Regarding towing

[Dustydog]

My CAMC wording is the same . Will be interesting to see what reply Roger gets.
Just for the record CAMC use the word Cover rather than Insurance.

What is Caravan Cover?​

The Caravan and Motorhome Club is a mutual organisation - which means it is effectively owned by its members. As such, we can offer a discretionary mutual caravan cover to anyone that’s a Club member.

Our discretionary mutual caravan cover is not insurance but provides similar cover to caravan insurance offered by other providers; in that, those who take out our Caravan Cover have their contributions pooled together into a fund. And those pooled funds are then used to pay for any claims made by the members.


We did this to death as Clive knows. I can say with first hand experience my claim was dealt with professionally and all payments made to the repairer the same week.
It’s worth mentioning that in the background there will be a long stop reinsurance cover to protect the Mutual Fund in the event of an abnormally high influx of claims.

 

[otherclive]

My CAMC wording is the same . Will be interesting to see what reply Roger gets.
Just for the record CAMC use the word Cover rather than Insurance.

What is Caravan Cover?​

The Caravan and Motorhome Club is a mutual organisation - which means it is effectively owned by its members. As such, we can offer a discretionary mutual caravan cover to anyone that’s a Club member.

Our discretionary mutual caravan cover is not insurance but provides similar cover to caravan insurance offered by other providers; in that, those who take out our Caravan Cover have their contributions pooled together into a fund. And those pooled funds are then used to pay for any claims made by the members.


We did this to death as Clive knows. I can say with first hand experience my claim was dealt with professionally and all payments made to the repairer the same week.
It’s worth mentioning that in the background there will be a long stop reinsurance cover to protect the Mutual Fund in the event of an abnormally high influx of claims.

Also the CMHC Cover gives the same rights of access to FCA and Ombudsman as provided by a traditional insurance. So as far as the customer is concerned it’s no different to a conventional policy.

 

[RogerL]

Also the CMHC Cover gives the same rights of access to FCA and Ombudsman as provided by a traditional insurance. So as far as the customer is concerned it’s no different to a conventional policy.

Apart from no Insurance Premium Tax (IPT) to pay - which will reduce the premium to the customer - or - increase the profit for the "insurer".

 

[Buckman]

Apart from no Insurance Premium Tax (IPT) to pay - which will reduce the premium to the customer - or - increase the profit for the "insurer".

Unfortunately taken into context with the tax, we have found the CAMC to be more expensive than other insurance companies.

 

[ProfJohnL]

I have not changed any criteria. If your car is plated to tow a caravan at for instance 1600kg, but you tow an empty caravan with a MTPLM of 1800kg the insurance would be invalid even though at the time of towing the caravan only weighed 1400kg as the CAMC is using the plate weights like most insurance companies. Not difficult to understand.

You did change the criteria In #1 you report the caravan must not exceed 100% of the tow vehicles kerbweight.

Yet in #5 you change the criteria to the caravans MTPLM being above the towing limit of the car.

These two are entirely different comparisons.

 

[Buckman]

You did change the criteria In #1 you report the caravan must not exceed 100% of the tow vehicles kerbweight.

Yet in #5 you change the criteria to the caravans MTPLM being above the towing limit of the car.

These two are entirely different comparisons.

I am really sorry that you cannot comprehend a simple statement. Shame.

 

[Tobes]

I am really sorry that you cannot comprehend a simple statement. Shame.

Towing limit ≠ kerb weight.

 

[ProfJohnL]

I am really sorry that you cannot comprehend a simple statement. Shame.

Please will you edify this simpleton as to how or if your statements in #1 and #5 are supposed to be the same?

 

[Buckman]

Please will you edify this simpleton as to how or if your statements in #1 and #5 are supposed to be the same?

 

[Dustydog]

It will be very interesting to see what reply Roger receives —#16

 

[Buckman]

For clarification if the unit exceeds the plated maximum train weight of the combination even though physically the actual weight is within the train weight, the insurance will be invalid.

The kerbweight is not plated so the CAMC would be on very sticky ground trying to enforce the antiquated 85% guideline.

 

[RogerL]

For clarification if the unit exceeds the plated maximum train weight of the combination even though physically the actual weight is within the train weight, the insurance will be invalid. The kerbweight is not plated so the CAMC would be on very sticky ground trying to enforce the antiquated 85% guideline.

You're not sticking to the same points - there's no attempt to enforce the 85% recommendation - they seem to be refusing to insure caravans over 100%.

 

[otherclive]

For clarification if the unit exceeds the plated maximum train weight of the combination even though physically the actual weight is within the train weight, the insurance will be invalid. The kerbweight is not plated so the CAMC would be on very sticky ground trying to enforce the antiquated 85% guideline.

I thought the figure under discussion was 100% not 85% and previous posts made no mention of enforcing 85%. Might be best to see what comes back from Roger L’s enquiry to CMHC otherwise we could be in to an endless discussion without any foundation, other than a purported email not supported by actual T&Cs in Forum members policies with CMHC.

 

[Lutz]

For clarification if the unit exceeds the plated maximum train weight of the combination even though physically the actual weight is within the train weight, the insurance will be invalid.

How can the plated maximum train weight be exceeded if the actual train weight is within the maximum train weight? That's a contradiction in itself.

 

[Buckman]

How can the plated maximum train weight be exceeded if the actual train weight is within the maximum train weight? That's a contradiction in itself.

Please argue the toss with the CAMC who made the statement. Here was me thinking I posted a helpful post so maybe the moderator should just delete this whole thread and let people lose out when it comes to making a claim?

 

[Sam Vimes]

It seems to me that the issue here is the rather imprecise wording of the CAMC policy documents. This has lead to discussion about what we believe it means and will lead to different opinions because of the impreciseness of all the terminology used.

Please let's not comment on members ability to understand a post that's been made. If it's not clear to one it may not be clear to others so further explanation would help rather than questioning each others inability to comprehend.

None of us are experts.

FWIW: I Downloaded the policy documents and the nice thing about electronic copies is that they are easy to search. I could only find reference to Kerb Weight. No mention of Plated, MTPL M, or MIRO.

If we need a definitive answer then the CAMC should be contacted and get it in writing.

Stay friendly

 

[Buckman]

Sam in the interests of sanity as I started the thread, can it be removed as people prefer to pick holes than actually understand the context.

 

[Sam Vimes]

I'll let it run a little longer but if we keep going around in circles I'll lock it.

Personally I like imprecise documents like this because they can be challenged......well you may need a good lawyer 😉

 

[Tobes]

I have no problem @Buckman your 1st post. Indeed I think it's useful (if ambiguous on the part of CAMC) information.

This is on another forum. If you have the CAMC cover beware; “We have now heard back from the head of our Insurance team regarding your query. They have confirmed that we are unable to cover a caravan where caravan's weight is over 100% of the towing vehicles kerb weight. In the event of a claim the weights would be based on the plated weight of the caravan.”

Seems even if the caravan is empty but the plated MTPLM is higher than the car's kerbweight, no payment? On checking my V5 this morning there is n mention of the kerbweight on the V5 so how will the CAMC be able to enforce such a rule?

For my outfit, my Kerb weight is 2,228.8kg including fluids, driver + options and with the addition of my towbar. My MTPLM is 1550kg. This reassures me that I have no worry with the weight of my outfit as per the reported feedback from CAMC.

I am further reassured by the post from @Hutch , and looking at my policy document, I have exactly the same wording.

I have just checked on my insurance and here is the clause. This is with the CAMC.

What is Not Insured

1. Loss or damage that as a result of an 'event' known to happen before taking out the cover, for example but not limited to a storm.

2. Loss or damage as the result of the towing vehicle not being capable of towing the Member's Caravan safely in accordance with the manufacturer's or others guidelines and/or the combination of the towing vehicle and Caravan not meeting the appropriate legal requirements. This can also include the Member's Caravan's weight being in excess of 100% of the towing vehicle's kerb weight.

As per the 2nd statement, my responsibility is to ensure that I am legally towing;

• I have an appropriate license and am in a fit state to drive
• suitable type approved extension mirrors
• the GTW of my car+ caravan is not exceeded
• my GVW is not exceeded (for me measured by known kerb weight + my car payload including hitch load and passengers)
• my individual axle limits are not exceeded
• my towball limit and caravan hitch limit are not exceeded
• my MTPLM is not exceeded (for me measured on a weigh bridge, and then tracked via spreadsheet additions and subtractions of weighed items)
• I keep to posted and towing adjusted speed limits

With all of the above taken care of, I have no worries around being uninsured.

 

[Raywood]

It would be interesting to hear from the insurance companies where they get their kerbweight figures from as kerbweight isn't documented anywhere. The V5 only quotes Mass in Service and that could be miles off the actual kerbweight. Kerbweight is specific to each and every vehicle and includes all factory fitted options and subsequently fitted permanent features such as possibly the towbar, for example. Mass in Service doesn't include any of that, so it's quite likely that kerbweight is greater.

This point has been debated on here several times and the answer seems to be that in most cases the insurer would have great difficulty in repudiating, except in the worst cases.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Whilst I agree with Ray, I wouldn't assume you could willfully ignore the clause,

I do think the companies that use this type of limit with such uncertain criteria should be made to rethink and come up with a totally unambiguous process using statutory figures rather than vague values such as kerbweight, so caravanners can be ultra clear about the issue.

 

[Raywood]

I am not suggesting ignoring the clause. My position is that in some of the badly worded policies the claim may fail but I would not rely on it. What you might end up with is a long drawn out battle with the costs and loss of use of the car or caravan during this time and no one wants that.
Unless the insurer uses the wording of MTPLM in most cases it would be impossible to establish the weight of the caravan at the time oof an accident which would mean the insurer would have no basis to show a breach.
I do not however suggest that anyone puts themselves in this position.
If the insurer can show the caravan was overloaded though, this would make the outfit illegal and would be better grounds to turn the claim down.

 

[Buckman]

I am not suggesting ignoring the clause. My position is that in some of the badly worded policies the claim may fail but I would not rely on it. What you might end up with is a long drawn out battle with the costs and loss of use of the car or caravan during this time and no one wants that.
Unless the insurer uses the wording of MTPLM in most cases it would be impossible to establish the weight of the caravan at the time oof an accident which would mean the insurer would have no basis to show a breach.
I do not however suggest that anyone puts themselves in this position.
If the insurer can show the caravan was overloaded though, this would make the outfit illegal and would be better grounds to turn the claim down.

I think what makes the answer by the CAMC ridiculous is used the word "plated" when the kerb weight or MIRO is not plated so straight away they would be on a loser.

 

[Gafferbill]

CAMC and any owner of a caravan outfit can easily find out the plated maximum weight of a caravan and the kerb weight of the towing vehicle.
For example and in my case......
Hyundai Santa Fe 2016 = around 2000kgs.
Swift caravan =1600kgs.
I easily fulfill the CAMC requirement.
Tow my caravan with a Golf 2litre diesel around 1400kgs and I would fall foul of the CAMC requirement even though the Golf can legally tow a 1600kgs braked caravan.
IMO......The clause is about acceptable towing ratios determined by definitions not actual weights at the time of any claim.

 

[Buckman]

CAMC and any owner of a caravan outfit can easily find out the plated maximum weight of a caravan and the kerb weight of the towing vehicle.
For example and in my case......
Hyundai Santa Fe 2016 = around 2000kgs.
Swift caravan =1600kgs.
I easily fulfill the CAMC requirement.
Tow my caravan with a Golf 2litre diesel around 1400kgs and I would fall foul of the CAMC requirement even though the Golf can legally tow a 1600kgs braked caravan.
IMO......The clause is about acceptable towing ratios determined by definitions not actual weights at the time of any claim.

The MTPLM etc is not the issue as I think most of us understand that part. The issue is about the so called "plated" weight for the kerb weight or MIRO. No one seems to know where the CAMC can find this magical plate.