38

My girlfriend was recently involved in a crash where both parties are claiming it was not their fault.

She took out a policy with an insurance company called GoSkippy whose brokers are Eldon Insurance.
Unbeknown to her is when she took out the insurance, she inadvertently took out a policy that did not cover her during the commute to and from work. This appears very underhand to me, for one they worded the commute clause as different that it should be and for two, she was not actually commuting to work when this actually happened.

The crash happened after she went to see a friend and was on our way to our child's nursery. The insurance company is trying to claim that she was travelling to and from work and will not pay for anything.

I am obviously incensed by this and want to counter their claim.

What are my next steps in being able to challenge their claim?

What should my next steps be to avoid financial annihilation?

SQB
  • 895
  • 5
  • 17
dagda1
  • 530
  • 1
  • 4
  • 6
  • 2
    I'm in the United Kingdom. Glasgow, Scotland to be precise. – dagda1 Jun 20 '17 at 20:16
  • @quid Most UK insurance does include commuting, but it's still explicitly mentioned ("SDP+commuting"), and it can be omitted if it's not necessary. Use for business purposes is always an extra, of course. – Andrew Leach Jun 21 '17 at 00:00
  • 2
    @AndrewLeach, that's kind of mind blowing. – quid Jun 21 '17 at 00:03
  • 11
    @quid it's quite common not to commute by car in the UK even if you own one, so it makes sense to offer a discount for that. – GS - Apologise to Monica Jun 21 '17 at 00:07
  • 1
    It is fairly common to drive to the station to take the train to work, and that is using the car for commuting. The journey doesn't have to end up at work, merely help to get you there. If dagda1's journey was part of the journey between work and home, that could well be classed as commuting. – Andrew Leach Jun 21 '17 at 00:21
  • 13
    If you buy cheap insurance, you never get more than you paid for. As you just learned the hard way, often you get less. The bottom line is that it's up to the customer to disclose all the relevant information to the insurer, and you didn't do that. The bad news is that you don't have much of a legal case, IMO. And if you look at https://www.reviews.co.uk/company-reviews/store/gc-goskippy, the company doesn't have much of a reputation - even their "1.5 out of 5 stars" average contains a lot of people who posted bad reviews but gave them 5 stars (presumably) by mistake! – alephzero Jun 21 '17 at 00:56
  • 2
    @quid it's quite common in UK car insurance. Even the "big companies" list "travel to and from work" as a separate item from "social domestic and pleasure" though they may not charge extra for including it. Including "travelling on your employer's business" as well is a different (and more expensive) option, of course. – alephzero Jun 21 '17 at 01:02
  • Sorry to hear, but it is quite widespread in very many countries that insurance companies are trying to scam their customers and pay nothing on random pretext. Depending on the damages, it might be worth finding a lawyer. No guarantee of success, insurance companies hire good lawyers. –  Jun 21 '17 at 07:35
  • 2
    It's been suggested in a flag that this should be migrated to law.SE. I obviously think it's on-topic or I wouldn't have answered, but I'm leaving the flag for another mod to handle. My view, following https://money.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2124/should-questions-about-legal-matters-be-on-topic, is that the question is more about the insurance market in the UK and not very much about a specific legal dispute – GS - Apologise to Monica Jun 21 '17 at 07:45
  • 6
    If she ever commuted while under that policy, and made the insurance company aware of that, then they can null and void the policy under typical terms and conditions - it doesn't have to be that specific trip they are talking about, just any commuting done. Insurance companies can and will void policies if you commit any illegal act with the vehicle while under th policy, and driving without insurance counts... –  Jun 21 '17 at 08:32
  • 19
    "The crash happened after she went to see a friend and was on our way to our child's nursery". Thats not communuting. Don't let your girlfriend be bullied. Point this out to the insurance and if they don#t pay quickly, go get a lawyer. And cancel your insurance and get a real one, not such an almost fraudulent one. – Polygnome Jun 21 '17 at 08:54
  • 3
    I agree with @Polygnome - visiting her friend and taking the child to nursery fall under "Social, Domestic and Pleasure" (SPD) which is the most basic form of insurance one can get in the UK (in my experience). Though companies like GoSkippy often offer the cheapest prices, it usually isn't much more per month/year for a reputable insurance supplier who is less likely to cause problems for you in your circumstance. No insurer will just hand over money without doing due-diligence, but less reputable companies will use this as a "Get out of jail free" card whenever they think they can. – Kallum Tanton Jun 21 '17 at 09:19
  • I will ensure my family never make this mistake again, I also want to let others know what fraudsters these guys are. They came back from one of the compare websites who I feel are equally culpable. – dagda1 Jun 21 '17 at 09:24
  • 3
    Bear in mind that Skippy arent the insurer, they are the broker - the terms of the insurance depends on who underwrites the policy and Skippy list 16 insurers for their car policies. –  Jun 21 '17 at 09:59
  • 1
    @Polygnome If the child's nursery is there to take care of the kid while the parent works, driving to/from there will be considered work-related commuting. – Dmitry Grigoryev Jun 21 '17 at 13:20
  • 1
    then what is not commuting? You could technically tie anything to commuting. She was going from the nursery to visit a friend – dagda1 Jun 21 '17 at 13:23
  • @DmitryGrigoryev I'm not well-versed enough in UK law to definitely answer that, but in Germany your commute is only the way straight from your door to the office (you aren't even communting anymore if you stop at the bakery - not even if that directly on the way). But thats why I said see a lawyer, a lawyer can give you a good angle on whats whats. Plus the first session is usually free. – Polygnome Jun 21 '17 at 13:30
  • The reviews on the site @alephzero linked remind me of a certain XKCD – Kevin Jun 21 '17 at 19:27
  • @Polygnome - what the car was being used for at the time of the accident is irrelevant here; the moment you use the car for some purpose it is not insured for (commuting in this case) the insurance policy becomes null and void at that point. The insurer is technically correct to refuse payment of this claim but, having said that, I would expect most reputable insurers to overlook the technicalities and judge the claim on its own merits. That seems not to be the case here, sadly. – Spratty Jun 22 '17 at 08:13
  • this is not a reputable insurer – dagda1 Jun 22 '17 at 08:16
  • @Spratty I doubt that bringing your child to the nursery is commuting. Thats why I said call a Lawyer. Its highly relevant what the car was used for, because thats the whole point. In german law, you are no longer commuting as soon as you deviate from going from your home directly to your place of work (yes, bringing children to the nursery isn't commuting). Thats why I said call a Lawyer or ask on Law.SE, this isn't a financial question, its a legal one. I'm not versed enough in Uk law to know wether this legally counts as commuting under UK law or not. – Polygnome Jun 22 '17 at 08:19
  • 1
    @Polygnome - what the car was being used for at the time of the accident is completely immaterial in this case; the moment the car was used for commuting in the past the policy became void, assuming the insurer finds out about it. This is absolutely standard UK insurance practice: if the policy says "don't commute" and you do, from that point on you are uninsured. That's the issue here, not what the car was being used for at the time of the accident. It's a technicality, and a rather harsh one, but still a fact. – Spratty Jun 22 '17 at 08:23
  • 1
    @Spratty That depends on how exactly the policy is worded, I presume. From what the OP is writing, I would have guessed the car is only uninsured while commuting, not before or after. Again, that why I said call a Lawyer, because that not a financial question and it really depends on what actually is written both in the contract and in the law. – Polygnome Jun 22 '17 at 08:28
  • @Polygnome : The default legal position for a UK insurance policy would be that if you use the car for an uninsured purpose, the policy becomes void. However it may be possible to argue that this is not "treating the customer fairly" (which the regulators require them to do). The position in Germany is very likely to be different. – Martin Bonner supports Monica Jun 22 '17 at 08:43
  • A random suggestion: last time I had to complain about home insurance I got no help from anyone on the phone until I tried social media; complaining in public can trigger a "social media complaint fixing team" who actually have the power to sort things out. – pjc50 Jun 22 '17 at 09:24
  • 1
    Out of curiosity what's the reason for excluding commuting in policies? Assuming policies already have caps on the annual distance driven, does the risk vary between X miles travelled commuting, and X miles travelled for any other reason? Are accident rates higher during commutes (because of dense traffic?) If so, shouldn't policies just exclude rush hours on weekdays? – Anders Forsgren Jun 22 '17 at 13:00
  • 3
    @AndersForsgren - It will be to do with risk because commutes are busier and people pay less attention - it's a familiar route you take every day. Monotony + Busy = risky. They rarely exclude times because of the logistics involved in proving these. Having worked in claims you rarely get more than "accident occured between 0935 and 1000". Black box policies often have "night (i.e.1230-0500" exclusions so your average black box driver (Who's likely a youth) isn't doing stupid things late at night. – Miller86 Jun 22 '17 at 15:13
  • I had to argue a case last year for a month despite police letter, video evidence, the other drive admitting fault (no one was in our parked car) and 10 witness statements so that's the level of pain you are up against. Keep pushing. – indofraiser Jun 22 '17 at 15:46
  • 1
    Also don't get too wrapped up in this as your problem if it's actually the girlfriend's problem. Outrage (over an injustice to other) is a much more powerful emotion than rage over injustice to self, so you must be careful not to be swept away. If you're not careful you can end up squeezing the poor girlfriend in the middle between you and the insurers... likely leading to raised-voice conversations containing the phrase "only trying to help". – Harper - Reinstate Monica Jun 22 '17 at 15:48
  • Since you say she didn't know it was no-commute I wonder if you have a case against the broker. Perhaps they slipped that in to lower the price and didn't tell her. I've had insurance agents omit coverages I asked for in order to make their numbers look better. – Loren Pechtel Jun 23 '17 at 02:31
  • 2
    Did you go to see the friend from work? Why was you child in nursery? Sounds to me that you are not telling the whole story. – paparazzo Jun 23 '17 at 08:55

2 Answers2

72

Having worked in insurance, I can give you a few pointers.

Firstly, state that you "may have to complain". Insurers hate complaints because they really complicate matters, are loads of work and must be tracked. I would advise not actually escalating it to a complaint until later as this may cause a delay as the actual process is quite convoluted. Mentioning the possibility of complaint sometimes makes people a bit more active. Try and resolve the issue, and if you aren't getting anywhere then make a complaint.

Maintain a friendly, assertive, polite demeanor. If you get angry and aggressive you'll not likely get far. Remember that the people on the end of the phone are both human and more knowledgeable about insurance than you. You want them on your side, not against you.

Make copious notes. If you can, record calls. If you are recording calls you will likely legally need to give them the option of not being recorded, so make sure you mention that you're recording each individual call as soon as you start speaking to the handler.

Refer to your notes and make sure you carry out actions you say you will. If you spend a few days sending something you said you'd email over that day, and you then chase them a few days after that they may not have had the document through their workflow yet. It also engenders urgency if you're acting promptly, and suggests that you don't really care if you're taking your time.

Get Names. This is an important step, as this gives the handler someone to talk to who may be familiar with your case. You may end up speaking to the same people more than once, so try and build a rapport if you do. "I like this guy" may lead to a bit more effort being put in, and a potentially better outcome.

In my experience, GoSkippy can be a bit slow to respond to things, so you'll likely have to chase them up. If you chase them up and say "I called on X date, discussing Y with Z and Z said they would do A, B and C. Has this been done yet?" it looks better than saying "I called about a week ago and spoke to one of your colleagues who said he'd do something for me. He's not done it, what's going on?",

As to a plan of action, I would split this into two points: Mis-sold policy and definition of commuting.

  • Mis-sold policy - If they truly gave your wife two options, then they messed up. The standard 3 offered by goskippy are Social Domestic and Pleasure (SDP), SDP+Commuting, and SDP+C and Business use. Other companies sometimes roll commuting into SDP as standard. On the comparison sites however, there are usually the three separate options, and if you used one to set the policy up and clicked "SDP Only" then you may be in trouble.

  • Social domestic and pleasure only DOES NOT include commuting. Whilst it is your responsibility to thoroughly check any documentation that comes through, it could be argued that if given two options between Business Use and SDP, then a reasonable person could be considered to assume that Goskippies definition of SDP did include commuting. Therefore, they need to prove to you that there were three options offered and that your wife specifically excluded commuting. IF they can't, then you should be able to argue that only two were offered and that commuting could have reasonably been assumed to be included. Use that term "reasonable person" btw, it's used in a lot of internal literature - at least at the insurer, I worked at.

  • not commuting - Firstly, clarify their definition of "commuting". If your wife was on her way to work afterwards, then they may well consider she was commuting. For instance, at present, I drive from my house to my son's childminders, then to my wife's work and finally to mine. My commute could be argued to be 1 minute (my workplace is probably a minutes drive from my wife's, but I can't park in her car-park), but if I were to have an accident between my house and my son's childminder (~15 mins drive) the insurers would probably consider that commuting.

  • If she was not on her way to work afterwards, and assuming your wife arranged her visit via text (or whatsapp, fb messenger or similar) you should easily be able to show that your wife had driven from a friends house to the childminder. If she was on a holiday day or was not working on that day, then that's also something you should be able to prove either with proof of her working pattern or proof of her holiday. If she doesn't have a job at all, then again, that's something that's provable.

Proof reigns king in claims, so if you can prove certain key facts then you should be on to a winner.

Miller86
  • 640
  • 4
  • 9
  • 5
    The same comment applies here as on the other answer - if she EVER uses the car for commuting she has likely invalidated the policy regardless of whether this specific journey was a commute or not. – Vicky Jun 21 '17 at 11:35
  • 9
    @Vicky : You are correct, but it is probably going to be easier to get the insurer to pay out on an ex gratia basis if she wasn't commuting than if she was. Also, don't forget that financial institutions in the UK are required to "treat their customers fairly" - they can no longer refuse to pay out entirely if there was an innocent (and irrelevant) mistake when filling out the application. – Martin Bonner supports Monica Jun 21 '17 at 12:15
  • 1
    Martin - I completely forgot about TCF! OP should definitely mention terms like "I don't see how its fair"... – Miller86 Jun 21 '17 at 14:33
  • 6
    I would also stress that regardless of whether she currently uses the policy for commuting and whether the claim is valid rests therefore on if she was commuting or not, the op believes that they were sold it inclusive of commuting, therefore the insurance is not as sold, and therefore the OP has been missold insurance. Whether this misselling was an accident on the part of the OP or the insurers will decide whether this claim is dealt with or not. If they've used a comparison site, they may be in trouble as most have the three options... – Miller86 Jun 21 '17 at 14:51
  • 1
    "friendly, assertive, polite demeanor" come now, they're already British. What more would you expect? – corsiKa Jun 22 '17 at 09:16
  • 4
    "reasonable person" is actually a legal term. Specifically it is a "Legal Fiction" which is used as a "Legal Test". So yes, it would be used in a lot of literature... – Aron Jun 22 '17 at 09:55
37

You should start by making a written complaint to the insurance company itself. You have two angles of attack:

  • What was discussed when she was sold the policy. Make sure you set out exactly what you believe you were told and highlight that they didn't ask about commuting (assuming that's the case). Ask them to preserve any recordings they have of the call and to send you a copy.

  • The nature of the journey where the accident happened. From the description - unless it was part of a journey to and from work - there's no good reason for them to classify it as commuting.

Make sure you make good written notes now of anything that happened verbally - phone calls etc, and keep doing this as the process goes along.

If that written complaint doesn't work, your next step is to go to the Financial Ombudsman, who are a neutral adjudication service.

If the Ombudsman doesn't support your case, you could go to court directly, but it'll be expensive and a lot of effort, and by this stage it'd be unlikely you would win. The Ombudsman's rejection wouldn't count against you directly, but it'd be a strong indication that your case is weak.

See https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/making-a-complaint-about-an-insurance-company for a more detailed walk-through.

GS - Apologise to Monica
  • 29,974
  • 8
  • 93
  • 119
  • +1 for making notes of everything said - you can easily be burned when the company denies something because there's no proof. I always use my smartphone to make all calls and have an app which records every one. NEVER rely on the other party recording your conversations, make sure to record them yourself.

    Also the company is not required to record phone calls - and even if they do they'll most likely deny that they have yours on file if it contains anything that would work against them.

    – Kallum Tanton Jun 21 '17 at 09:10
  • 10
    Good response - but I'm not sure I'd use the first point; it reads like you're accepting that she was commuting but it wasn't clear that was excluded. I would go only with the second point - she wasn't commuting, full stop. You're giving ground if you accept she was commuting - arguing that the T&Cs weren't clear enough won't wash. Stick to the main point that the journey was not a commute and therefore the exclusion doesn't apply. – Oscar Bravo Jun 21 '17 at 09:12
  • 6
    Worth noting that if the insured car is used for commuting, even if this specific journey wasn't commuting, the insurance company can refuse or reduce cover (because using the vehicle for commuting will change the overall risk profile, in their eyes). If that applies, it's best to be honest up front about it and negotiate reduced cover or challenge on the basis of what was sold, rather than try to cover up as insurers will likely be find out if it is. – rolinger Jun 21 '17 at 09:12
  • 2
    Downvoted because a written complaint may well take longer to deal with. Insurers have IIRC 8 days to respond to a complaint and 8 Weeks to resolve them. Some insurers will refuse to comment on ongoing complaints until resolution. Exhaust the insurers internal systems first THEN complain – Miller86 Jun 21 '17 at 11:10
  • 1
    In many countries calls taped are null as proof, and even organizations have the obligation to inform you you are being taped. – Rui F Ribeiro Jun 21 '17 at 11:15
  • 1
    @Miller86: what's the difference between exhausting their internal systems and complaining? And if you'll end up going to the Financial Ombudsman it's best to get the clock ticking on a formal complaint as soon as possible. – GS - Apologise to Monica Jun 21 '17 at 11:35
  • 1
    Usually, insurance companies have internal "Dissatisfaction" processes they go through - minor escalation. complaints are more for "I've hit a wall with you and i'm unhappy with what you've done". Ombudsmen complaints are rare, particularly given that the offending company automatically gets a fine for each complaint accepted for consideration by the FOS. – Miller86 Jun 21 '17 at 14:32
  • 1
    @rolinger wouldn't they need to refund the premiums if they claim the policy was never valid? – Kat Jun 21 '17 at 19:33
  • 1
    @RuiFRibeiro In the UK you can record calls. If recorded without the permission of the other party, you can only present it as evidence if the other party agrees. But you can present a written transcript of the call as evidence and then offer the recording if the other party chooses to disagree with your transcript. If they refuse the recording, it immediately looks like they have something to hide, and you still have your transcript. – Simon B Jun 21 '17 at 21:16
  • @Kat unfortunately not, for example http://www.thexscovercompany.com/documents/policyWording/GENERIC_Motor_Policy.pdf section 1.3 says "In the event that you have supplied us with information which is incorrect or false we reserve the right to declare your policy invalid and cancel your cover, with no refund of premium.". I would expect most insurers are similar, I've certainly seen similar text on other policies. – rolinger Jun 23 '17 at 10:37
  • @rollinger - Indeed, often if such a policy is found to be invalidated at the point of claim, the insurers will deal with the third party's claim, (which could be very expensive indeed!), hence the retention of premium - essentially "you lied to us, we would have charged you more as a result, and it could have cost us outside of what we agreed to, so we're keeping what you paid us". – Miller86 Jun 23 '17 at 14:07