A few words of warning about Insurance and Repairs

[Richardl]

*** sorry wrong button pressed by a small boy ***

 

[JEZ.S320L]

Before someone looses the will to live:

"Adcomsubordcomphibspac" is the longest acronym. It is a Navy term standing for Administrative Command, Amphibious Forces, Pacific Fleet Subordinate Command.

 

[eihtur]

Of course, I am not easily dislodged

Then...no.

 

[pipmk]

It is relatively simple, no one may import into a contract restrictive terms once that contract is in force, they also cannot impose terms which are against public policy. The courts will and have strike down any such terms. Therefore unless the contract says you can only use their repairers they are estopped from imposing that condition at a later date. The matter of temporary cars is one that will either be in their terms amd conditions or not, again they would be barred from importing a condition that it was dependant on using their repairers unless that was stated in the original contract. They are not fools and will only fight when they are sure they have right on their side, it's simply not worth their while.

 

[Xtractorfan]

The idea that an Insurance company can dictate or force a motorist who owns a car or vehicle to take it to an insurance approved or preferred garage is totally wrong and illegal for them to do so..
The law states that a vehicle must have insurance to drive on a public road.. that requirement is the basis of all insurance policies
The insurance companies have over the years introduced third party fire and theft and comprehensive insurance..
The legal requirement for any vehicle is Third party Road Risks .. and all laws governing insurance revolve around the need for Third Party Road Risks
Any other add ons and the approved or preferred insurance schemes cannot be enforced and in law are not legal ..no matter what a broker or indian call centre tells you...
The other thing about Approved repairers is that the Insurances companies are actively forcing policyholders /car owners to go down the approved repairer route, this in itself is creating an unfair advantage to the approved or preferred repairers, and as such should be referred to the competition commission as they are creating a monoply and an unfair and blatant advantage to a minority of favourable repairers..
I could write a book on this but who needs the hassle...
Oh and just one more thing ..If the insurance companies could legally enforce it.. do you honestly think that they would let joe public think for himself.. ha......
Just to add to this... two things that stop an insurance company from having a legal right to tell you what to do...1 is the Road Risks compulsory law governing car insurance.. it would take an act of parliament to change this...
2 is the fact that the insurance companies levy an excess on all policies .. this excess is paid by the policyholder..ie the car owner..Once someone pays for something or any part of that then that removes the insurance companys legal right to have a total say in the process..

 

[pipmk]

The idea that an Insurance company can dictate or force a motorist who owns a car or vehicle to take it to an insurance approved or preferred garage is totally wrong and illegal for them to do so..
The law states that a vehicle must have insurance to drive on a public road.. that requirement is the basis of all insurance policies
The insurance companies have over the years introduced third party fire and theft and comprehensive insurance..
The legal requirement for any vehicle is Third party Road Risks .. and all laws governing insurance revolve around the need for Third Party Road Risks
Any other add ons and the approved or preferred insurance schemes cannot be enforced and in law are not legal ..no matter what a broker or indian call centre tells you...
The other thing about Approved repairers is that the Insurances companies are actively forcing policyholders /car owners to go down the approved repairer route, this in itself is creating an unfair advantage to the approved or preferred repairers, and as such should be referred to the competition commission as they are creating a monoply and an unfair and blatant advantage to a minority of favourable repairers..
I could write a book on this but who needs the hassle...
Oh and just one more thing ..If the insurance companies could legally enforce it.. do you honestly think that they would let joe public think for himself.. ha......
Just to add to this... two things that stop an insurance company from having a legal right to tell you what to do...1 is the Road Risks compulsory law governing car insurance.. it would take an act of parliament to change this...
2 is the fact that the insurance companies levy an excess on all policies .. this excess is paid by the policyholder..ie the car owner..Once someone pays for something or any part of that then that removes the insurance companys legal right to have a total say in the process..

Sorry but you are wrong and it is important that people are not mislead. When you take out insurance, as with any other contract, both sides are bound by the terms contained, provided those terms are not voided by illegality. They are therefore at liberty to say all their repairs must be done by Micks Motors on the Isle of Mull and Mick alone. If you buy their policy having seen their terms and conditions you are in general said to have accepted them, Micks Motors and all. The third party requirement is just that, a third party insurance, and has nothing to do with the policy holders losses.

 

[Xtractorfan]

Au contraire .. I know not where you get your information from but it is wrong.....I do know that many people think the same way as you do..but you are wrong totally... absolutely and categorically ..

 

[Shezbo]

Sorry but you are wrong and it is important that people are not mislead. When you take out insurance, as with any other contract, both sides are bound by the terms contained, provided those terms are not voided by illegality. They are therefore at liberty to say all their repairs must be done by Micks Motors on the Isle of Mull and Mick alone. If you buy their policy having seen their terms and conditions you are in general said to have accepted them, Micks Motors and all. The third party requirement is just that, a third party insurance, and has nothing to do with the policy holders losses.

Hi pipmk,

Trust me you can have your car repair where you want, you have paid the annual premium and it is your choice - from a legal point view i.e. the insurer does have recommended repairers - BUT you can however row you own boat.

I have a statement of do's and don't's on my desk form the ABI "it is the customers legal right to choose the repairer, if they so wish".

 

[JEZ.S320L]

 

[Shezbo]

JEZ, I can understand your graphic, that's the type of thing they do in Spain

 

[mutleyomels]

Here we go.Quite a few years ago I had an accident in a Morris Marina,I had to take the car to an approved repairer,result I sold it as fast as i was able.three weeks ago our Grandson phoned an insurance company,,he had just received his license back from a drink driving ban,he told the agent all of the accidents he had been involved in,result £1760 for cover on a Fiat Punto,last week they the Insurance company wrote him a letter stating "you never informed us you had been involved in an accident on such and such a date,this was when a driver had come from a side rd and hit his friends car,our Grandson was a passenger" !! he was not even driving the car.result pay another £350.Plus £50 admin charge,he obviously objected,reply well we will cancel your cover,as you did not inform us of this accident.Now this is another experience,as our previous Insurance Co has progressively increased the premium year on year,I re insured the car with another Company.The Policy is in my wifes name,me as a named driver,two years ago the local travelers deemed it there right to steal a part from my van,I phoned the Co-oP and told them what had been stolen,and on advice from the Police dropped the claim as it was not worth claiming on the Insurance and lose my bonus,result,wife gets a letter stating that I had not advised them I had made a claim,result pay an extra £50 plus £30 admin charge,even though I never made a claim,Co-oP sent me a letter stating I never made a claim,and so the Insurance broker allowed the Insurance to stand,I am dreading it if we have to make a claim with this company.It may be of interest to members that if you do not accept a voluntary excess it will slightly increase your premium

 

[pipmk]

Au contraire .. I know not where you get your information from but it is wrong.....I do know that many people think the same way as you do..but you are wrong totally... absolutely and categorically ..

Ah shucks, there was me having spent 30+ years in the law, doing amongst other things contract law and my colleagues and I have apparently been advising our clients wrong.
We need to get the standard works altered including Halsburys Statutes in view of your information

 

[snail]

Ah shucks, there was me having spent 30+ years in the law, doing amongst other things contract law and my colleagues and I have apparently been advising our clients wrong.

Me too. I wasn't in the law, I spent 10 years writing insurance policies, including motor fleet insurance. All that study for my professional qualifications wasted. All that time I thought there was a clear distinction between compulsory third party insurance and own vehicle insurance. If only there had been internet forums then. Sigh.

It's interesting that people come on here asserting we have "legal rights" but can't quote the law to support it.

 

[Rory]

..."you never informed us you had been involved in an accident on such and such a date,this was when a driver had come from a side rd and hit his friends car,our Grandson was a passenger" !!

He must have made a claim though.

 

[snail]

He must have made a claim though.

Sounds more likely his friend was being economical with the truth when asked who was driving.

 

[Xtractorfan]

Ah shucks, there was me having spent 30+ years in the law, doing amongst other things contract law and my colleagues and I have apparently been advising our clients wrong.
We need to get the standard works altered including Halsburys Statutes in view of your information

Possibly why so many people are ill advised because ppl like you take it as read what their peers tell them..

 

[Xtractorfan]

Me too. I wasn't in the law, I spent 10 years writing insurance policies, including motor fleet insurance. All that study for my professional qualifications wasted. All that time I thought there was a clear distinction between compulsory third party insurance and own vehicle insurance. If only there had been internet forums then. Sigh.

It's interesting that people come on here asserting we have "legal rights" but can't quote the law to support it.

So basically you are telling me that an insurance company can force you to have your car repaired where they say it has to be repaired

 

[Xtractorfan]

He must have made a claim though.

No he didnt have to make a claim ..being involved in an accident is classed as having an accident..

 

[pipmk]

Possibly why so many people are ill advised because ppl like you take it as read what their peers tell them..

So you are more expert in contract law than lawyers? jesus, we have a true genius amongst us and the Judges have been getting it wrong since the 16th century.

For your information, insurance law is no different to any other contract, any condition can be contained provided it is not illegal, not against public policy, not void for unreasonableness and both parties agree to it. That is why every expert says "read the contract, dumbo, because you will be held to it". Don't rely on the unreasonable clause because the courts take the view that adults know what they are agreeing to and construe this within very narrow limits.

If you cannot understand the concept of 3rd party liability there are many primers available. On contract law start with Cahill v Carbolic Smokeball Company 1891 EWCA 1 and work your way from there. I think in about 6 months with application you may understand a little about contract.

 

[drmw]

This forum is considered to be an opportune barrack room at times.