Hi, am hoping I am not the only one experiencing this, otherwise I am the unluckiest persoon in the UK at the moment!

I lodged a claim for my car with NU Direct back in May and within two weeks an engineer inspected the car, declared it a write off and suggested a settlement amount.

I contacted NU to be told that my claim was being reviewed and they would call back. No call after a week. I phoned again, same story! And this has been a weekly response since then and its now September!

In the meantime, I lodged a complaint, following their procedure. No response. I called the numbers in Liverpool, no respones. I sent a fax, no response. I have sent a complaint to the FOS, they are very busy, be patient. I sent an email to CEO's office, hrray, got an automated reply saying they would contact me with shortly. That was two weeks ago!

Besides wondering if Norwich Union work more than one day a week and if they know how to read a calendar or clock, is it considered reasonable with the insurance industry to tak 3 months to process a claim, not to return calls when promised, to hide behind a call centre script clearly designed to get an agrieved customer off the line, etc, etc?

I understand that, having dragged it out of one of the agents, that they are claiming the car has been modified and I didnt declare that. Sorry, but I am not a mechanic, how am I suppoed to know its modified?

The next problem will be how to evict the spiders who have gladly taken up residence! Am sure I will need a permit from the RSPS!

If I sound frustrated, I am! "Qoute me happy", but when they get your money, treat you with contempt!

Write a letter to the CEO and send it by recorded delivery.

Did that, and copied to the "Customer Complaints" department in Liverpool two weeks ago, after I sent the email and got the same automated response (I suspect that NUCEO AT NORWICH-UNION.CO.UK is not a real person, but a computer in the bowls of some grey building, probably offshore too!).

Sadly, no response! I think NU may have gone into liquidation, no-one seems to work there any more except for their computers!

It would be nice to think that the millions they spend on advertising, marketing and printing actually had an element of truth in it!

You definately should be getting a better service than you have experience so far.

so, your vehicle has been inspected and declared a total loss (written off). Firstly get all you documents together as they will need these.

V5, mot (if applicable), service history, purchase receipt, copy driving licence etc

Now the more difficult part, your claim is being looked into further as there is an issue of the facts surrounding the insurance of your vehicle. When the policy was taken out NUD were told that they were insuring a standard vehicle and therefore charge you the premium for this. Now they have found out that it has been modified they will need to talk to you via a claims investigator to obtain the facts. Give them all the information and based on this they will make a decesion.

They then have 4 options:

1. the misrepresentation was deliberate to obtain a cheaper premium. This could lead to them cancelling your insurance and declining the claim.

2. the misrepresentaion was not deliberate but had they know the facts they would not of insured the car. Again the claim will be declined.

3. As 2 but the would of insured the vehicle at a higher premium. In this case they will deduct the increase in premium from the value of the vehicle.

4. no further action is required.

One more point is that NUD in Liverpool is closing so moral/customer service may be lower than normal (no excuse but just so you know0

well its just not me in the same boat ive got a 24k claim of a stolen car with NU which has gone to review as i never told them about a bike theft i had 2 years previous never thought it would count with this being a bike and i was taking out my car insurance with them AND HAD 5 YEARS NO CLAIMS OF CAR INSURANCE

well its been 2 months now and still nobody has been in touch they just keep saying they will write to me EACH TIME I RING YES IM STILL PAYING FOR A CAR I HAVENT GOT VERY SAD

WalkingATM:

Hi, am hoping I am not the only one experiencing this, otherwise I am the unluckiest persoon in the UK at the moment!

I lodged a claim for my car with NU Direct back in May and within two weeks an engineer inspected the car, declared it a write off and suggested a settlement amount.

I contacted NU to be told that my claim was being reviewed and they would call back. No call after a week. I phoned again, same story! And this has been a weekly response since then and its now September!

In the meantime, I lodged a complaint, following their procedure. No response. I called the numbers in Liverpool, no respones. I sent a fax, no response. I have sent a complaint to the FOS, they are very busy, be patient. I sent an email to CEO's office, hrray, got an automated reply saying they would contact me with shortly. That was two weeks ago!

Besides wondering if Norwich Union work more than one day a week and if they know how to read a calendar or clock, is it considered reasonable with the insurance industry to tak 3 months to process a claim, not to return calls when promised, to hide behind a call centre script clearly designed to get an agrieved customer off the line, etc, etc?

I understand that, having dragged it out of one of the agents, that they are claiming the car has been modified and I didnt declare that. Sorry, but I am not a mechanic, how am I suppoed to know its modified?

The next problem will be how to evict the spiders who have gladly taken up residence! Am sure I will need a permit from the RSPS!

If I sound frustrated, I am! "Qoute me happy", but when they get your money, treat you with contempt!

Hi there,

I feel your pain. However, you'll now know not to use Norwich Union again. They have a fairly poor customer service and an equally, if not worse, claims department. If your property is insured with them, I'd change that too. If you come to make a claim on the house insurance, you will find yourself in even deeper water.

You seem to have taken every reasonable step possible with your complaint. You should try one more time sending as 'Private and Confidential' addressed to the Claims Manager - and have this sent via Recorded Delivery. This will reach them personally and they will sign for it. Get the proof of this, then contact the manager via phone. If you have not received a response within 14 days, contact the FOS again, but also informing the Financial Services Authority who have stringent rules with regards to claims process and settlement.

You shouldn't worry about the vehicle being modified. By your reaction, it doesn't sound like an obvious modification(s) so it will be very difficult for them to prove this was misrepresentation. Even if proven (Which it won't be) the third party will still receive a full payout and so will you as there is no connection between the loss and the causes that gave rise for a claim to be made. The insurer will not be able to repudiate your claim on these grounds and you should immediately inform the FSA in the event that they use this as an excuse.

Let us know how you get on.

---

Coyote

Misrepresentation is exactly that, the difference being whether it was innocent or not. Even if the policyholder was not aware that the vehicle was modified it does not change the fact it was.

From personal experience 9 times out 10 they are aware that the vehicle was modified (in a private sale most previous owners boast about this) and plus it would be reflected in the price the policyholder paid for the vehicle. "Why pay £500 more for this vehicle than an identical one down the road"??

With regards to the third party, regardless of the outcome of the policyholders claim the insurer will deal with it on a "RTA" basis (providing their client is at fault), basically they will meet the claim and more than likely pursue the policyholder to refund.

At the end of the day pick the phone up and demand to get some action today to progress the claim, whether that be a confirmed appointment for them to interview you, a decesion to be made etc....

I have an update!

On Wednesday, I received a call from NUD saying that they will resolve my claim by Friday and call me... Yeah yeah yeah I thought! What a shcok it was to actually get a call, this is the first time they have actually called back when promised.

The good news is that they have settled, finally. So this weekend, we are having a farewell party for the spiders and getting all the katundu out of the car as it heads of to be broken up for spares I guess.

Still not a peep out of the compliants department or "CEO's" office regarding my complaint though. But thanks to all for the support thus far.

Oh and just a note that I was not questioning whether or not I had a valid claim when I started this post, I was questioning the time taken and the lack of apparent customer care from NU Direct and by this thread, to warn fellow car drivers who are thinking of taking cover with NU. Consider all the costs when you get that apparent "low" quote!

You get what you pay for people!

I'll post again if/when I get more news about my complaint

s_whitie:

Misrepresentation is exactly that, the difference being whether it was innocent or not. Even if the policyholder was not aware that the vehicle was modified it does not change the fact it was.

From personal experience 9 times out 10 they are aware that the vehicle was modified (in a private sale most previous owners boast about this) and plus it would be reflected in the price the policyholder paid for the vehicle. "Why pay £500 more for this vehicle than an identical one down the road"??

With regards to the third party, regardless of the outcome of the policyholders claim the insurer will deal with it on a "RTA" basis (providing their client is at fault), basically they will meet the claim and more than likely pursue the policyholder to refund.

At the end of the day pick the phone up and demand to get some action today to progress the claim, whether that be a confirmed appointment for them to interview you, a decesion to be made etc....

"Even if the policyholder was not aware that the vehicle was modified it does not change the fact it was".... well that's an obvious statement but I fail to see what that had to do with misrepresentation?
A modified vehicle may be reflected in price but this is not always the case. In addition, it wouldn't be fair to assume that every person paying a higher price for a vehicle should be aware that their vehicle could be modified. Such a suggestion is a little absurd.

Your following statement should read "less than likely pursue the policyholder to refund". This is not a common method used by the insurer under subrogation or not. WalkingATM has already stated that they had no knowledge of the modification. Proving that they did, or anyone else for that matter, is very costly and time consuming. Unless the claim amounts to a very high amount, this avenue will not be explored thoroughly.

---

Coyote

"it wouldn't be fair to assume that every person paying a higher price for a vehicle should be aware that their vehicle could be modified. Such a suggestion is a little absurd. "

re your comments, why would the vehicle be at a higher price. Surely you would question this when you buy the vehicle otherwise you would go for the cheaper of the two vehicles? At the end of the day you are paying for the vehicle and having to insure it, make sure you know what you are buying (buyer beware)

I agree it is not common for insurers to pursue a policyholder to refund a TP claim but that is each and every insurers option to pursue if they wish.

To be honest I have dealt with quite a lot of cases like this and have always said, if the vehicle is modified and the policyholder is innocent of misrepresentation then we deal with the claim on the basis the premium is adjusted to reflect the insured vehicle's Correct specification.

I understand people will say that it is not the policyholders fault that he did not know what the vehicle was but why should the insurer pay for their mistake. They are only pricing the policy on the information given to them so if that information is wrong then as far as I am concerned why shouldn't the insurer adjust the premium before dealing with the claim?

s_whitie:

"it wouldn't be fair to assume that every person paying a higher price for a vehicle should be aware that their vehicle could be modified. Such a suggestion is a little absurd. "

re your comments, why would the vehicle be at a higher price. Surely you would question this when you buy the vehicle otherwise you would go for the cheaper of the two vehicles? At the end of the day you are paying for the vehicle and having to insure it, make sure you know what you are buying (buyer beware)

I agree it is not common for insurers to pursue a policyholder to refund a TP claim but that is each and every insurers option to pursue if they wish.

To be honest I have dealt with quite a lot of cases like this and have always said, if the vehicle is modified and the policyholder is innocent of misrepresentation then we deal with the claim on the basis the premium is adjusted to reflect the insured vehicle's Correct specification.

I understand people will say that it is not the policyholders fault that he did not know what the vehicle was but why should the insurer pay for their mistake. They are only pricing the policy on the information given to them so if that information is wrong then as far as I am concerned why shouldn't the insurer adjust the premium before dealing with the claim?

"re your comments, why would the vehicle be at a higher price. Surely you would question this when you buy the vehicle otherwise you would go for the cheaper of the two vehicles?"

Are you being serious? Some people will only go to look at one car and buy it at the asking price, some will haggle, some will look at 30 cars before making a decision. It may not be on price that the vehicle is chosen, it could be a number of factors. My point was that the insurer cannot repudiate a claim stating "you could have got 'X Car' for £100 cheaper 3.5 miles down the road. You MUST have been aware this was modified. We're not paying out". I'm sure you appreciate the point that's being made.

Yes, if the information is wrong then the insurer shouldn't pay for a mistake. The problem is who's mistake? It's not the insurer's because they were not informed by the insured, the insured may not have known about it, etc. The chain is far too long and there is no 'negligence' as such as it's not a requirement to let the buyer beware and, again, it would be unreasonable for a person without knowledge of cars to know such information. They should pay the premium for that modification/modifications as if it were before policy inception; or taken out of the claim payout. The problem comes when that insurer would not cover the modification in the first place; they may need to make an unusual exception in this circumstance and compromise with the insured.

---

Coyote

Coyote:

s_whitie:

"it wouldn't be fair to assume that every person paying a higher price for a vehicle should be aware that their vehicle could be modified. Such a suggestion is a little absurd. "

re your comments, why would the vehicle be at a higher price. Surely you would question this when you buy the vehicle otherwise you would go for the cheaper of the two vehicles? At the end of the day you are paying for the vehicle and having to insure it, make sure you know what you are buying (buyer beware)

I agree it is not common for insurers to pursue a policyholder to refund a TP claim but that is each and every insurers option to pursue if they wish.

To be honest I have dealt with quite a lot of cases like this and have always said, if the vehicle is modified and the policyholder is innocent of misrepresentation then we deal with the claim on the basis the premium is adjusted to reflect the insured vehicle's Correct specification.

I understand people will say that it is not the policyholders fault that he did not know what the vehicle was but why should the insurer pay for their mistake. They are only pricing the policy on the information given to them so if that information is wrong then as far as I am concerned why shouldn't the insurer adjust the premium before dealing with the claim?

"re your comments, why would the vehicle be at a higher price. Surely you would question this when you buy the vehicle otherwise you would go for the cheaper of the two vehicles?" Are you being serious? Some people will only go to look at one car and buy it at the asking price, some will haggle, some will look at 30 cars before making a decision. It may not be on price that the vehicle is chosen, it could be a number of factors. My point was that the insurer cannot repudiate a claim stating "you could have got 'X Car' for £100 cheaper 3.5 miles down the road. You MUST have been aware this was modified. We're not paying out". I'm sure you appreciate the point that's being made. Yes, if the information is wrong then the insurer shouldn't pay for a mistake. The problem is who's mistake? It's not the insurer's because they were not informed by the insured, the insured may not have known about it, etc. The chain is far too long and there is no 'negligence' as such as it's not a requirement to let the buyer beware and, again, it would be unreasonable for a person without knowledge of cars to know such information. They should pay the premium for that modification/modifications as if it were before policy inception; or taken out of the claim payout. The problem comes when that insurer would not cover the modification in the first place; they may need to make an unusual exception in this circumstance and compromise with the insured.

My point was that the insurer cannot repudiate a claim stating "you could have got 'X Car' for £100 cheaper 3.5 miles down the road. You MUST have been aware this was modified. We're not paying out".- No I never said that

I said - To be honest I have dealt with quite a lot of cases like this and have always said, if the vehicle is modified and the policyholder is innocent of misrepresentation then we deal with the claim on the basis the premium is adjusted to reflect the insured vehicle's Correct specification.

They should pay the premium for that modification/modifications as if it were before policy inception; or taken out of the claim payout. The problem comes when that insurer would not cover the modification in the first place; they may need to take an unusual exception in this circumstance and compromise with the insured.

I previously said -

They then have 4 options:

1. the misrepresentation was deliberate to obtain a cheaper premium. This could lead to them cancelling your insurance and declining the claim.

2. the misrepresentaion was not deliberate but had they know the facts they would not of insured the car. Again the claim will be declined.

3. As 2 but the would of insured the vehicle at a higher premium. In this case they will deduct the increase in premium from the value of the vehicle.

4. no further action is required.

If you read all of the above then I think you will see that we are both saying the same thing. My point is that as a fraud manager I know that I can write to the previous keeper and asked them for a history of the vehicle. If they tell me that the vehicle was modified then why can't the policyholder ask the same question when buying the vehicle. You will be surprised with the number of times we have asked the previous keeper and they tell us they told the policyholder but they have then failed to disclose this to the insurer.

One point is that the majority of these cases are blatent modifications ie spoilers, engine size increases, body kits being added etc. Now don't tell me that you look at a car like this and think "ahh thats nice, that must be just how they roll of the production line!"

All

I am all for a robust discussion regarding the merits of claims handling and validation, but this thread was aimed at discussiing the length of time taken by Norwich Union to process the claim and not the validity of the claim itself. "What would a reasonable person expect" is probably the answer I was seeking and probably that vast majority who may also be looking for clarification.

However, your comments make interesting reading for anyone who buys a car with a new set of tyres, mags, seat covers, tinted windows, a new air filter, etc, in fact anything added that is not factory fitted, not just body kits, free flowing exhausts, etc. It would appear to me that the insurance companies could use any of the above to repudiate a claim on that basis.

Hopefully, if you start a thread about car modifications, with all your comments attached, it may bring clarity to others who might be in the same boat.

Fair point WalkingATM, you not these forums are like, it starts as helpful advise and before you know it there is a side debate going on (no offence intended, I enjoy a good debate as much as the next person).

Hope you get somewhere soon. To be honest these things can normaly be sorted out pretty quickly by speaking to the right people. If a claim is being investigated then a claims handler has taken that decesion, speak to them or there manager to get an update, it's the least the can do. If not a call to the Chief Exec office should sort things out.

I had a similar problem with NU a few weeks ago and got it sorted in 2 days.

Good luck