Check the small print on motor insurance

[RJRB]

Listening to a money programme over the weekend it seems that several major insurance companies have slipped in a clause that the policy will be invalid if any claim if drink or drugs is considered to be a factor in the accident.

This includes prescription drugs and the drink part is not solely applicable to being over the legal limit,but "each case would be assessed on its own merits"

It surprised me ,but like many others I am not good at reading the small print.

[monkey104]

I don't know where they would get the information from!

If you are arrested by police for drink driving and you are below the legal limit on the evidential breath test machine then that is the end of the matter with no public record.

Same with prescription drugs, how would they know?

Mind you I suppose if there is the tiniest inkling of any infraction of any clause they will use it as an excuse not to pay out.

[denomis]

Look at all those cars crushed by that tree blowing over in Sheffield the other day. The owners were saying insurance would cover it but I'm sure it will come under "act of god" and not be covered by some.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

I'd say, "Check the small print on EVERY insurance policy."

 

You see, insurers quite like collecting-in £££. But when it comes to paying-out...

[Scozzie]

I'd say, "Check the small print on EVERY insurance policy."

 

You see, insurers quite like collecting-in £££. But when it comes to paying-out...

 

I read an initialed every paragraph on my insurance and paidit in full.

2 weeks later, they took the same amount out of my account again, then a month after that, they took twice the original amount out of my bank account. After questioning the company about it, they told me that i wasn't eligible for the type and price of insurance, so thats why I had to pay more. I took it further and further up the chain of command, but wa told that as I had read the Ts and Cs so carefully, I should have realised that they had given me the wrong ones to sign and I could accept it, or cancel it ( and pay an opt-out fee)

[Jeffrey Shaw]

I read an initialed every paragraph on my insurance and paidit in full.

2 weeks later, they took the same amount out of my account again, then a month after that, they took twice the original amount out of my bank account. After questioning the company about it, they told me that i wasn't eligible for the type and price of insurance, so thats why I had to pay more. I took it further and further up the chain of command, but wa told that as I had read the Ts and Cs so carefully, I should have realised that they had given me the wrong ones to sign and I could accept it, or cancel it ( and pay an opt-out fee)

Any error in Direct Debit must be corrected at once by the recipient. This is mandatory, per Bank of England.

Here's what the Financial Ombudsman Service says: http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/38/standing-orders-direct-debits-38.htm

[RJRB]

Sharp practise seems to be the name of the game for all the institutions that you would hope that you could rely on....banks,insurers,building societies and so on.

Without going into too much detail I was the victim of a major building society **** up that was going to cost me around £3000.

I got nowhere with the hierarchy of the society,The Financial Ombudmans office was still trying to grasp the facts after 9 months of correspondence.

Out of sheer frustration I wrote to complain about the service provided by the Ombudsman to the financial pages of the Daily Express.

Out of the blue my case was taken up by Annie haw who contributes to that newspaper,and suddenly the building society concerned saw the righteousness of my argument and paid me in full.

In truth I had just about given up.......but never give up if you are right.

[RJRB]

And Thais to Annie Shaw,sorry for the mistype above.