^^^ Those threads get posted as examples quite a lot, but then they are b0llocks.

 

As to Mr.Loophole the solicitor in this country.

That country is England & he possibly gets people off in Wales.  

If he practices in Scotland then good, different laws here and as far as Sheriffs & Judges and who ever is dealing with cases we hope they are on the ball. 

41 minutes ago, HappySam said:

I'll just leave these here...

 

Insurance cancelled due to painted wheels !

 

Insurance voided due to car having PPF! HELP PLEASE!

 

 

 

Did you see the final thread starter's post in your second example regarding the ppf?

 

"Hi All

I FINALLY have an update! After almost coming to 1 year since the incident took place!

This will be a juicy read!

Final Decision from the ombudsman

What happened

Mr A’s car was damaged by a third party, so he claimed on his policy with ***. When his
car was inspected it was discovered it had a clear paint protection film (PPF) applied to the
bodywork.

*** reviewed the claim and decided to decline it, avoid Mr A’s policy and refund his
premium. It said this was because Mr A’s car was modified and if it had known about the
PPF wrap then it wouldn’t have covered his car. Mr A didn’t think this was fair and
complained, he didn’t agree the PPF was a modification as it hadn’t changed how the car
looked and was there to protect the paint.

*** reviewed the complaint and didn’t uphold it. It maintained its position that Mr A had
failed to take reasonable care when taking out the policy. It said the PPF was what is known
as a “wrap” and Mr A should have declared it when taking the policy out. *** said if he had
then it wouldn’t have offered him a policy. Mr A didn’t think that was fair and brought his
complaint here


What I’ve decided – and why

I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and
reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint.

The relevant law in this case is The Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations)
Act 2012 (CIDRA). This requires consumers to take reasonable care not to make a
misrepresentation when taking out a consumer insurance contract (a policy). The standard
of care is that of a reasonable consumer.

And if a consumer fails to do this, the insurer has certain remedies provided the
misrepresentation is - what CIDRA describes as - a qualifying misrepresentation. For it to be
a qualifying misrepresentation the insurer has to show it would have offered the policy on
different terms or not at all if the consumer hadn’t made the misrepresentation.

CIDRA sets out a number of considerations for deciding whether the consumer failed to take
reasonable care. And the remedy available to the insurer under CIDRA depends on whether
the qualifying misrepresentation was deliberate or reckless, or careless.

*** thinks Mr A failed to take reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation when he
took out the policy online. Mr A originally used an aggregator site and then was put through
to ***.

I’ve looked at the question Mr A was asked which says: “Has the car been modified in any
way?” There is an explanation next to the question which says: “A modification is any
change to the manufacturer’s original specification or features. That includes things like new
stereos, body kits or spoilers, alloy wheels, new paintwork and any performance
enhancement.

I’m therefore not persuaded he’s failed to take reasonable
care not to make a misrepresentation. And so, it follows that *** has no remedies under
CIDRA.

I’ve therefore looked at the impact on Mr A from *** unfairly avoiding his policy. ***
refunded his premium and declined his claim. Mr A’s explained that due to the avoidance
he’s had to do temporary repairs and that the insurance premiums have increased.
I asked our investigator to let both parties know that I intended to direct *** to:

1. Remove any adverse entries related to the cancellation placed on any
internal or external databases

2. Pay the claim in line with the terms and conditions of the policy. Mr A has
said he’s paid £1,585 for temporary repairs. If these aren’t lasting and
effective repairs, then *** will need to re-do the repairs to ensure the
damage caused in the accident is repaired to acceptable industry standards

3. Pay Mr A the £1,585 he paid for the temporary repairs, as he shouldn’t have
had to pay for them. 8% simple interest per year needs to be added to this
amount to compensate him for not having the money

4. Pay Mr A £350 as compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused

My final decision

For the reasons explained above, my final decision is that I uphold this complaint. I require
*************** to:

1. Remove any adverse entries related to the avoidance placed on any
internal or external databases and provide Mr A with a letter confirming it
avoided the policy in error.

2. Pay the claim in line with the terms and conditions of the policy. Mr A has
said he’s paid £1,585 for temporary repairs. If these aren’t lasting and
effective repairs, then *** will need to re-do the repairs to ensure the
damage caused in the accident is repaired to acceptable industry
standards.

3. Pay Mr A the £1,585 he paid for the temporary repairs, as he shouldn’t
have had to pay for them. 8% simple interest per year needs to be added
to this amount, calculated from the date Mr A paid for the repairs until the
date of settlement.

4. As *** is paying the claim it’s entitled to the premium. If *** seeks
payment for this, it will need to deduct what Mr A paid for his new policy,
for the time it would overlap with his policy with ***.

5. Pay Mr A £350 as compensation for the distress and inconvenience
caused

Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr A to accept or
reject my decision



I WON THE CASE!!!

I have accepted the terms above and i am now waiting on *** to get in contact with me they have 4 weeks from the 13th November to get touch and rectify the problems! I haven't heard from them thus far and eagerly awaiting their call so i can finally get out of them what i should've in the 1st place! "

 

 

 

Edited 3 December, 20232 yr by Stonekeeper

They also stated if there were ANY stickers on the car they would also cancel the policy and again not even allow you to remove sticker to conform 😄

 

And people wonder why I only take out insurance when its a legal obligation and then only the minimum cover required!

 

I could not be doing with all the BS nor paying for all my neighbours to have new freezers, televisions, automatic gate systems etc with the installers (the BIL's of the insurance agents) putting the failure down to electrical storm damage.

 

I have only been here a year and the above is the claims from just my 2 closest neighbours, when the hailstorm swept through it shattered the plastic chairs and table set on my balcony that I had only bought 2 weeks before, hey ho, these things happen and it was only €60, probably about half of what their monthly premium is now, they were gobsmacked when I said I wasn't insured and it was just bad luck, I should have known better.

 

Oh I forgot there was another claim to add to the above, my neighbour a frail 88 year old was outside pulling down an asbestos roof over a lean to, I immediately went over to help, well put him safely to one side and do it for him, then he had to explain to me that I had to do it so that it looked like hailstone damage like the one small part that had fallen down because the timber structure was rotten, the insurers paid for the whole structure to be replaced with new, it would have fallen down within months anyway.

 

I know that overall they are actually losing, the insurers never lose in the long term, they are simply ripping the ar5e out of it more than other policyholders, I refuse to put any of my money into that racket.

13 hours ago, Stonekeeper said:

 

Did you see the final thread starter's post in your second example regarding the ppf?

 

 

Of course I saw it 🙄 The point is that insurance companies will try anything to avoid paying out. The OP spend a year of his life and no doubt countless hours of stress and worry taking it to the ombudsman with no guarantee they'd rule in his favour.

DONT TELL EM PIKE! 😄

9 hours ago, HappySam said:

 

Of course I saw it 🙄 The point is that insurance companies will try anything to avoid paying out. The OP spend a year of his life and no doubt countless hours of stress and worry taking it to the ombudsman with no guarantee they'd rule in his favour.

 

There are lots of insurance companies, some good some bad.

 

Just because one bad insurance company insisted that refurbished wheels is a modification (it's not according to the insurance ombudsman) doesn't mean that they are all like that.

 

Strangely, this bad insurance company thought that if you kerbed your rims and refurbished them that was a modification, but if you scratched your bodywork and repainted that it wasn't a modification. Clearly, neither are modifications...according to the insurance ombudsman.

 

Edited 4 December, 20232 yr by Carlston