Insurance - refusal

[w3526602]

Hi.

My mate (Registrar General of Shipping ... now retired ... but an EO at DVLC when I first met him) was refused insurance on his Morris Minivan, because it was a commercial vehicle.

He got round that problem by describing himself as a Civil Servant/Bee Keeper. He always had a stand a t the local Agricultural Show (Swansea Valley), selling honey and home brewed mead.

C&E always paid him a visit.

Presumably you could go into business selling home grown "hen fruit", or even bags of "ZORST" from your daughter pony, in your Land Rover.

You may remember a few months back, that my insurers refused to insure me as THE main driver. or HER new car. I mentioned a letter received in the early days of DVLC, (1972) we received a snotty letter from a lady, complaining WE had given her car to her chaufeur. DVLC required the car to be insured in the name of the REGISTERED keeper.

I received the insurance certificate by return of post ... with no comment.

602

[Theshed]

Hi.

My mate (Registrar General of Shipping ... now retired ... but an EO at DVLC when I first met him) was refused insurance on his Morris Minivan, because it was a commercial vehicle.

He got round that problem by describing himself as a Civil Servant/Bee Keeper. He always had a stand a t the local Agricultural Show (Swansea Valley), selling honey and home brewed mead.

C&E always paid him a visit.

Presumably you could go into business selling home grown "hen fruit", or even bags of "ZORST" from your daughter pony, in your Land Rover.

You may remember a few months back, that my insurers refused to insure me as THE main driver. or HER new car. I mentioned a letter received in the early days of DVLC, (1972) we received a snotty letter from a lady, complaining WE had given her car to her chaufeur. DVLC required the car to be insured in the name of the REGISTERED keeper.

I received the insurance certificate by return of post ... with no comment.

602

Indeed those in 'authority' need an occasional shove into reality.
I bought a Transit van some years back, it was cheap and I had a Diesel 'supplier'. Insurer, Swinton, was not keen, so I said I used it to carry my bikes. Me being a keen cyclist ! Cover was actually quite reasonable.
The following year I transferred to RAC Insurance, a couple of months in they wrote to say my cover had been cancelled. I rang and asked why. 'We don't cover vans'.
But you did and you took my money. Fruitless 'phone call ended. Couple of days later I was delivering near their office in Manchester so I called in.
It took them by surprise, don't think they where accustomed to 'personal' callers.
Anyway, a protracted discussion ensued. Fair enuf, you no longer cover vans, give me my money back. 30% was offered, their argument was I could have claimed on the first day. No, I will accept 90%. No, You are cancelling so that is in the terms, they said.
NO YOU are cancelling give me my Money back. Not possible they say. Ok so cover me. 
A manager appeared I explained the stupidity of the situation, you either cover me or give me my money back.
We agreed on a 70% refund and 30% off the following years Policy if I return to a car.

[jonhutchings]

I think many of these stories prove what I have always thought, that even in the days of online quotes etc. the response you get depends on the person who actually arranges the cover with the insurer. Remember almost all of the people we think of as "insurance companies" are just brokers, they don't do the insuring and a policy with that "insurance company" will often change year on year as to who is actually insuring it.

A case in point - for many years I insured my 80" with Lancaster classic 4x4 insurance policy. IT was good value cover (around £100) with a sensible agreed valuation. When the market in old land rover started to go a bit silly I decided to update the value a little. After I had renewed they asked for updated photos for the valuation. Fair enough, I sent them off. Some time passed, (probably two months or more after the cover had started) and I got a letter, saying my insurance had been cancelled with immediate effect. The reason give was that they did not insure canvas backed vehicles. At the time Lanchester carries adverts in all the popular Land rover magazines promoting their classic 4x4 insurance with an arty picture of a soft top series and a Jeep (with no top) and a Lancaster bomber.  I phoned and wrote to them several times pointing out the stupidity of their policy given that a large number of "classic 4x4" would have soft tops (how many hard top WWII jeeps do you see ?).
I got nowhere, they did eventually refund the pro-rata amount back to me (£80 ish) but then deducted an admin fee due to me cancelling the policy (£25)!  More phone calls and posting back photocopies of the letter where they stated they were cancelling ensued before eventually they reduced this to £5 deduction (at which point I gave up arguing)

Now here's the fun bit. At the same time I had, and was renewed during the two months all this was going on with no questions, another 88" land rover soft top (listed on the insurance as such) with the same Lancaster insurance. Both on classic 4x4 policies, both with agreed valuations with photos clearly showing the soft top. The difference - the policies were underwritten by different underwriters.

Needles to say I did not renew with them the following year.

A shame as they were good value, and on other occasions had been very good to deal with on the phone etc.

I'm with Footman James for all my old land rovers - but do have a "modern car" It's a 2006  Freelander 2 (number 412 off the production line) .  I guess I'd best not put it on a classic car policy any time soon

[autorover1]

When I first bought a Land Rover ( 2 litre 80" Soft Top),  back in 1969, I also had trouble getting insurance, both because of being my first car insurance and that it was looked on as a "sports" car, being a soft top, and having a " big" engine.  Most family cars were 1 litre or so.  Eventually I got cover with the Co-op insurance. 

[Heritage_Insurance]

I think many of these stories prove what I have always thought, that even in the days of online quotes etc. the response you get depends on the person who actually arranges the cover with the insurer. Remember almost all of the people we think of as "insurance companies" are just brokers, they don't do the insuring and a policy with that "insurance company" will often change year on year as to who is actually insuring it.

A case in point - for many years I insured my 80" with Lancaster classic 4x4 insurance policy. IT was good value cover (around £100) with a sensible agreed valuation. When the market in old land rover started to go a bit silly I decided to update the value a little. After I had renewed they asked for updated photos for the valuation. Fair enough, I sent them off. Some time passed, (probably two months or more after the cover had started) and I got a letter, saying my insurance had been cancelled with immediate effect. The reason give was that they did not insure canvas backed vehicles. At the time Lanchester carries adverts in all the popular Land rover magazines promoting their classic 4x4 insurance with an arty picture of a soft top series and a Jeep (with no top) and a Lancaster bomber.  I phoned and wrote to them several times pointing out the stupidity of their policy given that a large number of "classic 4x4" would have soft tops (how many hard top WWII jeeps do you see ?).
I got nowhere, they did eventually refund the pro-rata amount back to me (£80 ish) but then deducted an admin fee due to me cancelling the policy (£25)!  More phone calls and posting back photocopies of the letter where they stated they were cancelling ensued before eventually they reduced this to £5 deduction (at which point I gave up arguing)

Now here's the fun bit. At the same time I had, and was renewed during the two months all this was going on with no questions, another 88" land rover soft top (listed on the insurance as such) with the same Lancaster insurance. Both on classic 4x4 policies, both with agreed valuations with photos clearly showing the soft top. The difference - the policies were underwritten by different underwriters.

Needles to say I did not renew with them the following year.

A shame as they were good value, and on other occasions had been very good to deal with on the phone etc.

I'm with Footman James for all my old land rovers - but do have a "modern car" It's a 2006  Freelander 2 (number 412 off the production line) .  I guess I'd best not put it on a classic car policy any time soon

Thanks for sharing @jonhutchings, this must have been an annoyance for you and rightly so. It's a good job you understand how brokers place their business. You should have been informed that your policy was renewed with a different insurer.

Always good to have a phone call to speak to an insurance advisor - that's how we like to do it anyway.

[gatekrash]

Probably ... I don't know if there are "grandfather" rights (like for towing caravans) and the minibus test is just for new drivers.

No, it can't be. I don't think private use is an exemption.
Driving a classic vehicle will/should have an exemption.
I believe you can drive a classic bus, but with no more than 6 non-paying passengers

Family cars and the like are restricted to 7 seats (inc driver) so in a SWB, 3 in the front and 4 in the back is no problem.
(Providing everyone is sitting on a proper fixed seat.)

The accidents I referred to involved teachers driving school minibuses and sports clubs carrying teams.

I don't know what the situation is as I stopped driving minibuses years ago.
You'd have to ask someone in authority for the definitive answer.

When I 1st started work I had to take the "minibus" test. We had a spanking new departmental LWB SW, a 12 seater. The "test" involved driving round Leeds to the tester's mums, do some shopping for her and back to the university. Quite an easy test and a cup of tea to boot 
I "passed" as was soon driving students round the Lake District on field trips.

D1 rights are definitely grandfathered. I still drive 17 seat minibuses for the MoD on occasion, I've not had to take any test as the D1 entitlement is on my licence from when I passed back in 1988. The MoD is so risk averse that if that wasn't the case you can be 100% guaranteed that they would have stopped me, especially since the paperwork and processes to use MoD White Fleet are particuarly onerous and are checked at multiple levels by various civil servants, and they do annual licence checks as part of that process.

Newer drivers (late 90's I think) don't have that category and have to take a D1 test to drive anything bigger than a 9 seat half cab.

Most of the drivers we have for the 17 seaters are "older", although some of the younger ones have been through Leconfield to get their D1.

[S2C-08615]

I had several classic cars insured with Adrian Flux, for several years. They were all covered for all the usual things, including breakdown recovery. I had a problem with my 1934 Riley special, about 170 miles from home, which required breakdown recovery. Adrian Flux flatly refused to consider breakdown recovery , the person on the phone insisting that that particular car was not included for breakdown recovery. I was left to make alternative arrangements which were costly and relied on the good nature of friends. The car WAS insured for recovery, but all AF would reimburse was the cost of fuel for the van and trailer I had to use to get the car home. Needless to say I will not be considering Adrian bl**** Flux again. Be warned.

[w3526602]

Hi,

Some (lots?) of years ago, premiums increased suddenly and dramatically. when The Lawmakers decreed that PASSENGERS had to be specifically covered. Passengers are NOT considered to be THIRD PARTIES.

I read somewhere, many years ago, that some classes of vehicles attract passengers that are worth a lot of money.

602

[Herald1360]

ISTR that passengers are SECOND PARTIES. Driver, FIRST PARTY, persons not in vehicle, THIRD PARTIES.