Tweet
Hi, we made a claim on our buildings home insurance policy March 2018 in respect of an EOW which was subsequently declined, and the insurance policy was voided in June 2018. Insurers alleged non-disclosure of CCJs at point of inception and renewal.
This being the crux of the matter, however we did disclose bankruptcy orders which were issued after the CCJ's, hence the CCJ’s were encapsulated within the BO's
We raised a formal complaint with Insurers who found there was no case to answer.
We issued a formal complaint with the FOS, this was reviewed [June 2019] by an adjudicator who also found there was no case to answer.
This was after reviewing the telephone calls [inception & renewal calls] whereby I was asked: "have you ever been declared bankrupt, have any CCJ’s, IVA’s or arrangements with creditors?” to which I answered “Yes, we were made bankrupt.”
No further questions were asked.
This is my argument, in that it is my opinion if insurers required further detail in respect of the BO’s they should have asked, they failed to do so on both occasions.
I believe the question asked was vague insofar, one question actually asks four questions and as such is ambiguous and not specific.
After researching the facts, I am aware that the Law changed in 2013 and put the emphasis on the consumer being honest and careful, rather than 100% accurate.
The FOS states that insurers' questions relating to disclosure must be clear. They also identify four types of non-disclosure - deliberate, reckless, innocent and inadvertent.
The consumer's duty is to take reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation
A deliberate non-disclosure is providing information known to be untrue; a reckless one might be where a customer signs a proposal form but leaves it to someone else to fill out the answers. Both of these would breach the customer's 'duty of good faith'.
But an innocent mistake can occur if a question is unclear or ambiguous, whilst an inadvertent error might be where an answer only provides half the required information but there was no intention to mislead.
Therefore IMO, it follows that I would fall into the latter category: “innocent mistake can occur if a question is unclear or ambiguous, whilst an inadvertent error might be where an answer only provides half the required information but there was no intention to mislead.”
I maintain that I answered the question honestly and in good faith.
Applying the criteria that the FOS states above, it follows logically that the onus was on Insurers to request further key information on the bankruptcy orders issued, they failed to do so.
Notwithstanding the above after receiving Insurers file notes I discovered various unsubstantiated allegations in respect of my wife and I between insurers and underwriters whereby they discussed reasons not to honour the policy.
Underwriters even wrote: ”in light of the non-disclosure of the CCj’s we would not have offered terms in any event.”
This I find totally unbelievable, I mean seriously?
To suggest that they would offer terms to a ‘discharged’ bankrupt yet not to someone who had received a CCJ without asking further questions is ridiculous and implausible.
I believe that they were/are of the opinion that the CCJs were ‘outstanding’ as they are visible on Experian and this information is in the public domain for six years. I pointed out the fact that they are marked as ‘unsatisfied’ on the credit platform Experian which is totally different to ‘outstanding.’
For the avoidance of doubt, I confirmed in writing that the CCJ’s are unenforceable as they were wrapped up in the BO’s.
I even submitted a letter from our Trustee in Bankruptcy who confirmed that they were unenforceable as they were wrapped up in the BO’s.
Still the adjudicator stuck to his original opinion, ie: found there was no case to answer!
I did not accept his findings and requested that he submit the file to the Ombudsman for further review, I actually thought when I raised the formal complaint to the FOS June 2018 it was to the Ombudsman…am advised that this may take upto eight further months – unbelievable!
I would be interested to hear from others who have been down this route before me.
Best regards
Mike
This being the crux of the matter, however we did disclose bankruptcy orders which were issued after the CCJ's, hence the CCJ’s were encapsulated within the BO's
We raised a formal complaint with Insurers who found there was no case to answer.
We issued a formal complaint with the FOS, this was reviewed [June 2019] by an adjudicator who also found there was no case to answer.
This was after reviewing the telephone calls [inception & renewal calls] whereby I was asked: "have you ever been declared bankrupt, have any CCJ’s, IVA’s or arrangements with creditors?” to which I answered “Yes, we were made bankrupt.”
No further questions were asked.
This is my argument, in that it is my opinion if insurers required further detail in respect of the BO’s they should have asked, they failed to do so on both occasions.
I believe the question asked was vague insofar, one question actually asks four questions and as such is ambiguous and not specific.
After researching the facts, I am aware that the Law changed in 2013 and put the emphasis on the consumer being honest and careful, rather than 100% accurate.
The FOS states that insurers' questions relating to disclosure must be clear. They also identify four types of non-disclosure - deliberate, reckless, innocent and inadvertent.
The consumer's duty is to take reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation
A deliberate non-disclosure is providing information known to be untrue; a reckless one might be where a customer signs a proposal form but leaves it to someone else to fill out the answers. Both of these would breach the customer's 'duty of good faith'.
But an innocent mistake can occur if a question is unclear or ambiguous, whilst an inadvertent error might be where an answer only provides half the required information but there was no intention to mislead.
Therefore IMO, it follows that I would fall into the latter category: “innocent mistake can occur if a question is unclear or ambiguous, whilst an inadvertent error might be where an answer only provides half the required information but there was no intention to mislead.”
I maintain that I answered the question honestly and in good faith.
Applying the criteria that the FOS states above, it follows logically that the onus was on Insurers to request further key information on the bankruptcy orders issued, they failed to do so.
Notwithstanding the above after receiving Insurers file notes I discovered various unsubstantiated allegations in respect of my wife and I between insurers and underwriters whereby they discussed reasons not to honour the policy.
Underwriters even wrote: ”in light of the non-disclosure of the CCj’s we would not have offered terms in any event.”
This I find totally unbelievable, I mean seriously?
To suggest that they would offer terms to a ‘discharged’ bankrupt yet not to someone who had received a CCJ without asking further questions is ridiculous and implausible.
I believe that they were/are of the opinion that the CCJs were ‘outstanding’ as they are visible on Experian and this information is in the public domain for six years. I pointed out the fact that they are marked as ‘unsatisfied’ on the credit platform Experian which is totally different to ‘outstanding.’
For the avoidance of doubt, I confirmed in writing that the CCJ’s are unenforceable as they were wrapped up in the BO’s.
I even submitted a letter from our Trustee in Bankruptcy who confirmed that they were unenforceable as they were wrapped up in the BO’s.
Still the adjudicator stuck to his original opinion, ie: found there was no case to answer!
I did not accept his findings and requested that he submit the file to the Ombudsman for further review, I actually thought when I raised the formal complaint to the FOS June 2018 it was to the Ombudsman…am advised that this may take upto eight further months – unbelievable!
I would be interested to hear from others who have been down this route before me.
Best regards
Mike
