"Small print" is an expression we use to explain why we don't read things. It's not usually any smaller than all of the other conditions that we are actually aware of. What we have here is a contract of insurance and which imposes on the insurer certain conditions. Fail to meet those conditions and there is a breach of contract enabling the insurance company to properly refuse to pay out. No point in criticising the insurance company, nor in naming it for the purposes of folk "having a go" at it. Is it truely the insurance company's fault if an insured does not comply with the contract? Anyway, all may not be lost...............some issues not yet entertained.... 1. Is it not a tad unusual for such a policy to require a light actually over the caravan rather than over the entire site? Has there been a misinterpretation of the clause? The OP states that the site has some lighting, so is this "security lighting"? If so then that argument by the Insurance Company may fall by the wayside 2. Is it not unusual for a policy to require 24 hour patrols? My insurers ask me where my van is stored, and what security arrangements are in place and the policy simply requires it to be stored there. Did the OP tell them it had mobile patrols? Doubt it if it doesn't. So, has the policy been changed over the years without positive notice to the OP. Is there a potential cause of action there? Financial Ombudsman ? Check out the original policy document (if you have one) and compare that to the current policy. By varying a contract
after it has been agreed (if that has happened) the Insurance Company could have created a "significant imbalance in the parties' rights
and obligations", as
the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts
Regulations 1999 would put it and thus such a change would not be enforceable. Of course each year the contract of insurance is renewed and any change may have arisen at that time and not during the annual life of the policy. Changes at renewal should have been highlighted
3. Another approach may be that, if this term was new at a renewal date, or existed from day one, and was not specifically highlighted to the OP this may amount to an infringement of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2002. If so the insurers cannot rely on the clause 4. Was the insurance arranged via a broker? If so did that broker fail in its duty to the client to spell out the full nature of the contract and the OPs obligations? A broker has a duty to
inform his client that he must disclose all material facts to the insurance
company (e’g that there was no patrol) and to explain the consequences of
failing to do so. The Broker should have brough up the conditions in the policy about security at storage. So, a potential cause of action here if a Broker was used.
5. What about a claim against the site owners? They have enterted into a contract with the OP to provide a "secure" site. So did the site owner commit a breach of its contract with the OP? Worth thinking about. Anyway, just some issues for the OP to consider. What the OP needs to do is to think about just how he has organised his insurance, what was said, by whom and when. What was not said. Has the policy changed, and was he informed. If the OP would care to post a few more facts I amy be able to suggest a way forward Phil
-------------
If you're not on a fell your wasting your feet and for 2014 it's.......Feb Castleton Mar North Yors Moors; Apr Sutton on Sea; May Thirsk; Jun Clapham/Riverside (Lakes); July Wharfedale; August Crakehall; Sept Knaresborough; Oct Wirral Park/Clitheroe
|
Topic: caravan insurance invalid
