Part P. Again. Legally.

[Andy Wade]

amended by you mean:

legislation, not the legislation itself.

[Cod Roe]

those, would you point me at the relevant bit please.

[Andy Wade]

No those just give the Part P requirement ("reasonable provision") and whether or not you need to notify.

[John Rumm]

Just to come back to this for a mo. I just had need to change insurance and hence was sent a new copy of the T&Cs. I can confirm that with this insurer (Bell) there is no mention of any exclusions relating to DIY work, build regs compliance or anything of the sort.

I would be interested to know if anyone has seen any such restrictions in their policies.

[boltmail]

Do a UK-only google on "material non-disclosure insurance law" and "duty good faith insurance law". That's what they would try to nail you with, it doesn't need to be in the t&c.

[Steve Firth]

I'm pissed off by electricians turning up in Mercedes and BMWs demanding hourly rates that would make a lawyer blush.

[Appin]

The message

from [e-mail] contains these words:

Insurance contracts have a conition of "utmost good faith" which in theory is binding on both parties but which in practice the insurers themselves blithely ingore.

The question would be, however, whether any failure to employ a registered contractor and complete work certificated in terms of Part P could be deemed to have contributed materially to the loss. If you change a CU and a fire which destroys your house is deemed to have started in the CU, then you're on a very sticky wicket indeed. Though if you could demonstrate that the work had in fact been inspected by a qualified person who is willing to testify that it was done competently and to the appropriate standard you would probably be OK. If on the other hand the fire which destroys your house is deemed to have started with a dropped cigarette end, then the fact that you changed the CU is irrelevant.

[boltmail]

Not so, I'm afraid. You need to do the google I suggested and read more, more carefully.

If the insurer can show you did not disclose a material fact, the contract would be void, and they'd hand you back your premium and tell you to stick your claim somewhere private, even if there was no causal connection between the thing you did not disclose and the cause of the claim. One of the joys of insurance law, as far as insurers are concerned.

Your version is more like US law AIUI, which is much less insurer- friendly than UK law.

[John Rumm]

No shortage of lawyers though it seems... ;-)

[John Rumm]

Interesting article here:

would still find it hard to see how an insurer would avoid a policy where one can demonstrate that any work one has done to a place actually lowers their risk. For example, replacing an ageing rewireable fuse CU with no RCD protection with a modern unit to current standards[1].

More to the point however, has anyone actually had (or heard of) a claim refusal where the stated reason is undisclosed genuine improvements to a property?

If the practice were common place then in effect the insurers could avoid all claims, since with enough investigation you could probably find some element that they could argue would change the terms they would take on the policy.

[1] I am aware of cases where insurers have paid out on accidental damages claims there the cause of the accident that inflicted the damage was a botched DIY attempt by the owner.

[Andrew Gabriel]

My policy says it covers this.

[boltmail]

It would be difficult, but they might say quite rationally that they would not have taken the policy on if they had known the policyholder was a DIY wildman who ignored the Part P 'legislation' and stuff. I'm not saying it would necessarily work, just that I wouldn't put it past them at all.

No. In practice, I suspect that it would only arise if it was causal (despite not having to be legally) because if the fire brigade report that it was a cigarette, no-one is going to inspect or ask any questions about how and when and by whom the CU was installed, etc. If the CU goes up in smoke (and takes the house with it, to make the claim worth investigating at the necessary level of detail) then you might expose yourself to more risk. Even then, it would be evidentially difficult to prove - receipts don't get kept, names get forgotten - Dave, I think his name was, spotted his van in the street, etc.

It is a very common tactic - obviously the bigger commercial claims pay for more legal rough-housing on coverage issues than small domestic ones.

[Appin]

The message

from [e-mail] contains these words:

Do I really? Don't worry, I passed the relevant CII exams with distinction :-). Many years ago I used to WRITE the small print for one of the biggest companies in its line of insurance.

The question is one of what constitutes a material fact. If the insurer makes a stipulation at the inception of the contract or at renewal that the shall be a valid periodic inspection certificate of the electrical installation dated within the previous twelve months and signed by an individual qualitfied in terms of Part P and that no alterations or additions have been made to the installation since the said inspection, it would be perfectly within its rights so to do. If you warranted that such was in place and it was subsequently discovered that such was not the case, then the insurance company could validly treat the contract as void ab initio. In point of fact there's a considerable weight of law to suggest that though an insurer can in the event of a claim limit liability because of deficiencies in the specification by the insured (the condition of average is designed to address one aspect of that problem) it is not quite so easy to repudiate liability on mere technical grounds.

On the general point of voiding insurance policies I had an interesting experience a couple of years ago.

I have a twelve seater LandRover 110 County Sation Wagon. All details fully declared in utmost good faith to the insurers and checked by them with the DVLC. Absolutely bog standard for the year. All such vehicles sold on the UK market for that year and many years before and after were

12 seaters. Half-way through one particular year's insurance the company (Direct Line) repudiated the contract on the ground that the vehicle had more than seven seats. A fact which they admitted they'd been told and had on record. But they didn't repudiate a claim, which would be something different.

Where you DO really need to watch insurance is the general practice of dishonest parents "insuring" cars driven by their children and not revealing that the children are the principal drivers. In the event of a claim in such circumstances what's likely to happen is that it will be treated as "Act Only" cover -- i.e. personal injury to third parties. Sadly, I know a couple it happened to -- their son was killed in a car they had "insured" but of which he was the principal driver. That's fraud -- it's a fundamental misrepresentation of the risk. And that's why normally if there are two or more cars at the same address and two or more insured on those cars, the premium charged will be on the basis that the highest risk driver is driving the highest risk vehicle.

I've lived and worked in the US too. The US insurance industry is at best chaotic. However, I've never worked within it. Few of those working in the insurance industry in the US are qualified. As is now the case in this country as well. It's extremely hard to find an underwriter to consider special circumstances. Even genuine brokers are extremely thin on the ground. Though I have to say that my commercial insurance premium this year is £100 less for better cover than it was last year, due to a change of broker from a national firm of vultures to a broker who has earned his keep.

[Appin]

The message from [e-mail] (Andrew Gabriel) contains these words:

Though it would be foolishness of the most extreme sort to make a claim for anything less than -- at the very minimum -- several thousand pounds and in a situation where NO blame could be attached to yourself. When you claim you go on to a list of claimants and you will attract unfavourable attention when it comes to renewing the policy either through an increased premium or through not being invited to renew. And once you're refused by one insurer, getting insurance at all can be difficult. The list of claimants, incidentally, gets circualted around all the larger insurance companies.

[Steve Firth]

Leave one in a room and it divides asexually.

[boltmail]

Of course, but irrelevant, as they don't.

Of course, but irrelevant, as we don't.

The issue is whether it would be regarded as a mere technical ground. All you've done is moved from a statement that it had to be causal of the damage, to dismissing all non-causal non-disclosures as immaterial or technical. That does not follow, by a long shot. I'm not so sure it couldn't be argued (obviously it could be argued, I mean with a reasonable chance of success) that the fact that you had carried out electrical works that did not comply with the building regs would have affected a building insurer's assessment of the risk if they had known about it. It could be dressed up to sound *very bad indeed*.

(Happily admit this is all a bit theoretical though, given insurers wouldn't know to look unless it was causal, and the evidential issues they'd face if they did suspect)

[Appin]

The message

from [e-mail] contains these words:

Merely an illustration of what would be required to make Part P relevant

As above

It could be argued, but without much chance of success. And it's unlikely to be argued because of the enormous background of case law on the subject.

The last thing even insurance companies want is bad publicity. They'd prefer to take you to the cleaners quietly and usually do. The most effective tool you have against them is publicity. We had a case in which a guy actually did the insurance company in the 60s. Owned a small Builders' Merchants in the NW of England. Nasty accident. 4 guys killed. Boss was trustee of the Pension and Live Assurance arrangements. Sent in claim. Company paid out to the Boss who pocketed the money and told the widows that the Insurance Company wouldn't pay out. Widows camped out on the doorstep of the insurance company's Manchester office with placards. Widows (young, attractive) called in press. Things started appearing in papers. Insurance company rapidly paid out cheques to the widows. End result -- Insurance company paid out twice. Crooked boss got away with it, because Insurance company didn't dare risk losing all its company life and pensions business in the NW of England.

[cerberus]

Two in the room & their bills multiply rapidly!

Don.

[boltmail]

On 26 Jan, 22:39, Appin wrote:>

Seperate issue, as that would be a breach of warranty or a misrepresentation, not a material non-disclosure.

Ditto

Are you saying that there is an enormous body of case law that material non-disclosure doesn't exist and that in order to make an insurance contract voidable you need either a misrep or a breach of warranty? If so, that's bollocks. If not, I don't get your point.

[Paul Herber]

A town that can't support one lawyer can often support two.