Comfort Insurance don't tell them anything

[twooks]

Nicely put, 'Mr Comfort' thanks for that.

 

B-)

[michele]

Thank you Peter.

 

Totally seperate question hopefully you will be able to follow it.

 

So you drive at work lets say a Bus Driver are you then going to tell your insurance company that you have had an accident NO.

 

After all what's it got to do with them they are not insuring you for a bus thats down to the bus company.

 

You drive for the Police Force the same would apply .

 

What I am asking is what has your car insurance got to do with your M/H insurance . After all you can only get one set of NCB in your name.

 

So if you were to smash your car you would then not be able to use your NCB anyway on your camper so whats the problem .

 

Is it me or do insurance companies want it always ? Just asking of course.

 

Seems to me if you tell them you get nothing for being honest ? again just asking .. please tell me different if you know.

 

What I dont understand is what are they insuring the vehicle or the driver?

If its the vehicle then surely it only applies to that vehicle.

If its the driver I can understand them wanting to know.

What I cannot understand is say if you have 4 vehicles you insure the lot costing ???????its not one single driver that gets insured for £300 eg.

 

so if I have it right and I will stand corrected .....

is it me not understanding it I would hate to break the law.

 

I dont really understand why the company choose to load mikes insurance after all he has disclosed to them ..

 

ok obviously I,ve lost the plot ! sorry .

 

 

[Derek Uzzell]

Michele:

 

This is the situation as I understand it.

 

In 2005 Mike's motorhome was insured by Norwich Union via a policy arranged by Comfort Insurance.

 

He was involved in a very minor accident in Italy and, because he believed there was a small, but real, chance a claim might result he (wisely and properly) reported the incident to Comfort.

 

Comfort, in turn, relayed the information to Norwich Union who recorded it on the "Underwriters Exchange" database.

 

This database is aimed at minimising fraud and is available to all UK insurance underwriters. It can't be altered by insurance brokers (such as Comfort) and, because the information held on the Underwriters Exchange database relating to Mike's Italian accident is accurate, there seems no reason why Norwich Union should remove it.

 

The important thing here is that the title of this thread and the comments made by Mike about Comfort Insurance are injudicious and potentially damaging to that company.

 

The problem Mike has experienced with Admiral Car Insurance has nothing to do with Comfort and, if he feels he is being treated unfairly by Admiral's underwriters, then he should raise that issue with them.

 

Fortunately, Comfort's managing director has now taken the trouble to provide the forum with the full facts behind the story.

 

[fjmike]

So what Peter and Pat Cue are saying in a round about way is I was guilty of not disclosing something to Admiral that was so trivial that it did not even occur to me to mention.Had I known that being honest would lead to so much hassle I would not have bothered saying anything in the first place. At no time was I informed that telling them would go on an outside(Comfort or Norwich Union) database. I have taken out several motor insurance policies since this with no mention of this tag/black mark. The fact still remains that I am having to pay out for an acident that was not my fault(I was stationary), on private land and no money paid out all because the insurance industry likes to play silly b******ers

 

Bye the way who is Ben

[Don Madge]

fjmike - 2007-05-18 8:09 P

 

Bye the way who is Ben

 

Mike,

 

Ben is Pat and Peters son.

 

Don

[twooks]

OK I give up, where did Ben come into the conversation

 

B-)

[fjmike]

Derek Uzzell - 2007-05-18 7:09 PM

 

The important thing here is that the title of this thread and the comments made by Mike about Comfort Insurance are injudicious and potentially damaging to that company.

 

 

How on earth have I been injudicious. I have only posted the facts as they have been known to me. The fact remains if you report a minor incident to your insurance company eventually you will pay for it, even if you are totally 100% not to blame

[enodreven]

Hi,

 

We moved this morning from La Rochelle as the weather was overcast and are now at Camping De Futur at Aventon and the weather is very hot we have all the windows open and its 10:45 pm its been very mixed weather on route as I said overcast at La Rochelle and that turned to full sun as we got nearer to Aventon ? its very near Futurscope and about 15km from Poitiers realy nice campsite run by an English couple, we are off to the Loire either tomorrow or the day after, its in the ACSI Card book at 14 euro,

 

hope you found the trip report so far interesting

 

Brian

 

 

twooks - 2007-05-18 5:37 PM

 

enodreven - 2007-05-18 4:33 PM

 

Hi,

 

Never assume anything if you want to know ask ??

 

 

 

so, are you still in La Rochelle, and what's the weather like ??

 

B-)

[Brambles]

Surely the spirit of this central register or incident data is to stop people trying to defraud (for want of a better word) an insurance company by not disclosing a serious accident or large claim. The fact is also used to record minor claims or incidents is part and parcel of it but surely not in the spirit of its purpose to penalise someone for what could have been an oversight on their part. They were honest enough to mention in the 1st place so why deny later on. I am in two minds here, but it does seem somewhat unfair to load a premium as a result. Now unless we are not hearing the whole story then there is something that seems to have gone wrong.

It would appear from what has been posted so far on the thread the Insurance company is being someone over zealous.

I also question the morals or indeed what the privacy laws are in relation to a company posting personal information of someone on a public forum, whether that person started the discussion or otherwise.

I think I am losing or indeed have lost the plot here.

J.

 

[Basil]

Brambles - 2007-05-18 10:07 PM

 

I also question the morals or indeed what the privacy laws are in relation to a company posting personal information of someone on a public forum, whether that person started the discussion or otherwise.

I think I am losing or indeed have lost the plot here.

J.

 

Must admit that was my initial reaction but all things considered I believe the origional poster opened the door by naming the company that has replied. Surely equality of open-ness considering that the company post has not said anything not disclosed by the origional poster except perhaps for the surname.

Not taking sides here trying to remain neutral.

 

Bas

[michele]

IF I had an accident in the M/H and my car insurance loaded my premium

when I next have an accident in my M/H will the car insurance company honor the claim , even though I,m not insured with them .

 

Sorry don't matter what way I look at this seems IMHO and it is a Humble opinion. Insurance companies want it allways.

 

Now whilst I now understand that Mike quite correctly told them

and quite correctly disclosed to them I can see that three years down the line he might have well and truely forgotton about it.

 

That does not make this person dishonest after all he disclosed in the beginning.

 

Why should he be loaded what ever you call it because of the fact that he has plainly forgot to inform the car company about and Accident three years plus in a totaly seperate vehicle...

 

Which brings me back to the fact is the car company going to meet half of the claim or something because all of a sudden they seem to have an interest in something yet ! you may never have claimed on your car insurance in 30years.

 

And a thousand pound claim on a camper van, you would have to consider the actual premium cost on your cars because over three or four years if all your vehicle premiums went up they would be double the cost of the damage or the cost to repair the camper ...........

 

Is it me Nuts or what seems to me the honest get to pay for the rapidly increasing fraudsters ............

 

EG , the reason I say this is it's all FUBAR ...........................

 

Let's say for eg, your from Lituania you have brought your left hand car to Great Britain after a while you think I like it here I,m going to stay.

 

You have it insured with a british insurer and after a while you DRIVE the car back to Lituania sell it for a couple of grand for scrap/parts catch a bus back to the pavements of gold, Britain then, you report it as stolen from the UK. claiming £8000 from the insurance company their £2000 up straight away .

They now go and buy the right hand drive car because they are spending so much time in good old blighty.....

 

And I have it on good authority that these left hand cars are not turning up anywhere ! every scam going ...........

Who's paying for it all .... So I ask myself does it pay to be honest !

 

Yes we all say and thats what everyone in charge relies on...

 

rant over.

 

:-(

[Basil]

Hi Michele,

 

I think what you are saying is quite right and as always the insurance company's want everything their own way. However under the way they carry out their business I do see why it has happened as all insurance is based on risk and someone who has reported an accident, on whatever motor vehicle, is considered to be a higher risk on any other motor insurance that is applied for. I would wager that if people get a fine or points on their license few would religiously phone round all their insurance company's and tell them but they should.

The real question is that after 3years should there still be a marker placed against this incident if there has been no claim made and that is why I would take it up through a complaint to the insurance Ombudsman as I had to do to correct my problem. Just my opinion.

 

Bas

[michele]

Brambles - 2007-05-18 5:31 PM

 

So to clarify what is being concluded here. Is it you will not get penalised for mentioning an incident where there is no claim, but will be penalised for non disclosure?

J.

 

Brambles quite agree with the above....................

 

.......................................................................................................................

 

We have had it with this Country

 

Reason It's none of the buisness of the Car Insurance Company's

what a person does in a Camper Van so long as it does not affect their licence that goes without saying....IMHO

 

 

Must Just add Mike you musn't be angry with Comfort for this they have abided by the law as it require's them .........Be angry with the Car Company whom ever it is.....Good Luck

[michele]

Derek Uzzell - 2007-05-18 7:09 PM

 

Michele:

 

This is the situation as I understand it.

 

In 2005 Mike's motorhome was insured by Norwich Union via a policy arranged by Comfort Insurance.

 

He was involved in a very minor accident in Italy and, because he believed there was a small, but real, chance a claim might result he (wisely and properly) reported the incident to Comfort.

 

Comfort, in turn, relayed the information to Norwich Union who recorded it on the "Underwriters Exchange" database.

 

 

 

The important thing here is that the title of this thread and the comments made by Mike about Comfort Insurance are injudicious and potentially damaging to that company.

 

The problem Mike has experienced with Admiral Car Insurance has nothing to do with Comfort and, if he feels he is being treated unfairly by Admiral's underwriters, then he should raise that issue with them.

 

Fortunately, Comfort's managing director has now taken the trouble to provide the forum with the full facts behind the story.

 

Mike ,

 

In all fairness Derek was just trying to explain it to a thicko namely ME...

and without his help I would of not understood it ....So I take the blame for INJUDICIOUS

 

[John Keats]

I made the comment earlier that I dont report vehicle damage or make a claim. I pay for it myself. Perhaps this makes me more carefull. Its certainly cheaper !!

 

The rush to claim is a false exercise. Swallow your pride and pay for it.

 

The hype to"get things insured is unnecesary" It's chucking money away.

 

I don't insure anything other than the vehicles by law and the house structure. I see no reason to. It bothers me not if my goodies get stolen.

 

If its a picture, painting, or a jug you'll never get one the same. And if its a camera, purse, or credit card then I must have been stupid to leave it around.

 

JK

[livewire]

Sorry, am I missing something here?

 

Why would anyone ring there insurance company to tell the there MIGHT be a claim agaist them? If there is a claim they will find out soon enough anyway.

 

I can understand if it is a major prang and yourself will claim, but if you do not need repairs, why say anything at all? Sounds like a problem of your own making.

 

On today's crowded roads, knocks when parking/manoevering and by people opening doors are a fact of life. To a certain extent it it wear and tear. You don't need to run crying to your insurer everytime.

[Brian Kirby]

fjmike - 2007-05-18 8:09 PM So what Peter and Pat Cue are saying in a round about way is I was guilty of not disclosing something to Admiral that was so trivial that it did not even occur to me to mention.Had I known that being honest would lead to so much hassle I would not have bothered saying anything in the first place. At no time was I informed that telling them would go on an outside(Comfort or Norwich Union) database. I have taken out several motor insurance policies since this with no mention of this tag/black mark. The fact still remains that I am having to pay out for an acident that was not my fault(I was stationary), on private land and no money paid out all because the insurance industry likes to play silly b******ers Bye the way who is Ben

Mike

The problem with this argument, is that it was not so trivial an incident that you decided against mentioning it to Comfort.  It is/was Admiral who have applied the loading (or whatever it is), and not Comfort, who seem to have accepted your logic that the incident is insignificant and no additional premium warranted.

Having advised Comfort, I think you will find they are under an obligation to pass on that information, and Norwich's underwriters obliged to place it on  the database. 

I think you are shooting (at) the messenger, and not the culprit.  It seems to me to be Admiral, not Comfort, you have the gripe with, and I'm afraid that may well be because they discovered the record themselves, rather than having been told about it by you.  The problem is that insurances are contracts, and under contract you are not allowed the luxury of forgetfullness!  At least, you may be, but it is discretionary, and although it does not necessarily negate the contract, it will be liable to have a price: in this case a premium loading.

Why not do two things?  First find out how much longer the notification will remain on the database.  I don't think these have an indefinate life, and it may be that it can already be removed, as our was.  Second, shop around for a new car insurer, telling them of the database notification and the circumstances if it confirmed still extant, and see what they offer.  If a new offer is better, cancel with Admiral and switch.  You never know, you may even save money!

For others who have posted complaining the insurers are being unfair, I wonder how many have read ther insurance contracts?  If they do, clause by clause and page by page, I think they'll find the insurer has only done what he has contracted to do.  The documents are tedious, and sometimes difficult to follow (which is which I like the Comfort/Norwich package - it is sparklingly clear), but there is no point in making assumptions about what both parties of the contract have agreed to, when it is all set out in writing.  RTFM, as the Americans say!

[Mel E]

Oh dear, we do seem to have got into a fair amount of misunderstanding here, don't we? Peter Cue merely responded to a post (and follow-ups) which denigrated his company - one which most motorhome owners know as providing superb service (I'm not personally a current customer or a shareholder!)

 

To answer some points:

 

- it is possible for one person to have mutilple no claims bonuses; until recently I had one on my car and one on my motorhome.

 

- the contract you enter into with any insurance company requires 'full disclosure'. That means you are at fault if, for example, you have an accident, pay for the damage yourself and do not report it to the insurance company. The same is true if you have an accident driving your delivery van at work and do not report it to the insurer of your own car. Or you get done for speeding but don't tell either.

 

- is this fair? Well the insurance company is taking on a risk based on what it knows about you. If it had known about the accident/ conviction/ medical condition, it might well have refused to accept the changed risk or charged a higher premium because you are more prone to losses.

 

- Admiral obviously take the view that anyone who has been involved in an accident should pay a higher premium - that's their prerogative. There are other companies that do not do so - including Comfort. Indeed, few companies, in my experience, charge higher premiums for 'no-fault' accidents.

 

- is it right for insurance companies to share such knowledge? Again, it's part of the contract you sign when you apply for cover. And they do so to try and combat fraud - which costs us all at least 10% on our premiums, and I, for one, am all for them combatting fraud.

 

- I am not for one minute suggesting that the person who started this thread was fraudulent when he gave his accident history to Admiral. But no-one should complete such an application form - even if its done on line or via the phone - without taking great care. They are entering into a contract which could cost the insurance company the value of the car (if a write-off) or several millions (if you severely damage someone in an accident).

 

We all love to hate insurance companies. Why? They are gamblers: they accept a large risk for a very small percentage cost by planning carefully the odds. Would anyone out there willingly drive a £60,000 motorhome around without insurance cover? Yet, if we give them dud information, their odds calculations will be wrong. The result of that is that, the following year, we ALL pay more.

 

And lest you are tempted not to report an accident, conviction, changed medical condition or whatever to the insurance company, be aware that YOU have broken the contract. Don't then complain when they fail to pay out fully after an accident.

 

Mel E

====

[twooks]

I insure the camper van - with a named driver - my OH.

He insures the car - with a named driver - me.

 

Insurance companies get very iffy if you don't tell them you're a named driver on another policy - and all but accuse you of trying to insure the same thing twice - and thus claim twice in the event of an accident.

If they regard the above as 2 totally separate policies - as they are - they should be treated as such at all points. So - anything that happens as a 'named driver' should be subject to THAT policy only - and separate to your 'main' and vice versa.

Otherwise you must be in the situation of:

Heads they win, tails you lose - n'est-c pas?? or is that the whole point?? *-)

 

 

 

B-)

[Brian Kirby]

I think that if the first vehicle is involved in an accident while being driven by its named driver, that driver, being the insured for the second vehicle, is obliged to notify the insurer of the second vehicle of the accident they had while driving.  And, of course, vice versa.

Try insuring a Ferrari.  If you're 18 - no chance.  Why, becuase of the risk you represent as a young and inexperienced driver.  If you're, say 45, with an unblemished 25 years driving record, and having maintained insurances in your own name thorughout that period, probably.  Why, because you represent an acceptable risk driving that car.  So, the premium depends upon the vehicle, and upon the driver (and upon where you live and where the vehicle is kept).

So, reverting to the case above, now that the named driver has had an accident, their risk profile will have altered, and the insurer may well demand an additional premium to maintain them as a named driver.  However, their risk profile has also changed for the vehicle of which they are the insured: they have now had an accident.  If they fail to notify this, the insurer will find out at renewal time.  Their risk profile will now have altered in two ways.  First, they have had an accident; second, they failed to notify this.  So now they appear to be a higher risk driver, and dishonest to boot!  This does not bode well for their renewal premium!  As Mel says, the insurance contract is based upon trust.  You may not entirely trust your insurer, but you really do need him to trust you!

[Mel E]

Twooks,

 

For many years I have been a named driver on my wife's policy and she on mine. I have NEVER had any problem over this with ANY insurance company, and certainly I've never experienced the sort of veiled accusations you refer to. If you have, the answer is simple: change insurer.

 

If you are involved in any motoring accident, you have to report it to ALL insurers that cover you - including at your place of work if you drive a company-owned vehicle. Why? Because it is a condition of the contract you (or your employer) enter into when you buy the cover in the first place. If the accident is not your fault, then they will not normally load your premium.

 

After all, these contract conditions are entirely reasonable: if a person causes an accident, whether driving their own vehicle or someone else's, then their risk profile changes and they should pay a higher premium to cover that. Why should the rest of us pay more on our insurance to cover poor drivers?

 

I'm afraid I don't understand why you think this is unreasonable.

 

Mel E

====

[Basil]

We run seven vehicles in all, including the motorhome, and we are name drivers on all of them and that has never been a problem with any of them however one did ask who the main driver was but not the others.

I totally agree with the previous two posts and wonder how many are driving around with changes to their origional quoted statement of facts who have not informed the relevent company's and risk having their insurance voided?

 

Bas

[twooks]

Many years ago we had a period when both vehicles were in OHs name after I traded in my car for a more expensive bigger family car - which he used a main driver and so insured. I drove his old car which I much preferred but insured as the main driver just didn't bother to swap over the log book. This arrangement was accepted without any problem by my insurance company.

It was only after we sold that car and I bought the replacement - registered in my name - and continued with the insurance that they suddenly got shirty about the whole thing - and intimated that I was looking to perpetrate a fraudulent situation. Yes - I did change insurers at the earliest opportunity.

 

At about the same time I spent a lot of my working life dealing & negotiating with Insurance Companies [not Motor Policies] - I have rarely seen a more manipulative pedantic hair splitting bunch of time wasters; they invariably spent more money quibbling about the details than it would've cost both sides to negotiate a settlement - quite often the only winners were the members of the legal profession that we had to call in to arbitrate. *-)

 

I accept the points above, but still think that there exists distinct 'contracts' for each and every Insurance policy you may be on. You could have an HGV driver, covered to use the local cricket club's mini bus who is named driver on his in-laws policy to drive Rolls Royce - son's policy for a Mini Cooper and his own for a vintage whatever. All very different vehicles, driven under different circumstances and conditions, on different policies.

and if you have an accident every month - whether your fault or not and opt not to claim - ????

 

heads they win .. .

 

 

B-)

[Brian Kirby]

If you have an accident every month, you'll probably need not to claim if you want to stay insured!  :-)

However, I do sympathise with Mike.  I think he may have been a little too "honest" for his own good.  If he'd returned to the car park to just discover his scuffed mirror, what then?  It was the fussing Italian that seemed to persuade him that an exaggerated claim might follow, and that seems why he reported the incident.  That reasonable desire has now bitten him on the bum!

I also think it unreasonable, in circumstances such as Mike describes - where there was no claim and the notification was purely precautionary - to enhance the premium.  Insurers often quote their little mantra about the NCD being a "no claim discount, and not a no blame discount".  In this case, one of Mike's insurers seems to have applied a "no claim surcharge", which seems totally perverse to me.  Had there been a claim, OK.  But in the absence of a claim, I really can't see, on the evidence as we have it, what justification they could possibly cite for loading his premium in case a claim materialised.  Now it hasn't, I wonder if they'll give the surcharge back, with interest. 

OK, OK, I just wondered!

[michele]

See thats the bit I find hard !

 

He never had an accident he was sitting in a field minding his own when an italian drove into his camper! years later he forgets to mention it to his now new car insuarance ! i find that very bad that they should want to load it because they feel that he has neglected for what ever reason to tell them when they guy hasn't he has just forgot something that he never claimed for nor caused in the first place..

Why did the insurance company not say to him hey Mr are you forgetting about this .Tell us what happened that would of given him a memory jog and let him explain that he was just minding his own.

But as they are linked to the Data Base surely they could see that they had been informed through the computer and the person that logged it on all those years before should of put a brief not to blame note .

 

so why would they feel they had to put anything next to his name! :-(