Jump to content

I'm angry for him ...


Phooey
 Share

Recommended Posts

... my Wife's second couzen has spent months saving up for the insurance for his first bike. He is only 17 so you can imagine money doesn't flow too freely. Anyways, he eventually managed to save enough to pay the insurance, which wasn't bad at c£600 TPFT with zero no claims on a CBR125 and L plates.


The bike cost him £1500, on his step-dad's credit card, and the insurance in place he proudly started riding his bike.


He's had it about five or six weeks and some toe-rag stole it. He called the insurance comapny, MCE, and they said,


'You told us the value of the bike is £1500, your excess is £1550 so nothing to pay out thank you for your business' ... maybe not in those words.


They are clearly abusing the fact that he is a young man with little or no experience and surely they knew that this policy was worthless when they took his £600. What, if anything can he do about this?


He has argued with them, as was suggested by another forum member, that the policy is not fit for purpose but thus far no joy!


Your thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Insurance ombudsman if you believe the policy was not fit for purpose......but surely the excess would have been very clear on the quote and policy documentation?

 

I don't know but surely after taking £600 off of a kid they should make it clear that any claim would not return a penny?


Unfortunately, he didn't talk too much about the policy before commiting. You or I would laugh in their face at that proposal but then we are not 17.


What is the point of selling a policy that he could never hope to claim on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


What is the point of selling a policy that he could never hope to claim on?

 

My guess is the quote was no different in cash terms to TPO. they offered him the extra theft - because they could. Obviously someone with a bit more experience would have seen it was pointless. a sad lesson.

As for the ombudsmen.. worth a try. but I doubt he has a leg to stand on. the excess is made abundantly clear in the proposal. Theres also the right to cancel for 14 days (minimum) to bear in mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed a sad and expensive lesson for a 17 yo. It just goes to show that some companies have no scuples at all. Transparencies seem to apply one way with these people. Yes it would have been stated that the excess was more than the value of the bike in the proposal but it wasn't made at all clear that he would not be in a position to make a claim in the event of ANY incident. It's about time some of these companies are made to take some responcibility for their own actions, or lack of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately this is how they work......the cheapest insurance quote is not always the most cost efficient..... :roll:

TBH as a 17 year old these days the best option is to buy a bike worth a couple of hundred quid and insure it TPO with a huge excess and be prepared to wave that money goodbye if someone nicks it or you bin it big time.......harsh, but it's the only way.

His only hope now is that the bike is found and it's not trashed..... :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At 17, is he old enough to enter a legal contract without perantal guidance?

Just an idea but might be able to prove he wasnt old enough to understand and maybe get a refund?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MCE always charge excessively, that's why they're the cheapest. My first year was £560 third party could've gone tpft £1050 excess not worth it, second year £280 third party because the excess is still the same!


It is quite clear on the comparison sites what the excess is and if he rang up they're would've told him as well, and I'm sure the paper work/email would've stated it as well.


Hard lesson to learn at such a young age but this is life sometimes, best bet is to try and find the bike, check the rough estates etc and circulate it on Facebook to biker groups in sure they'll be happy to try and help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that you are right Tango but it frustrates the tits off me.


I don't know if he dealt with it entirely by himself or if a parent got involved, Joe. Worth asking I suppose.


I know that this is the way insurance companies do business but it is frustrating that he can't get married, vote, fight for his country, drink alcohol and god know how many other things at 17 but he can be relieved of £600 for a policy that is not worth the paper it is written on. I think that they, the insurance companies, should have a legal responcibility to ensure the under 18's understand exactly what it is that they are buying.


He has found the bike now ... assessing damage. A few fairing scrapes and scratches and the barrel is knackered. Been hot wired. Frustrating thing is now that he has spoken to the insurers, even though he hasn't cost them a penny he is still going to have to pay through the nose next year because he has 'history'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MCE strike again!!


although the terms should have been made clear at the time of him taking the policy IMO he should never been sold a comprehensive policy he couldn't claim off!


personally this should have been a TPFT policy at a lower price with that access because there is no point having fully comp if he cant claim!


I think that is the only argument you could have on this policy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MCE strike again!!


although the terms should have been made clear at the time of him taking the policy IMO he should never been sold a comprehensive policy he couldn't claim off!


personally this should have been a TPFT policy at a lower price with that access because there is no point having fully comp if he cant claim!


I think that is the only argument you could have on this policy

 

I'll have whatever he's had.. only give me a double. no ice.http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w40/motobiker/101.gif~original

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MCE strike again!!


although the terms should have been made clear at the time of him taking the policy IMO he should never been sold a comprehensive policy he couldn't claim off!


personally this shout have been a TPFT policy at a lower price with that access because there is no point having fully comp if he cant claim!


I think that is the only argument you could have on this policy

 


It was TPFT, Stu but partly through ignorance he was just not aware that £1550 excess meant that he would not be able to claim in the event of something happening. And to rub salt in his wounds he now has a jump next year and he cant claim a penny back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if he manages to get another bike and stays insured with MCE


dont forget he WILL have a years NCB next year due to the fact he hasnt actually made a claim


no pay out means no claim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes but they have the theft on file now so his premium will increase though.

 


this is also true but it would be higher without that extra years NCB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes but they have the theft on file now so his premium will increase though.

 

No actual claim so nothing for him to declare when he uses a different insurance parasite next year, they can write what they like on a file, no claim paid out = 1 years NCB at the end.


Further on what Joeman said if he is 17 and paying monthly then they will have I think illegally entered him in to a loan as I don't think a 17 year old can take out a loan (paying monthly is infact taking out a loan not paying the underwriter monthly).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes but they have the theft on file now so his premium will increase though.

 

No actual claim so nothing for him to declare when he uses a different insurance parasite next year, they can write what they like on a file, no claim paid out = 1 years NCB at the end.

 

he would still need to declare the theft regardless of if there is a claim or not


especially now the insurance have it on file and it will be on the database


not telling the next insurance company could invalidate insurance and cause it to be cancelled

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes but they have the theft on file now so his premium will increase though.

 

No actual claim so nothing for him to declare when he uses a different insurance parasite next year, they can write what they like on a file, no claim paid out = 1 years NCB at the end.

 

he would still need to declare the theft regardless of if there is a claim or not


especially now the insurance have it on file and it will be on the database


not telling the next insurance company could invalidate insurance and cause it to be cancelled

 

Im not so sure.


when you take out insurance, what do they ask?


"Any claims or convictions" - thats all.. and thats key. They don't ask if you've ever had a bike stolen and not claimed for it. why should they?


do they ask.. "do you have anything to declare aside from previous claims or convictions?" no.. or at least, Ive never been asked.


For the life of me I simply cannot see what business it is of anyone if a bike is stolen and no claim made upon it. aside from DVLA and the Police. who both need to know.. obviously.


But.. i'll defer to someone who works in vehicle insurance. because this is just my 'thinking' on the matter.


Just one thing to add. I rather think this chap will have lost any (potential) NCB. because as he's told the insurers its been stolen - the policy will (likely) have been cancelled.

Edited by Anonymous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes but they have the theft on file now so his premium will increase though.

 

No actual claim so nothing for him to declare when he uses a different insurance parasite next year, they can write what they like on a file, no claim paid out = 1 years NCB at the end.

 

he would still need to declare the theft regardless of if there is a claim or not


especially now the insurance have it on file and it will be on the database


not telling the next insurance company could invalidate insurance and cause it to be cancelled

 

Could always say it wasnt stolen, he just forgot where he parked it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excess is worse than the actual insurance itself for young riders, I've experienced the quotes and they're not a pretty site.


The excess on TPFT for young riders is often so high that you could buy the motorbike again, as was almost the same in my case.


Sad and annoying to hear that his goal was taken away from him after so long of working towards it.


The only thing worse than the above is the situation with the insurance company, i'm with the same company and read the reviews before taking out my policy so I new what to expect and what to look out for, all I can say is that the company is cheap for a reason, without MCE I wouldn't be on the roads until I won the lottery, but with it I can work towards researching the market and quotes I receive when my policy is up.


I haven't really had any bad dealings with the company, but that's mainly because so far all they've done (like any other insurance company) is take my money, witch would keep a smile on anyone's face right?


In the situation that the motorbike is recovered am I right in saying that since it's stolen it would be the property of the insurance company, or would it be returned to the 17 year old owner (as no claim was made?).. either way I hope the bike finds its way back to its rightful owner sooner rather than latter.


The only other hurdle that remains in this situation is what to do with the insurance policy (ie; cancel or continue to pay), now that you've declared it as stated it's on there record, if insurance companies don't share details (not sure if they do) then surely taking out a policy with a different company in the future is like starting all over again (the best possible outcome?)..


Heres to the best possible outcome whatever it may be for the biker :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Won't the bike belong to the insurance company now though?


The reason I say that is because they've used the excess as an excuse not to pay out, so they've paid for the bike using the excess, if that makes any sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not certain how it works for younger drivers its been a while since I can call myself that :tumble:


I know for me on this bike a lower excess actually reduced my insurance.... The theory being I was going to look after it was explained to me... Either way well worth playing the search engine game looking for your lowest quote...


Are you a site assistant in the leisure industry or a bouncer at a pole dancing club, always worth trying both....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if he manages to get another bike and stays insured with MCE


dont forget he WILL have a years NCB next year due to the fact he hasnt actually made a claim


no pay out means no claim

 

didn't work out this way for me when my bike got nicked :evil: woke up to find bike gone, contacted police and insurance company. Found bike within about 3 hours after an immense trawl through the scum areas. rang up and cancelled claim informed police etc.


When it came time for renewal they had knocked off my no claims as I had in their words 'made a claim' didn't matter in the slightest that they hadn't paid anything out, their stance on the matter was I had reported the bike to them as stolen so that is classed as a claim :roll:


that was with Bennets, currently with Swinton who assured me that wouldn't happen with them!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know for me on this bike a lower excess actually reduced my insurance..

 

Even with voluntary excess the compulsory for the younger market is still sky high, it most cases you'd probably have to put the bikes value as voluntary for the compulsory to vanish, so you're never winning, for the younger generation NCB and experience seems to be the only way to bring quotes down.


I think the UK should adopt Austria's default TPO "right to drive" policy where you can buy a motorbike and drive away straight away with the equivalent of our TPO.


Insurance companies in general know that they provide a service that is unavoidable and as said above "pressing a few buttons on a computer and coming up with a number" that we are forced to pay, ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Sign up now

    Registration is quick and easy 

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Please Sign In or Sign Up