Been paying for house insurance for a house I have not lived in for 8

[Cyclone]

Yes it was a rented property and just for contents insurance. My ex continued to live there for a further 4 years after we split up. There was no agreement between us that I would continue to pay the insurance and it was clear that she would be responsible for the bills etc.

 

I am hopeful the letting agent will be able to locate the original tenancy agreement which will show both our names and the subsequent one signed by just my ex. If my calculations are correct I will have been paying it for at least 8 years after I left the property.

 

If I'm honest, I completely forgot about the insurance when I left, there were far more important concerns at the time. I spoke to my ex yesterday and she says that letters were delivered to the property but she didn't pass them on to me Typical of her really!

 

The electoral register from the years after you left might well show that you were living elsewhere as well, which is as good a proof of having moved out as an old tenancy agreement.

[francypants]

I would have thought you'd have no right to a refund at all. It would have been different if you'd notified the insurance Co but they then continued to take direct debits. You never asked them to cancel the policy and your ex has been covered all this time. If you're seeking a refund you should be asking your ex for it. Also when you move house it's common practice to have your mail re-directed to your new address via the post office, the onus is on you not your landlord.

[Robbie Loving]

Not wanting to sound deliberately harsh but...why should the insurance reimburse you, when you never informed it (by letter or cancelling the contract/DD) that you had vacated the premises?

 

Contractually they've done their bit, covered the contents of the address whilever the DD was paid by the subscriber, until the subscriber tells them not to renew/to resiliate the contract.

 

I wouldn't have thought you'd be entitled to any refund whatsoever.

 

That said,

now this sounds like you may obtain redress from your ex, as she agreed that she would responsible for the bills (including contents insurance, presumably)

but did not assume responsibility for the insurance.

 

So, in equity, she should be the one reimbursing you (she benefitted from the continued policy), not the insurance.

 

If she does not, you might have a shot in the small claims court (depending how much 8 years' worth of DD amounts to in total).

 

You're assuming the ex did not start her own new policy... Which has to been established.

Irregardless though, contents insurance is something a landlord would generally require you have in place, and not effectively a 'bill' as such.

 

It's also safe to assume the ex, presumed the OP would have cancelled the DDR for contents insurance. She had no reason not to believe this.

So the only breach if she didn't get new contents insurance would be with her landlord.

 

The electoral register from the years after you left might well show that you were living elsewhere as well, which is as good a proof of having moved out as an old tenancy agreement.

 

I'd be surprised if they accepted the voters roll to be honest.

But again, I'm surprised the insurance company is will to reimburse too.

[CELCAD]

I hear where you are coming from. Yes I should have cancelled the insurance when I moved out. But I didn't -Fact!

 

Claiming back from my ex is not even worth considering. She has no money to speak of and I want it back NOW

 

I never claimed on the insurance nor was there any chance of my doing so because I didn't live there. The guy I spoke to yesterday stated that he could see that I hadn't been living there for some years. I didn't question how he knew, but perhaps the unanswered letters they have sent to the address?

 

It appears I will be getting the policy back cancelled when I can provide evidence when I left. If that fails, I will go with Cyclones suggestion of the electoral register.

 

I could have argued if necessary that I did call to cancel the insurance. In fact - I might even have done so. But I cannot remember which phone calls I made 9 years ago.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

Most insurance policies require written notice of cancellation- so a telephone call, even if made back then, would be insufficient.

A better argument for you would be 'Money Had And Received' (also called 'quasi-contract'). The payments by you could not have been for insurance of your goods at the supposed address if you no longer had an insurable interest and owned no goods there. However, any such claim would have a six-year time limit (so payments longer ago will now be irrecoverable in any event).

[L00b]

You're assuming the ex did not start her own new policy... Which has to been established.

That's irrelevant to the OP's situation and query, and does not need to be established at all: so what if she was 'doubly-insured'? She still received the benefit of the second (the OP's) policy whilever it was live.

Irregardless though, contents insurance is something a landlord would generally require you have in place, and not effectively a 'bill' as such.

It's also safe to assume the ex, presumed the OP would have cancelled the DDR for contents insurance. She had no reason not to believe this.

Semantics and (just as much as my own-) assumptions. You're splitting hair unnecessarily

So the only breach if she didn't get new contents insurance would be with her landlord.

That's also irrelevant to the OP's situation and query.

 

Any contractual insurance requirements of the landlord are neither here nor there in this. They'd have been met the entire time, whether by the OP's policy or both the OP's and his ex's.

[Robbie Loving]

That's irrelevant to the OP's situation and query, and does not need to be established at all: so what if she was 'doubly-insured'? She still received the benefit of the second (the OP's) policy whilever it was live.

 

Even if she is double insured, only one claim would be paid.

If his ex had insurance, she would claim on that. If she then found out that her ex had been paying another insurance and tried to claim again, it would be rejected as it has already settled.

 

To try and claim back against the ex would be foolish, time consuming and a waste of money.

The OP was responsible for cancelling this insurance, the onus is solely upon him.

 

Semantics and (just as much as my own-) assumptions. You're splitting hair unnecessarily

That's also irrelevant to the OP's situation and query.

 

Hence why I didn't quote the original post and question.

[L00b]

Even if she is double insured, only one claim would be paid.

That's not disputed at all - not sure where this dialogue is going, tbh

If his ex had insurance, she would claim on that. If she then found out that her ex had been paying another insurance and tried to claim again, it would be rejected as it has already settled.

Of course, so why would she do that? Anyway, it's irrelevant to the thread.

To try and claim back against the ex would be foolish, time consuming and a waste of money.

Maybe, maybe not - that's for the OP to know.

 

Look, I'm not being argumentative for the sake of it here, but...the OP has asked a question about how to get this money back.

 

He's most unlikely to get it back from the insurer or the landlord for a variety of well-founded reasons (expectedly contractual, even if this is only assumed from standard practice e.g. per Jeffrey's latest post above, since we don't have the actual contract to look at and check, and are most unlikely to get it).

 

So, in the context of the thread, based on the information provided in the OP, getting it back from the ex is the clearest option on the table (however realistic or not, considering her impecunious status acc. to the OP's later post).

 

What's your advice to him?

The OP was responsible for cancelling this insurance, the onus is solely upon him.

No disagreement there, and per the opening sentence of my 1st post in here.

[Robbie Loving]

)What's your advice to him?.

 

If I were him, I'd take the hit, see if the insurance company are willing to reimburse any of it. If not.... Consider it a lesson learnt.

 

Nobody who posted has been in a similar situation, and the conversation digressed.

 

For me, claiming back from the ex is not the Clearest option.

[CELCAD]

Aaaahem! Quit the bickering on my thread

 

Jeffrey, thanks for that useful info, makes perfect sense. It seems I might only get up to 6 years payments back then?

 

I've already (in my head) spent the money I think I'm due back!