Subject: complaint into unfair terms and conditions in a motor insurance contract
Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 17:20:31 +0100
.ExternalClass .ecxhmmessage P { padding:0px; } .ExternalClass body.ecxhmmessage { font-size:12pt; font-family:Calibri; } To the unfair contract terms team,
I write to complain about the terms and conditions imposed by motor insurers for : The use of using a none insurer approved repairer, whereby a higher excess will be imposed.
I believe this is a restrictive practice covered under unfcog 1.3.2 , where the terms are regarded unfair , if contrary to the requirements of good faith their is a significant imbalance in the parties rights and obligations to the detriment to the consumer.
I believe this to be the case , where the consumer is being denied free choice of repairer when they are put in a pecuniary worse situation when they choose to use their own repairer. It would be my own opinion that there is an imbalance to the detriment of the consumer here.
I also believe this does fall under the FOS “treating customers fairly” as it is denying fair trade to bodyshops, and freedom of choice to the consumer.
AVIVA QUOTE
This would also lead me to think that the current contracts insurers are using with the clause in,
“If following a claim your car needs to be repaired and you decide not to use our approved repairer then an additional excess of £200 applies. This excess will apply in addition to any other excesses under your policy. Using your own repairer may also cause delays in your claim and Aviva cannot guarantee quality of repair from your chosen repairer.”
esure quote
“Please note that if you choose to use your own repairer:
- You will not receive a courtesy car unless this is agreed directly between you and your repairer
- An excess of £200 will be applied in addition to any other excesses shown on your schedule
- The repairs, unlike those carried out by one of our recommended repairers, will not be guaranteed for 5 years – unless your own repairer offers this
- The repairer, unlike our recommended repairers, is not contractually obliged to provide a specific level of service to you
- We will not be able to assist you with any aftercare issues.”
Due to the above, I also feel that these contracts are un-enforceable due to breaching the terms of indemnity “upheld” in the contract where,” the insurer promises to put the insured in the situation they were in prior to their loss, and this does include pecuniary loss.
The fact that the consumer is now being put in a financially “worse”situation by their own insurer means that the contract of indemnity is not being upheld, and the contract is being breached.
I do know this is a concern that has been raised with the office of fair trade ,and should be looked at by the competition committee, but have seen no comments or advices by the competition committee in relation to it.
I believe the above does fall under your role and regulations as the FCA, the area of concern affects “millions” of consumers, as the clause’s are in quite a few policies.
As all insurers are regulated by the FCA, and are covered under the Financial services and markets act 2000 and the above is covered under regulation 12 of unfair term regulations.
I would expect action to be taken.
I look forward to your response.
Kind regards
Motorclaimguru ltd
