Fashion-girl

Obviously once your boyfriend became the registered keeper, the Insurance company should have been informed, so they could update main driver/address details. Normally you have to inform the Insurers as soon as possible or within a defined period of time of any changes. Failure to do so could result in the claim being declined and policy being made void.

The following is a typical wording from a leading Insurer about notifying about drivers.

Your duty
We will only provide the cover set out in this policy if you keep to all
the terms and conditions of the policy.
All information given to us must be, as far as you know, correct.
It is your responsibility to make sure that information relating to all
drivers covered by the policy is accurate. If we discover that you or
someone acting for you knowingly gave false information, we will
cancel the policy, treat it as though it had never existed and we
will not pay your claim.

As your boyfriend moved to London and became the registered driver a year ago, there was plenty of time for the Insurers to have been informed. I suspect the Insurers have been denied a large increase in premium due to the non-disclosure and unfortunately I don't think they will pay out for damage to the car. The Insurers could consider, if a reasonable explantion can be given, treating the policy as providing Third party cover only and deal with claim by the third party.

In regard to the legal position, if your b/f''s dad took out the policy as owner/keeper, with your b/f as named driver, that may have been correct at that time. However, your b/fs dad as policyholder would have been required by the policy contract to inform the Insurers of the change. This would have given the Insurers the opportunity to review the cover and either decline to continue cover due to risk or amend the premium.

Your b/f's dad should be totally honest and provide any information he can to assist the Insurers. If the b/f's dad has given false information to Insurers either when taking out policy or renewing the cover, the policy could be made void. Your b/f could then face possible prosecution for not having Insurance and have to deal with the claim himself i.e the third party could take legal action. Your bf's father could also face prosecution, as you say, for not correctly Insuring the car.

In your post you appear to say that your b/f became the registered keeper a year ago but the car has only been with him for 2 months. How can your b/f prove that he has only had the car in London for 2 months? If he can't, the Insurers will look at the DVLA notification as the only evidence and proceed on the basis that the car has been in London for a year.

I think the best that can be hoped is that the Insurers will deal with the third party claim. They may only do this if it can be proved that the car has only been with your b/f in London for 2 months.

huckster

Hi,

Thank god for this thread and the informed people answering!

We have a similar situation regarding ownership, named drivers and reg. keepers. My boyfriend was involved in an accident in which he has been classed responsible for and his car a write off with 3rd party claims.

He was a named driver on his father's insurance, however I understand from the previous replies that the named driver is just that and shouldn't use the car regularly. This has been the case, unfortunately the car has been residing at my bf's residence for a few months. The issue that we have is that my b/f updated the registered keepers details on his logbook almost a year ago to himself in order to get a parking permit for his rental property. The car was simply registered to his address so he could get a yearly parking permit and park it at his residence, when needed, during the week.

The insurance company are now asking lots more questions about the accident and have since picked up on the fact that my bf isn't the policy holder. We were thankfully alerted to this 'fronting' issue by a friend and are now worried that the insurance company are going to investigate this and throw the claim out! We have been told my bf and his father could face a criminal conviction, fines and even a possible jail sentence if found guilty, which is obviously a very frightening prospect!

I am angry to say the least that these issues aren't highlighted when the DVLA ask for such information about the car and how easy it is for information to be changed that could be potential devastating!

So now we are possibly for warned, where do we go from here?

If anyone has any advice on this awful situation it would be very much appreciated.

OK many thanks , i will keep you posted ,

 

D

 

In my opinion it would pointless at this stage to appoint a solicitor. You should follow the complaints procedure that should be in the rear of you policy booklet.

 

This will be as follows:

 

Stage 1: Contact your insurers in explain that you are not happy with their decision and ask them to review the case.

 

Stage 2: Ask the insurers complaints department/head office to review the matter and if they are still refusing to budge then you need written confirmation from them that they have made their final decision.

 

Stage 3: Approach the Ombudsman with details of your case. The insurer will have to honour the Ombudsman decision.

 

If they are stating that they will not pay out on the basis that you were the last user of the vehicle then this is incorrect. They should be referring to an exclusion in the policy wording to uphold this decision (which I doubt). It sounds more like someone has not considered the facts of the case correctly and is short on their fraud target but again that in my opinion.

 

Also, please see my notes regarding ownership of a vehicle in this forum. In short the vehicle is only registered to your father. Insurance is based on legal ownership (ie who bought and pays for the upkeep of the vehicle).

Hi , I should have added the vehicle is registered in my fathers name ,

Hi , my dad and i have the same forename Denis ( so has my son ) , they said in letter that as i was the last driver of the vehicle 3 days before it was parked they dont have to pay out !!  when i spoke to the FSA  they gave me a phone number for said insurers to complain , turned out the number was a direct line to the companys managering director LoL she said she would get a manager to contact me .....still waiting for that to happen   should i put it in hands of a lawyer ?

I am a little bit confused by the circumstances here but nevertheless this should not have any impact on the claim unless the insurer feels the ownership/use of the vehicle is in question.

 

To save me going over this issue again it would be best to read the comments I have posted on this forum topic. An insurer has to give a valid reason for declining a claim and be able to substantiate this. You need to ask your insurer to write to you explaining why they are refusing to deal with the claim. Once you have that then I may be able to offer more assistance.

Hi , have had a similar prob, with a company i wont name YET ! , my dad had a nissan patrol fully comp, full NCB , and i have my own insurance also fully comp, we were going on a trip to europe and I drove the nissan  40 miles from my dads house to my sons house where we left it parked , with the alarm on and a chain on it,and my dad took my sons car home instead of the nissan,  we were away 3  days when i got a call from the police saying the nissan patrol was stolen.

when i got back we contacted the insurance company who sent out a claim form which we filled in with dad as the policy holder , and that i was the last driver . they now say its not covered , because i was the last driver ? how they can come to this is ???? as it was parked for 3 days , when we phoned them the guy on the other end of the phone said ( well you shouldnt have put down that you were the last driver ) in other words tell a lie !!  i have contacted the FSA who say dad has a valid claim , maybe could   s_whitie  give his thoughts on the matter ?

Today is the frist time we have heard from the finance co. we wrote to inform them of the Stolen vehicle close to 17th march 2007. They have not requested that monthly payment should have been maintained, they did not even reply to our letter.Perhaps they assumed that claim would go through and it settle, so we will have to read or contact them to what happens. Due to the nature of our sons job, he needed to be taken most days, and was fortunate enough to get lift home But obviously us not having transport at all, his salary has been effected, so therefore he may not even be able to continue the monthly amount, At this stage Im not sure if he took out any extra payments to cover loss of wage, again we will read his contract, otherwise he will be left with 10.000 debt and no car.

I would say not.  It would be impracticle to give you your premium back at this stage if they are aware the insurers decesion is being disputed.

With regards to the finance, your son should continue with the payments otherwise he will end up with a CCJ against him.  I cannot see what problem he would have getting finance going forward.  If he has not missed any payments then what has he done wrong with regards to finance agreement?

It may just be worth checking the t&c of the finance agreement just incase they have put something in about failed claims.  They may say something like "in the event of your vehicle being stolen or written off then all sums outstanding will become due" ie they expect your insurer to settle what is due or if not then your son.

 It was M&S in their letter today, that mentioned returning premium, but the lletter from CIS yesterday said they would review, so can M&s  actually do that if a claim is under review, plus we would refer to FSO/FSA? as we have nothing to lose. Would you happen to know where that leaves the finance co, they rang today and said they had been notified that insurance do not intend to pay claim. We have told them that as it is under reveiw, and we intend to follow up, where we can. They just responded with, you wont get finance any where, this will go on your credit rating, and blah blah!. If we are having this investigated further, what do you think we should be doing at this time?

Just a quick note, if CIS are voiding the policy and returning the premium this should be backdated to when the policy was setup incorrectly and not when the incident occurred.

Cis are reveiwing our case. M&S  responded today, saying that due to incorrect fact on our policy ie, policy holder not reg keeper, they are not liable for the insurance and have made it void, as from 17th macrh ( STOLEN CAR). And would we return certificate , upon receipt they would return premiums from that date. How ever, we replied , asking them to send to us, proof of their records, as in this instant, the agent could have possibly made an error or indeed ourselves, this is going back a year as , we already had the policy up and running.  And yes I was indeed the keeper, but simply asked to remove myself and change car details, it did not cross my mind about keeper as assumed anyone can be a keeper, we had nothing to gain by lying, as we could have easily either sent policy away to be changed or applied another insure, I dont think that it is made very clear, after all keeper is for dvla purposes, I thought we were insuring the people to drive the car, and the car to be insured for drivers to use, does that make sense sorry, see how confusing this is. Any way, waiting to hear from CIS, even if alternative solution can be reached would be something, as this is a honest error.

just a quick note.

Whilst not 100% certain my general understanding of how CIS quote is that if registered keeper is not policy holder they would not offer a premium. The only exception to this is if the registered keeper is the policy holders spouse. To some up. On your original car CIS could see an insurable interest and quote but for the claim as your son is the registered keeper the cannot hence why they have repudited the claim. Please dont take my comments as absolute fact but having offered quotes underwritten by CIS on a daily basis this does seem to have been thier policy for some time. I think your gonna have to try and fight it all the way but i'm pretty sure the would'nt have covered you in the first place had they know your son was the registered keeper.

This is a common misconception.  You have to look at it as it is your sons vehicle, he has financed it and therefore he should insure it in his name.

I have dealt with hundreds of cases like this and I have never had my decesion overturned.  I always made a point of fully investgating a claim and showing proof of any misrepresentation before declining or dealing with a claim on a reduced basis. 

As I previously mentioned, as this is "innocent misrepresentation" then :

"They therefore could a. pay the proportion of the claim on a percentage that it was underinsured or b. deduct the outstanding premium from the settlement of the claim.  The only issue here is if the cost of the premium is more than the value of the vehicle.  Then they would decline the claim anyway or if they would of not insured your son in the first place again they would not be obliged to pay."

I cannot see CIS taking any other option without explaining why.  You have to right to complain to their head office once you are not happy with the branch decesion.  If you are still not happy then make sure you get in writing from CIS that they have made their final decesion and then you can approach the FSA.  CIS have to abide by the FSA decesion whether they agree with it or not.  If the FSA do not find in your favour then I would be very reluctant if I was you to take it any further as they are usually very thorough with their findings.