The saga of the dates on my insurance certificate has reached stalemate and at my age I haven't got the energy to fight a matter of principle anymore as no harm has been done - or has it?
Summary: On 27th of the preceding month I renewed my car insurance by phone and paid by credit card in good time for a 1st of month renewal date. I failed to notice the non-appearance of the insurance certificate in the post until 13th of the month when I phoned to chase it up. Insurers advised that they had sent it to me in good time but it must have got lost in the post, but nevertheless they would send me a duplicate one at no extra charge.
The so called duplicate certificate arrived on 14th stating that my cover was starting from 13th and not 1st. Showing therefore, in spite of my paying, no cover for 12 days. No amount of me going up the chain of responsibility will get them to give me a certificate dated from 1st. They are happy to send me a confirmatory letter which might (or might not) have been adequate had I needed to produce evidence of cover, but they just will not backdate a "duplicate" certificate to the 1st.
In this case I haven't knowingly been disadvantaged so will leave it there.
Can they do this?
|
Sounds like they have given you two weeks free cover? When is the expiry date?
Insurance companies are very reluctant to give out backdated certs or covernotes and their system is probably built in a such a way that its not allowed.
No harm done, so you are probably right to leave it be. Could have been very tricky though if stopped by plod during that period. See the other thread...
|
>>No harm done.
Until a letter comes through the post in a couple of months' time allegeing the involvement of your car in an accident during the period in question. I do not understand their position - it isn't a back-dating of an ins cert that you require; it is a copy of the cert that never arrived for which you paid.
Anyway, a letter from them covering you for the period in question would allow you to convince a judge that you had paid your insurance covering the period in question. Grab it with both hands.
|
What is your expiry date?50 weeks or 52??
|
|
I take in no police/criminal involvement requiring proof of cover?.
In which case when does the certificate issued expire?
Have they looped off 12 days for a year or given you 12 days extra?
If first para applies then if they are willing to give a letter to the effect that they are prepared to cover you during those 12 days then you have evidence that you were not using without Insurance.
If you think about it you should come to an understanding why they will not back datea certificate........
dvd
|
|
|
|
I would hazard a guess that no certificate was issued in the first place despite what you were originally told.
If a certificate had been issued they could have issued a duplicate
If no certificate had been issuedtit would actually be illegal for them to issue a back dated certificate. They would have to to show the the date on the certificate as the date of issue.
What Insurers normally do when they make an error like this is to issue a letter confirming that cover was in force although no certificate was issued for the period in question. The police will accept this if you have need to show them evidence of cover although technically you are in breach of the law for not having a valid certificate of Insurance.
As you say you have not been disadvantaged, just mislead in the original conversation. Would be so much easier if the call centres had just admitted the error - human nature I guess.
|
It sounds to me like you are getting 2 weeks free insurance with no disadvantage to yourself.
If you're still concerned then don't forget that you have the credit card charge as evidence. Moreover, the call centres invariably record these calls and you can ask them to provide a copy of the recording, which will no doubt back up your story. Personally I would just drop it and accept the letter that they're offering.
|
Thanks for the response so far.
For the avoidance of doubt, I have not gained 12 days of free insurance - the new "duplicate" certificate now shows 365 less 12 days = 353 days of cover. It ends on the day I expected. If I get a letter providing evidence of cover from Day 1 to Day 12, then I find myself in exactly the position I thought I'd be in before this whole saga began.
As I said at the beginning, I'm not taking it further as I have far more important things to do like sleep, eat and read internet forums. It's just so darned annoying when they are wrong. I paid for it - I should have it!
Edited by Dulwich Estate on 18/08/2008 at 18:20
|
The credit card bill would show what date the payment was made but would not prove or show the start of the cover being paid for - I would have thought. Why not get the credit card company involved? You have paid for 52 weeks cover and only have proof of 50 weeks ie you and the credit card company have been 'swindled'
There are a lot of important things in life but chasing up people who have done you wrong is on the list! Think what their profits would be if they swindled every policy holder out of 2 week's premium and got away with it!
Edited by Armitage Shanks {p} on 18/08/2008 at 18:37
|
>reclaim from credit card
No! You do not want a refund, because you want to have been covered over that period - in case somebody comes up with a fraudulent, spurious claim at some point in the future.
|
I can't find a post where anyone suggested a refund; I suggested getting a repayment of the 2 week's cover paid for and for which a certificate of insurance was not issued but I did not intend that to be construed as a total refund - just for the service paid for and not provided.
|
>service not provided
The only service not provided is an ins cert. Not insurance.
|
OP Says
"For the avoidance of doubt, I have not gained 12 days of free insurance - the new "duplicate" certificate now shows 365 less 12 days = 353 days of cover"
He may have been covered but he can't prove it; this could be awkward if he is accused of some accident, failing to report, failing to stop etc in the period of 12 days when he paid for cover but can't prove that he had it. Knowing the intransigence and awkwardness of the CPS this could be major problem for him.
Edited by Armitage Shanks {p} on 18/08/2008 at 20:15
|
>>He may have been covered but he can't prove it; this could be awkward if he is
>>accused of some accident, failing to report, failing to stop etc in the period of 12 days
>>when he paid for cover but can't prove that he had it.
It could indeed be awkward, but no more than that.
On the other hand, if he reclaims 12 days' insurance from his insurer - through his CC company, perhaps, then he is agreeing that he was not insured over that period; in which case he is clearly uninsured.
For the £20-30 under discussion, it really doesn't seem worth adding that level of risk!
|
|
|
>service not provided The only service not provided is an ins cert. Not insurance.
Exactly. An insurance certificate is simply a statement issued by the insurance company confirming that insurance is in place for the specified period. Of course they can issue another one - I've had one once in exactyly these circumstances when the original was lost in the post. They simply print off another. It's got nothing to do with backdating. If insurance is in force for a given period they are obliged to supply you with evidence in the specified format (ie a certificate) to that effect.
Likewise I remember once when the first certificate contained an error - it said TPO when it was supposed to be fully comprehensive. They just sent another corrected certificate - obviously for the whole period because that is what I had paid for.
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 18/08/2008 at 22:00
|
|
|
|
Take it up with the insurance ombudsman and get their slant on the issue. If there has been any maladministration, that's what they're there for.
|
I had this last year when the insurers mis-spelt SWMBOs name.
I did as they asked and returned the old certificate and a new one arrived promptly in the post, with the correct spelling, but with the date of issue starting the period of cover.
I queried this and was told that it was a legal requirement for the certificate to show the start date as on or after the date of issue, they also added that copy certificates are not valid only original ones, and so technically speaking a copy could leave you open to a charge of driving without insurance. Probably also a good anti-fraud matter.
They confirmed that we were both covered from the requested date.
Couldn't really see the problem so got on with my life.
|
|
|
|
|