ChatterBank5 mins ago
Motor Insurance Company (ECAR & ELDON)
15 Answers
Hi there.
Last November i had my Bmw stolen from our house whilst out at a party. To cut the long story short, The car was insured fully comprehensive with Ecar and there legal team is Eldon. I reported it to both the police and the insurance company and they went through there process and week later they offered me £3000.00 in a written letter which said they were happy to offer the sum and settle the claim.
We waited for it to come through and 4 or 5 weeks later we recieved a letter saying they wernt going to payout.
Well THE REASON - The reason why they would was because me and my son were on the insurance as spouse which my by mistake i thought it was family related as they didnt give you alot to choose from but as which they should of noticed within the whole year of having the insurance with them that it was a mistake and changed it. We were both on the policy as single which showed it clearly we were not spouse so was just a simple error. I tried recently there website and it still does the same thing , there system lets you still go through with it and take a policy out, But i tried Asda, Tesco, Admiral and compare market and there system flagged up when i put single single and spouse and wouldnt allow you to complete the policy quote.
I wrote to the ombussman 6months ago and they got back to me last week saying they agree with Ecar why they shouldnt pay out. Its there fault aswell as mine can they really do this or what could i do. Please help out with whatever information you know,
Thanks for your time :)
Last November i had my Bmw stolen from our house whilst out at a party. To cut the long story short, The car was insured fully comprehensive with Ecar and there legal team is Eldon. I reported it to both the police and the insurance company and they went through there process and week later they offered me £3000.00 in a written letter which said they were happy to offer the sum and settle the claim.
We waited for it to come through and 4 or 5 weeks later we recieved a letter saying they wernt going to payout.
Well THE REASON - The reason why they would was because me and my son were on the insurance as spouse which my by mistake i thought it was family related as they didnt give you alot to choose from but as which they should of noticed within the whole year of having the insurance with them that it was a mistake and changed it. We were both on the policy as single which showed it clearly we were not spouse so was just a simple error. I tried recently there website and it still does the same thing , there system lets you still go through with it and take a policy out, But i tried Asda, Tesco, Admiral and compare market and there system flagged up when i put single single and spouse and wouldnt allow you to complete the policy quote.
I wrote to the ombussman 6months ago and they got back to me last week saying they agree with Ecar why they shouldnt pay out. Its there fault aswell as mine can they really do this or what could i do. Please help out with whatever information you know,
Thanks for your time :)
Answers
1 to 15 of 15
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by thebestoflife. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The responsibility of ensuring the documents are correct is yours, not theirs - in fact, you'll probably find the covering letter that accompanied your insurance documents advised you to check them for accuracy.
From their point of view, a discount would have been allowed for a 'spouse' driving as opposed to your son driving, so they may consider you have obtained cheaper insurance by misrepresentation.
An FOS decision is binding on the insurer, but not on you, so you do have the option of pursuing your insurer through the courts, but given the FOS agreed with your insurer I'd imagine the chances of being successful are, at best, slim.
Frankly, I don't think you've got any chance of getting the money.
From their point of view, a discount would have been allowed for a 'spouse' driving as opposed to your son driving, so they may consider you have obtained cheaper insurance by misrepresentation.
An FOS decision is binding on the insurer, but not on you, so you do have the option of pursuing your insurer through the courts, but given the FOS agreed with your insurer I'd imagine the chances of being successful are, at best, slim.
Frankly, I don't think you've got any chance of getting the money.
Surely if they offered me the money, they should of checked before or not.
Since the car got stolen my life has gone seriously down hill having to start from the bottom again, and even lost my job as i had no car. But at the end of the day its there fault aswell as mine so they should atleast give half of what they offered me back. There must be a way of taking them to court because at the end of the day they are not treating the customer fairly in the way they are acting.
Since the car got stolen my life has gone seriously down hill having to start from the bottom again, and even lost my job as i had no car. But at the end of the day its there fault aswell as mine so they should atleast give half of what they offered me back. There must be a way of taking them to court because at the end of the day they are not treating the customer fairly in the way they are acting.
sory, but i agree with flip flop. Thee is nothing stopping you taking them to small claims court, but the responsibility to check the policy is yours, not theirs. You say it's their fault as well as yurs but how is it if you gave them the wrong information? You also say "they should have noticed" but hey would ( and have said) YOU should have noticed
I know i should of checked aswell, But all insurance company have a set of rules in place and there system should of not let me take that policy out. I checked out insurance sites and they declind my policy when i put us both as single and then spouse related and it flagged up. I would of changed it if i had known but because they never mentioned it within the whole year of me being with them insured and it was a monthly policy so they would of checked details each month to make sure there the same address etcc.. They never mentioned spouse before, they tried saying i had a accident claim i didnt tell them about , which was cleared up as it was mentioned to them and put on the policy.
Because they failed there , i think they just looked for something to save them and they found a easy option with using spouse, when spoke with someone from ecar insurance they sold it wouldnt of matter if you still had the policy they would of adjusted it and made me pay the difference. So why cant they do that now , thats my argue against them if you can see my point.
Because they failed there , i think they just looked for something to save them and they found a easy option with using spouse, when spoke with someone from ecar insurance they sold it wouldnt of matter if you still had the policy they would of adjusted it and made me pay the difference. So why cant they do that now , thats my argue against them if you can see my point.
As both flip_flop and bednobs say, if the Financial Ombudsman Service has rejected your claim against the insurer, your only options are to either take the insurer to the small claims court, or to approach the insurers/underwriters to see if they would settle for a lower payout as a gesture of goodwill.
You have discovered the problem with using 'cheap' online insurers, compounded by your not checking the policy documents properly when received. As you are not completing a new proposal form each month, you cannot expect the insurers to pick up that fact that you are mother and son and not wife and spouse.
All this hassle would not have arisen had you used a firm of insurance brokers, who would have selected the appropriate cover and have checked the documentation when received. Should you then have had a problem, you could have taken them to the FOS, as the problem would have been as a result of their negligence.
Just remember the motto 'cheapest is not best'.
You have discovered the problem with using 'cheap' online insurers, compounded by your not checking the policy documents properly when received. As you are not completing a new proposal form each month, you cannot expect the insurers to pick up that fact that you are mother and son and not wife and spouse.
All this hassle would not have arisen had you used a firm of insurance brokers, who would have selected the appropriate cover and have checked the documentation when received. Should you then have had a problem, you could have taken them to the FOS, as the problem would have been as a result of their negligence.
Just remember the motto 'cheapest is not best'.
I can certainly see your point thebestoflife. However, your insurance company and the ombudsman don't. I don't think you would win a case by saying " and four people on answerbank agree with me that you are buggers"
I agree that insurance companies are tricksy, and will do anything to avoid a payout, but eally really think you may just have to chalk this up to experience, and learn for the future to be especially careful with info you are giving any insurance comany in future and read their small print
I agree that insurance companies are tricksy, and will do anything to avoid a payout, but eally really think you may just have to chalk this up to experience, and learn for the future to be especially careful with info you are giving any insurance comany in future and read their small print
i know you said its your son , but what they are saying in logic and reality doesnt really matter, i think they should payout and just minus the extra cost from the total. you are right to feel they should hve looked at this 1st before offering you the money. I myself are fighting direct line for giving false info out when i took my policy out.
So people are free to give wrong information to insurers whenever they like, and if they are 'caught' then all they need to do is pay the difference between what they have paid and what they should have paid?
Is that what you are suggesting?
And if they don't get 'caught' then great, they've got cheaper insurance by inducing an insurer to insure them when otherwise they may not have or may have at a much higher premium.
Insurers have a legitimate right to refuse indemnity in this case. Frankly, the poster is lucky the insurers have chosen not to void the policy for misrepresentation - because if they had, the poster would find it next to impossible in finding further insurance.
Is that what you are suggesting?
And if they don't get 'caught' then great, they've got cheaper insurance by inducing an insurer to insure them when otherwise they may not have or may have at a much higher premium.
Insurers have a legitimate right to refuse indemnity in this case. Frankly, the poster is lucky the insurers have chosen not to void the policy for misrepresentation - because if they had, the poster would find it next to impossible in finding further insurance.
Right i got this letter ive sent to them from a solicitor, i think its wel said.
---
Dear Ombudsman,
Thank you for your letter dated 23/11/2009 in which you asked me to respond quickly if I wished to pursue my complaint against Southern Rock Insurance.
I do understand the implications of the data that the insurer used for pricing my insurance and assessing risk. However, I feel that it is the responsibility of the insurer to make sure that their on-line quotation software is set up so as to validate information supplied by the prospective policyholder for consistency and to flag up data that is inconsistent.
In my case, the on-line system permitted input of spouse for one driver although both drivers input `single’ for marital status.
I believe that insurers who provide on-line services should make best endeavours to have internal system validation to pick up inconsistent data that can arise through a user selecting incorrect fields from the drop-down lists. This would appear to be essential where the onus is on the customer to provide information that is critical to risk pricing.
Had this policy been taken out over the phone, it would have been immediately apparent to the call centre agent that if both parties were single, the labelling of the one party as `spouse’ was inconsistent.
I have tried 4 other insurers’ on-line facilities and they all blocked the situation where 2 drivers selected as `single’ when spouse had also been selected.
In view of this information, I request that my complaint is reconsidered by the ombudsman.
---
Dear Ombudsman,
Thank you for your letter dated 23/11/2009 in which you asked me to respond quickly if I wished to pursue my complaint against Southern Rock Insurance.
I do understand the implications of the data that the insurer used for pricing my insurance and assessing risk. However, I feel that it is the responsibility of the insurer to make sure that their on-line quotation software is set up so as to validate information supplied by the prospective policyholder for consistency and to flag up data that is inconsistent.
In my case, the on-line system permitted input of spouse for one driver although both drivers input `single’ for marital status.
I believe that insurers who provide on-line services should make best endeavours to have internal system validation to pick up inconsistent data that can arise through a user selecting incorrect fields from the drop-down lists. This would appear to be essential where the onus is on the customer to provide information that is critical to risk pricing.
Had this policy been taken out over the phone, it would have been immediately apparent to the call centre agent that if both parties were single, the labelling of the one party as `spouse’ was inconsistent.
I have tried 4 other insurers’ on-line facilities and they all blocked the situation where 2 drivers selected as `single’ when spouse had also been selected.
In view of this information, I request that my complaint is reconsidered by the ombudsman.
No FLip FLop - what I am saying is that where the insurer has contributed to the error, and/or the error has not affected the claim and the principle of utmost good faith could be applied, then the insurer should and is required, to act reasonably.
Deliberate lying is, of course, fraud and I agree that the insurer should void the policy and that other insurers shoudl then refuse cover.
Deliberate lying is, of course, fraud and I agree that the insurer should void the policy and that other insurers shoudl then refuse cover.
Eldon Insurance Services is part of the Brightside Group PLC - look them up ,they own e-car please see reviews on ecar, they work on p-rofit from cancellation fees with a 25% cancellation rate. They do not look to insure, they are not underwriters, they look to take your money & then work on a provoked cancellation system. there are 1000,s of negative review on this company. The BBC are looking to feature them on a program called The Legalizer, Trading Standards are examining them & they are banned in Australia. Please for the love of God do not use them. AVOID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Eldon Insurance Services is part of the Brightside Group PLC - look them up ,they own e-car please see reviews on ecar, they work on p-rofit from cancellation fees with a 25% cancellation rate. They do not look to insure, they are not underwriters, they look to take your money & then work on a provoked cancellation system. there are 1000,s of negative review on this company. The BBC are looking to feature them on a program called The Legalizer, Trading Standards are examining them & they are banned in Australia. Please for the love of God do not use them. AVOID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Eldon Insurance Services is part of the Brightside Group PLC - look them up ,they own e-car please see reviews on ecar, they work on p-rofit from cancellation fees with a 25% cancellation rate. They do not look to insure, they are not underwriters, they look to take your money & then work on a provoked cancellation system. there are 1000,s of negative review on this company. The BBC are looking to feature them on a program called The Legalizer, Trading Standards are examining them & they are banned in Australia. Please for the love of God do not use them. AVOID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1 to 15 of 15
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.