Refund of caravan purchase

[Buckman]

The way I have understood it although the alarm is not working, for example, if you are towing and there was a mishap, the insurance company would be liable for damage to the caravan only or if you were on a site and the caravan caught fire, etc the insurance company would still pay out. However if the caravan was stolen, then no pay out as the incident is linked directly to the alarm not functioning.

 

[Jcloughie]

The way I have understood it although the alarm is not working, for example, if you are towing and there was a mishap, the insurance company would be liable for damage to the caravan only or if you were on a site and the caravan caught fire, etc the insurance company would still pay out. However if the caravan was stolen, then no pay out as the incident is linked directly to the alarm not functioning.

I agree with that concept, but in this case it is the Tracker that is faulty, therefore theft is the concern.

Mishaps when towing will normally be covered by the car insurance. But when I lost a wheel, (big mishap). That was covered by the caravan insurance.

John

 

[Buckman]

I agree with that concept, but in this case it is the Tracker that is faulty, therefore theft is the concern.

Mishaps when towing will normally be covered by the car insurance. But when I lost a wheel, (big mishap). That was covered by the caravan insurance.

John

I thought car insurance only covered third party issues and not the caravan?

 

[Raywood]

I am doubtful that the policy could be voided from the start unless you were aware the tracker was not working and said nothing. If it simply fails without your knowledge then this is simply not grounds for repudiation. The basis of voiding the policy would have to be if you knew the truth and there was a failure to tell the insurer the true position. Here it looks like problems arising you were not aware of and the insurer is required to treat you fairly which a repudiation would not be. The basis of any avoidance f the policy from inception, has to be that you did not disclose something you knew would affect the premium at inception and this does not look to be the case.
Once you are aware of the problem you should have informed the insurer and if you do hopefully they will continue the insurance, but might ask for an additional premium. If this is Swift Insurance I would contact Swift and make it clear that if a claim is turned down you will be looking to them and the dealer for compensation due to their failure. They may use their influence with the insurer to make sure you are covered. This is I believe a very large scheme and Swift should have some room to influence the insurer.
In practice having a claim turned down for any other type of claim because the tracker was not working is unlikely, not only for he reason I stated earlier, but if you had a claim for anything other than theft, it is very unlikely the insurer would even look to see if the tracker was working, as it is not relevant. That is not to say you should ignore the problem, but the reality of the position.
In practice I would give them notice that you want the money back although you might give them a time limit to sort it first, if you look at the problem of another costing you more.

 

[Buckman]

Just to add. Our current caravan came with the standard tracker which is as good as a chocolate tea pot as it is reactive. We paid extra to have a decent proactive tracker fitted which alerts you the moment someone interferes with the caravan. Is the tracker in the caravan reactive or proactive?

 

[Mandarin]

I thought car insurance only covered third party issues and not the caravan?

Correct, I just had the below feom my car insurers when i checked to ensure they knew the car had a towbar

"And, the customer is covered to tow a single trailer, broken-down vehicle, Caravan or Horsebox.

Please note: damage to the item being towed or any items carried in them are not covered."

 

[Dustydog]

There are two circumstances.

Yes the insurance company can void the policy if they wish, this would have to be from the start date.

However, if the policy was allowed to run, voiding in retrospect would be unfair. Unless one of the following circumstances applied.

Which of the following will make an insurance contract voidable?

The contract becomes voidable in the occurrence of fraud, coercion, or misrepresentation, subject to the discretion of the party against whom these actions were directed.


John

John
I have no wish to become entangled in a protracted barrack room debate. You really need to understand the importance of a “Condition precedent to policy liability “. The repercussions of such a breach are profound. A policy can be cancelled ab initio at any point in its life span if such a breach arises irrespective of the loss type.
This principle is well described in Mel Walmsley’s book “Fire Insurance Law and Claims”. A bible for those of us working in the claims insurance industry. Hope this helps.
Best DD

 

[otherclive]

Just to add. Our current caravan came with the standard tracker which is as good as a chocolate tea pot as it is reactive. We paid extra to have a decent proactive tracker fitted which alerts you the moment someone interferes with the caravan. Is the tracker in the caravan reactive or proactive?

I cannot see what the difference is between reactive or proactive. Surely all trackers are reactive as they don’t send out any information until something happens. I can see that there are trackers that only send out information when the caravan moves. But do modern alarms detect break in before movement in which case they could be proactively warning wrt potential movement that may happen. But the nere do wells may not be planning to steal the caravan, only its fridge or something.

 

[Jcloughie]

John
I have no wish to become entangled in a protracted barrack room debate. You really need to understand the importance of a “Condition precedent to policy liability “. The repercussions of such a breach are profound. A policy can be cancelled ab initio at any point in its life span if such a breach arises irrespective of the loss type.
This principle is well described in Mel Walmsley’s book “Fire Insurance Law and Claims”. A bible for those of us working in the claims insurance industry. Hope this helps.
Best DD

I agree re protracted debate. Yes, policies can be cancelled at any time but if they are made void it is from the start date.

However my experience is different and stems from fairness as opposed to a narrow and strict interpretation. Companies may attempt to enforce such clauses, but there is a defence. (See below). Which is my point.

My interpretation remains unchanged. Which is not to say I disagree with you, just that I may have found that insurance companies have been much fairer, sensible and logical than often gets posted or reported.

Your standard sales contracts must be ‘fair’ or you won’t be able to enforce them.

John

 

[Dustydog]

I agree re protracted debate. Yes, policies can be cancelled at any time but if they are made void it is from the start date.

However my experience is different and stems from fairness as opposed to a narrow and strict interpretation. Companies may attempt to enforce such clauses, but there is a defence. (See below). Which is my point.

My interpretation remains unchanged. Which is not to say I disagree with you, just that I may have found that insurance companies have been much fairer, sensible and logical than often gets posted or reported.

Your standard sales contracts must be ‘fair’ or you won’t be able to enforce them.

John

The corollary to your point John is that the Tracker Condition is an Unfair term which it isn’t. Amen👍

 

[Buckman]

I cannot see what the difference is between reactive or proactive. Surely all trackers are reactive as they don’t send out any information until something happens. I can see that there are trackers that only send out information when the caravan moves. But do modern alarms detect break in before movement in which case they could be proactively warning wrt potential movement that may happen. But the nere do wells may not be planning to steal the caravan, only its fridge or something.

Reactive means that you have to notify the tracking company that the caravan is missing. They then try and track it. Proactive means that the tracking company notify you if someone interferes with the caravan. If anyone enters the caravan without first disabling the alarm the tracking company are notified.

 

[Dustydog]

Reactive means that you have to notify the tracking company that the caravan is missing. They then try and track it. Proactive means that the tracking company notify you if someone interferes with the caravan. If anyone enters the caravan without first disabling the alarm the tracking company are notified.

Unbelievable! What’s s the point then of a reactive Tracker? Some people may not see their caravan for months whilst in storage🙀🙀

 

[Jcloughie]

The corollary to your point John is that the Tracker Condition is an Unfair term which it isn’t. Amen👍

Not at all, as already said, if such a term was imposed for an unrelated incident. Then, and only then. It becomes unfair.

John

 

[Buckman]

Unbelievable! What’s s the point then of a reactive Tracker? Some people may not see their caravan for months whilst in storage🙀🙀

Yep because it is the cheaper option for manufacturers. I am surprised that insurance companies even accept them.

 

[Dustydog]

Not at all, as already said, if such a term was imposed for an unrelated incident. Then, and only then. It becomes unfair.

John

Further discussion will be over a 🍺🍺🍺

 

[Raywood]

I would go with Jcloughie. I worked in claims for about 45 years and do understand the point.
Basically if the tracker fails due to a cause unknown to the policyholder and there is no failure to maintain, then the insurer is required to treat the policyholder fairly, which should make any avoidance of the policy unsustainable.
If the policyholder knows of a failure, they should ring the insurer, explain the problem and what is being done about it and hopefully they will be charged a small extra premium to cover the period the tracker is not working. Different insurers may have different attitudes to this, but hopefully most will help. If they do not I would suggest changing the insurer.

 

[Dustydog]

I would go with Jcloughie. I worked in claims for about 45 years and do understand the point.
Basically if the tracker fails due to a cause unknown to the policyholder and there is no failure to maintain, then the insurer is required to treat the policyholder fairly, which should make any avoidance of the policy unsustainable.
If the policyholder knows of a failure, they should ring the insurer, explain the problem and what is being done about it and hopefully they will be charged a small extra premium to cover the period the tracker is not working. Different insurers may have different attitudes to this, but hopefully most will help. If they do not I would suggest changing the insurer.

I spent my life in the commercial industrial claims sector. Maybe it is different to personal lines but I do recall at least three cases where a non functioning theft alarm was used to repudiate fire claims . The key point raised by the Insurers solicitors was the Theft condition was precedent to policy liability. I think as I said to John one for discussion over a beer not on here😉

 

[Jcloughie]

I see that an insurance policy is just a form of contract, therefore normal contractural law takes affect, even for express terms. Same law for commercial and domestic.

EG, if I had my van on site, and I had agreed with my insurance to using an Alko wheel lock, but was not. And my van was vandalised while I went out. Should the insurance pay out?

I strongly suggest they should and will, in fact, they are not even likely to ask.

I have no direct insurance experience, but I am qualified in construction law, mainly Tort. Could it be, that the insurers solicitors were just better at their job?

John

 

[Buckman]

I think the OP was asking about a refund on the caravan so not sure about insurance as that would be a separate issue if they are claiming a refund?

 

[otherclive]

I think the OP was asking about a refund on the caravan so not sure about insurance as that would be a separate issue if they are claiming a refund?

Surely they would just cancel the policy or if having another Swift (😱) might be able to have it suspended.. overall it’s small beer compared to the caravans value for a refund.

 

[Buckman]

Surely they would just cancel the policy or if having another Swift (😱) might be able to have it suspended.. overall it’s small beer compared to the caravans value for a refund.

That is what I thought and was wondering why although linked in some way insurance was being discussed?

 

[otherclive]

That is what I thought and was wondering why although linked in some way insurance was being discussed?

I think it started because the OP was understandably concerned that a non functioning tracker would lead to non compliance with the policy.

 

[Jcloughie]

I think it started because the OP was understandably concerned that a non functioning tracker would lead to non compliance with the policy.

Exactly that. And it provided a reason to reject.

John