Bazzy wrote: » But if I drive a van as a painter and insured as sam and cut my neighbours grass for 20 euro at the weekend and drive my van there am i liable not to be covered as I havent disclosed myself as a gardener?
Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: » Absolute rubbish I'd say, it's just another excuse for insurance companies to fleece customers. How many accidents have you heard about involving musicians in vans late at night? I work in the emergency service sector and in my 18yrsi can safely say I have never come across one single accident involving a van late at night and very very few accidents involving vans during daylight hours either, for that matter. No matter what your profession, there is a level of loading by insurance companies. Remember they're in it to make as much profit as possible, they will use any excuse to get out of claims and in my mind are the biggest legalised criminal organisations ever.
To Elland Back wrote: » Yes, you will have non-disclosed Have a look at your policy schedule. It will say something along the lines of 'Use in connection with the insured's business as described in the schedule'. Anything outside of that (other than social, domestic & pleasure) and you are open to action by your insurer
pippip wrote: » The high value music equipment as a reason is crap, sure all they have to do is not cover that, same as builders cover and not including tools. So basically its cause they would be driving at night?
Matt Markinson wrote: » Correct, and the tax man would be very interested in the €20's
pippip wrote: » I know its a stretch but if you were a musician paid in cash (no bank trail) how would the insurance prove you were not just playing gigs for the love of music?....pleasure.
Bazzy wrote: » Just playing devils advocate here I've a friend who volunteers with a brass band and has a big yokeamebob theres no reward for her playing If she was a plasterer and drove her instrument in the van and doesn't disclose being a musician is she liable to have it cancelled?
To Elland Back wrote: » Not getting paid does not mean you are not a musician. If you are using the vehicle in connection with getting to and from gigs, you are a musician in the eyes of an insurer.. It may never get discovered, just like many cases of fraud.
To Elland Back wrote: » The equipment is not covered under the policy anyway, but it does improve the chances of the vehicle being stolen.
grogi wrote: » The problem is that the cancellation of the policy is solely in the hands of the insurer, there is no way to appeal it. And in this country it is like a death sentence...
To Elland Back wrote: » You, the proposer, are the only person entering in to the contract with ALL the facts on which it is based. YOU can avoid any issues by being truthful to the other party
grogi wrote: » Desirability of the vehicle in eyes of the thieves should not affect the TPL insurance at all. Insurer could offer only the TPL, but not Comprehensive insurance if that is an issue.
To Elland Back wrote: » I've given an explanation as to why the TPL is a huge issue and dismissed desirability of the vehicle as being a minor consideration. Read my earlier post
grogi wrote: » Only God does not make mistakes, but you seem to assign this capability to people as well. There are people working for the insurer, they can be wrong.
grogi wrote: » Don't need to read it - I quoted it, didn't I? ;-)
To Elland Back wrote: » Forgetting your occupation is not a mistake
grogi wrote: » I am not defending the OP here, but talking about the investigators, clerks etc. working for the insurer. They might make a mistake, a clerical one for instance, and a policy got cancelled. No way to appeal this decision...
To Elland Back wrote: » The Ombudsman's door is always open and heavily weighted in favour of the policyholder. But you are right, an insurer does not have to give a reason or justify their decision to cancel a policy
To Elland Back wrote: » If she is genuinely a plasterer and just drives to an 'occasional' event, without reward, I don't see a problem. If your friend is transporting other members or their equipment, yep I think there is a issue. The van is being used because of it's capabilities rather than the driver's usual means of transportation
Emmie Creamy Snowmobile wrote: » I don't see why it wouldn't fall under the "social, domestic and pleasure" part of the policy. What the difference between playing in a band for a hobby and driving to soccer training in your can. You claim to know insurance but the conditions you are putting forward are way over the top and not the case in reality. People use their cars and vans for various different things, lots of people have vans for commuting etc even (well more so jeeps etc). People pull trailors, cut laws for their family, move turf from the bog, give lifts to people, drive to sports, do odd jobs on the side etc etc etc etc and they only give their main employment to their insurer.
To Elland Back wrote: » Insurers have teams allocated to weeding out the liars. Loads of methods (which I'm not giving here). Good fun actually, did it myself for a year. People who commit insurance fraud are costing, on average, €50 per policy so nobody should have sympathy for them
dr.fuzzenstein wrote: » But the beauty of it is the insurer can now load so many terms and conditions onto a contract that it is actually physically impossible to comply by them all. Maybe that's the idea, from now on, anyone insurance companies don't like the look of, just find the tiny little footnote (chapter 37, paragraph 237, subsection 23b, footnote 4a) that they don't comply with and bang, gone. Then blacken their name to all other insurers so nobody will ever touch then again and sit back with satisfaction that someone's life got ruined. And the real scumbags keep claiming.