous no claims proof which is the same as he canceled mid term.

The no claims proof he submitted to the new insurer will be dated and will obviously only apply upto that date. If the new insurance company are happy to accept a no-claims entitlement that isn't upto date then surely that is their prerogative.

Additionally he would have had to make a declaration of any claims or accidents at the point he applied for the new policy.

So long as he has been open about any claims or accidents then it is difficult to see in what way he has been dishonest (an essential criterion of fraud).

Angus wrote:

martine wrote:The RTA will show you have to to have 3rd party insurance as a minumum.

As an aside, I always understood that the minimum is "RTA insurance", which is less than 3rd party, tho' I don't know the exact difference & I've never seen it offered.

Not so significant nowadays but RTA cover used to only apply to 3rd party injury risks, not property, whereas 3rd party cover appears to invariably cover property as well.

MGF wrote:
Not so significant nowadays but RTA cover used to only apply to 3rd party injury risks, not property, whereas 3rd party cover appears to invariably cover property as well.

Indeed, however that has now been changed to include property damage as well. But RTA cover only provides for an indemnity rather than full insurance. This is where the insurer pays out but can then recover the payout from their insured.

As MGF says it is usually not important as it is virtually impossible to get Act insurance these days. It usually only affects folks who have had their cover invalidated in situations where their insurer still has to provide cover under the RTA. These folks get a pretty nasty shock when their insurer sends them the bill for any claims.

I understand that to avoid insurance/indemnity you currently need to post a surety of £2,000,000 - the same amount as most policies provide for personal injury/death cover.

In answer to the original question. The RTA does not have any provisions for NCDs. The provision (or non-provision) of NCDs is entirely a commercial matter. It is up to your last and new insurer to agree an NCD with you. The brokers have no direct involvement in deciding NCDs, however they are normally responsible for providing you with your last insurers renewal notice (or some other confirmation of NCD). If you cannot get them to provide it it should be possible to get it directly from the insurers, however insurers are usually reluctant to deal directly with customers (as a result of the contracts that have with the brokers) who arrange cover through brokers, and a degree of persistence is often required.

In the event of a dispute you cannot resolve you can take court action, or go to the insurance ombudsman for binding (on the insurers) arbitration.

Insurance brokers are required by the FSA to be in the ombudsman scheme and as a result you can also refer any disputes with brokers.