Comfort Insurance update

[Deleted member 967]

I have just received the email from Comfort:

Thank you for your enquiry. We can confirm that our motorhome policy has now been amended to include cover whilst the vehicle is at the premises of a motor trader for the purpose of maintenance or repair. This revised wording will be rolled out during 2011 as policies become due for renewal. Whilst we are unable to amend the wording of a policy mid-term, should a loss arise prior to renewal where the circumstances above arise our underwriters would treat the claim as though the revised policy wording already existed. Our Horizon private car policy already carries the revised wording.

It is worth pointing out that over the 15 years that Comfort has been arranging motorhome insurance, we have yet to have a situation where loss or damage at a motor trader’s premises has not been settled by the trader’s own insurance, so in reality we do not anticipate any regular involvement in such losses.

Regards,

Ben Cue

Tel:020 8984 0777

Email:ben@comfort-insurance.co.uk

 

[Canalsman]

My understanding is that all motor policies by default provide cover for the vehicle whilst in the care of motor trade employees ...

 

[John H]

Just looked up my policy (Safeguard) and can confirm what you say Canalsman. Also searched on the web for other policies and they also automatically offer this cover and always have done. It strikes me as odd that any company would not - makes me wary of considering Comfort in the future.

 

[John H]

Comfort are only a broker for Aviva the old Norwich Union

I'm not bothered who they are a broker for; if they haven't up to now provided something that other policies take as read then it makes me wary of using them in future.

 

[Kontiki]

I was in the unfortunate position of having to claim from a garage This happened when it went in for the MOT, I had rang before hand to ask if they could fit the van in (a Swift Kontiki 600) they assured me it was no problem. Took it in & waited in the showroom, only to be told that after trying it wouldn't fit. I was annoyed drove off & found another garage which did get it in. Whilst we were waiting I noticed a big gouge along the fibreglass roof storage area at the back. It was over an inch wide & a couple of foot long & had gone right through. Went back to the offending garage, first comment was they didn't think they had done it but later owned up to it. They told me to take it to get an estimate of the repair & after a lot of discussion said they would give me something towards it . In the end I claimed off my own policy but was told they wouldn't be able to reclaim my excess despite my paying for legal protection. The problem I was told was that as no other vehicle was involved the only way I could claim it was to take them to court but they wouldn't do it. Also as they wouldn't respond to my insurance company on my claim it looked like I would end up losing my no claims. In the end the insurance did get sorted & after many phone calls they did recover my excess. Also the caravan repairer who I found out had dealings with the same garage added extra to the bill to make sure I wasn't out of pocket.
I wouldn't want to go through it all again, apart from all the phone calls & letters it also took threats from me of what I was going to do before it was sorted out. (this happened about 20 years ago & I was a bit quick tempered then without thinking of the consequences.

Moral of the story is don't ever assume that you will be covered with your insurance.

 

[Canalsman]

... this happened about 20 years ago & I was a bit quick tempered then without thinking of the consequences.

Moral of the story is don't ever assume that you will be covered with your insurance.

I strongly suspect that insurance companies are now much more tightly regulated.

For a start there is now an ombudsman who can be approached to resolve issues such as the one cited.

A neighbour has recently had a ruling in his favour by the ombudsman who found against insurers who tried to wriggle out of their commitments ...

 

[John H]

I was in the unfortunate position of having to claim from a garage This happened when it went in for the MOT, I had rang before hand to ask if they could fit the van in (a Swift Kontiki 600) they assured me it was no problem. Took it in & waited in the showroom, only to be told that after trying it wouldn't fit. I was annoyed drove off & found another garage which did get it in. Whilst we were waiting I noticed a big gouge along the fibreglass roof storage area at the back. It was over an inch wide & a couple of foot long & had gone right through. Went back to the offending garage, first comment was they didn't think they had done it but later owned up to it. They told me to take it to get an estimate of the repair & after a lot of discussion said they would give me something towards it . In the end I claimed off my own policy but was told they wouldn't be able to reclaim my excess despite my paying for legal protection. The problem I was told was that as no other vehicle was involved the only way I could claim it was to take them to court but they wouldn't do it. Also as they wouldn't respond to my insurance company on my claim it looked like I would end up losing my no claims. In the end the insurance did get sorted & after many phone calls they did recover my excess. Also the caravan repairer who I found out had dealings with the same garage added extra to the bill to make sure I wasn't out of pocket.
I wouldn't want to go through it all again, apart from all the phone calls & letters it also took threats from me of what I was going to do before it was sorted out. (this happened about 20 years ago & I was a bit quick tempered then without thinking of the consequences.

Moral of the story is don't ever assume that you will be covered with your insurance.

Based on the above, it seems that you had to do a lot of the work your insurance company should have been doing. Why were they not prepared to go to court if the garage had admitted liability? I hoped you changed your insurance company if they were that inefficient.

 

[Kontiki]

It wasn't a problem with them paying but in their opinion it wasn't worth their cost if it went to court BUT it was me who would be paying the excess & losing my no claims. Part of the problem was the garage wouldn't reply to the insurance or give their insurance details. Regards the legal part of the the insurance (I think it was DAS) for recovering my excess they said as no other vehicle was involved then they wouldn't pursue the claim, only after many calls & my insistence they said they would send a letter threating with court action but wouldn't be prepared to actually take it to court The cost of the repair was about 500 pound no small amount nowadays but then it was a lot.
You will never know if any insurance is any good in all circumstances until you claim then it's too late. They don't have pages of small print that people rarely read for nothing.

 

[Canalsman]

Small print shouldn't permit insurers to wriggle out of their responsibilities - that is precisely where the ombudsman comes in ...

 

[Deleted member 967]

My understanding is that all motor policies by default provide cover for the vehicle whilst in the care of motor trade employees ...

Most people think that they have insurance to cover all eventualities, but you have to read the terms of your policy. All policies don't cover leaving vehicle in the care of the motor trade.

 

[Deleted member 967]

I'm not bothered who they are a broker for; if they haven't up to now provided something that other policies take as read then it makes me wary of using them in future.

Insurance is a contract between the Insurance Underwriters and the end user. How this is achieved varies but is usually brokers who act as the intermediaries no matter what the name on the package. Do you know who is actually providing the cover for a policy. Sure term, Churchill. Direct Line, etc are all just intermediaries, They do not provide the actual insurance.

Every insurance has terms, conditions and exclusions. Read the small print not just the headlines of any policy.

We have been with Comfort for 4 years and have found then to provide good service. They are the only company that offers genuine cover for full timing.

 

[Deleted member 967]

Small print shouldn't permit insurers to wriggle out of their responsibilities - that is precisely where the ombudsman comes in ...

The small print is actually the contract that you have entered into. If it doesn't spell it out in the small print it isn't covered. Also read all of the exclusions.

 

[Kontiki]

As regards the 'wriggling out' I bought a policy once over the phone (as most of us probably do) told them all the details regarding the motorhome & made sure that I told them the size & that it was over 3.5 ton (I know some don't cover vehicles over that weight so I always make sure that I tell them a couple of times). I was assured everything was ok, when the policy came there in the small print was something relating to the max. vehicle weight being 3.5 ton I managed to get my full premium back without any problem but that isn't the point really. Why should I have to double check that everything the salesperson tells me is correct without me having to check there is nothing buried in the document that would invalidate my insurance.
Another example with the years free insurance that the wife won. I clearly said that we needed the cover to be unlimited for Europe, firstly I was told it would cover us. When the documents came it said 90 days per trip. Rang them & after getting confirmation from the underwriters they agreed to no time limit on trips. They sent me a further 2 sets of documents which still had the 90 days & it was only after getting in touch with their complaints dept. I got a covering letter to say that I would be covered. I was almost at the point & telling them not to bother & I would go somewhere else even though it was free.

Even if you are told by the operator what you are covered for it is the documents that would be looked at in the event of a claim, so how could you prove that you were mis-sold the insurance.

Next year I will probably go back to Saga, Comfort or one of the ones where I know I get the cover I want.

 

[AndyC]

Even if you are told by the operator what you are covered for it is the documents that would be looked at in the event of a claim, so how could you prove that you were mis-sold the insurance.

Next year I will probably go back to Saga, Comfort or one of the ones where I know I get the cover I want.

Most of the larger companies now record phone conversations. I had a dispute with Saga a few years ago, I forget the exact details now but they refused to acknowledge my version of what had been agreed by phone until I requested that they replay the recording of the conversation, whereupon they agreed that I was right.

I wouldn't rely on such recordings though, it's essential to fully read the policy documents as well, and query any discrepancies.

AndyC

 

[John H]

Insurance is a contract between the Insurance Underwriters and the end user. How this is achieved varies but is usually brokers who act as the intermediaries no matter what the name on the package. Do you know who is actually providing the cover for a policy. Sure term, Churchill. Direct Line, etc are all just intermediaries, They do not provide the actual insurance.

Every insurance has terms, conditions and exclusions. Read the small print not just the headlines of any policy.

We have been with Comfort for 4 years and have found then to provide good service. They are the only company that offers genuine cover for full timing.

We are wandering off point here. It doesn't matter who is the broker and who is the insurer. You posted that your insurance will soon include something that my insurance (and most others as far as my researches go) already has as a standard clause. I therefore wonder what else Comfort don't include that Safeguard does - and hence my reluctance to consider Comfort in future. Not that I can find any reason to switch from Safeguard who have given me excellent service at a good price over the years - and yes I always read every bit of small print (you may have guessed from many of my comments over the years that I like to know precisely what the situation is on all matters legal!).

 

[Canalsman]

Kath had a little crash a couple of years ago, I posted about an old git running into the back of her car while she was stationary and admitted it but later changed his story by saying that Kath reversed into his car

That's why a witness is so important.

And most phones these days have a camera - so take some pictures too.

Every little helps ...

 

[David & Ann]

Another is Kath was put on a 3 month waiting list for an operation Yesterday she chased it up as over 3 months and they now have no record of it so she has to start all over again
We planned our tour around this operation and now???
Can't anybody do anything right nowadays[/QUOTE]
====================================================================================================
Hi Graham, I fully agree with your comment above. Ann had an operation date for her feet for August, which would be that we could go away for the winter. Like your Kath, could not trace the record. She has now had the op: a couple of weeks ago Dec; 2nd, (3 months later) so that ruined our going awayto Goa. Which is why we are both freezing at this very moment HOPEFULLY, we will be able to do our Euro trip from end of April to September

 

[David & Ann]

Graham, my problem is that we are not far from hitting 70, we want to make the best of it before we find we are unable to do what we are doing NOW. All this hanging around because of their failures is frustrating. Okay, if we were in or 30's or 40's, time is on our side. but, when you have one foot in the grave feeling imprisioned, is ridiculous.