|
|
| Author |
Message |
| nullpacket |
This post is not being displayed .
|
nullpacket
L Plate Warrior
Joined: 01 Apr 2026
Karma :  
|
 Posted: 12:36 - 09 Apr 2026  Post subject: Compulsory Motor Insurance not incepted, at risk 9 months! |
 |
|
Apologies if this is not the right place to post this but im looking to see if anyone else has experienced the same thing (either recently or not).
Right now, I will not mention the broker involved as I've just escalated to Ombusdman.
In July 2025 I insured my bike, I was issued a schedule, policy document and welcome email. Everything looked legit.
Fast forward to March 2026, some 9 months later and I get a call form the broker stating that there was a problem, the policy was never incepted and the vehicle was never listed on the MID, it literally just wasn't insured for 9 months.
From there, the broker in question repeatedly, over several calls with different members of their staff asked me to make payment for a policy that never existed so it could be backdated. Only after I questioned the appropriateness of backdating a policy for 9 months did they stop asking for payment and instead offered a new discounted (by £20) policy.
They of course re-assured me that "If anything had happened, we would have covered you" which may or may not be true, either way, it's just words at this point. Also over the course of several calls where they were still trying to get me to pay for the policy, multiple members of their staff tried to back this up with comments like "don't worry, this has happened before and we have paid out" 
I've been through the brokers complaint procedure where they had 8 weeks to perform a complete a full investigation but instead they sent me their final response within 24 working hours. It was very vague and stated that "Due to the length of time, we are unable to determine why the failure occurred" which feels like a cop out, I'm pretty sure under FSA PRIN/ICOBS they should have all the data required to make this analysis and provide a clear, fair and accurate response.
Anyhow, they've pretty much dodged all of my questions or given inaccurate and conflicting information where they did respond and so i've raised it with the ombudsman.
I'm just wondering, has anyone here experienced this kind of situation or maybe even exactly this same situation with the same broker? |
|
| Back to top |
  |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| doggone |
This post is not being displayed .
|
doggone
World Chat Champion
Joined: 20 May 2004
Karma :  
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| nullpacket |
This post is not being displayed .
|
nullpacket
L Plate Warrior
Joined: 01 Apr 2026
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| MarJay |
This post is not being displayed .
|
MarJay
But it's British!
Joined: 15 Sep 2003
Karma : 
|
|
| Back to top |
 |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Ste |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Ste
Not Work Safe
Joined: 01 Sep 2002
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
 |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| A100man |
This post is not being displayed .
|
A100man
World Chat Champion
Joined: 19 Aug 2013
Karma : 
|
| Posted: 15:01 - 09 Apr 2026 Post subject: |
|
|
| Ste wrote: | What outcome are you wanting? |
Quite - first post and its a bellyache about what exactly??
____________________
Now: A100, GT250A, XJ598, FZ750, SL1000
Then: Fizz, RS200, KL250, XJ550, Laverda Alpina, XJ600, FZS600, Skorpion |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| nullpacket |
This post is not being displayed .
|
nullpacket
L Plate Warrior
Joined: 01 Apr 2026
Karma :
|
| Posted: 15:03 - 09 Apr 2026 Post subject: |
|
|
| MarJay wrote: | You still have to pay! They can back date it, but if you don't pay, your insurance for the last however many months is invalid. |
No, I'm certain I don't, if you can cite sources that say otherwise then please do.
This isn't about the unpaid bill for half a pound of bananas from the local corner shop, this is an industry regulated broker who has a legal obligation to correctly incept mandatory motor insurance. Under FSA PRIN asking a customer to pay for a policy 9 months after it should have been incepted would not be considered "fair value" and that's before we get into the failures in controls they are regulated to have in place to avoid exactly this situation.
Under the RTA 1998, using the road without valid insurance is a strict liability criminal offence.
In the world of law, this means a prosecution doesn't need to prove I intended to drive without insurance or even knew if I was uninsured. Strict liability means that if you are using a vehicle on the road and the policy isn't active, the criteria for the offence is met. This is again why its regulated by the FSA because the implications to the driver/rider may be significant.
Backdating an insurance policy does not change the fact that at the time the vehicle was used on the road it was not ensured.
You are correct of course that my insurance for the past 9 months is invalid, invalid because it never ever existed, paying for that now doesn't change that fact but it does allow the broker to "fill a gap" in their record keeping, again covered by the FSA that the broker must keep complete and accurate records and whilst I have no evidence to prove it, it feels like they wanted me to pay so they could close a gap in their records. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| MarJay |
This post is not being displayed .
|
MarJay
But it's British!
Joined: 15 Sep 2003
Karma :
|
Posted: 15:15 - 09 Apr 2026  Post subject: |
|
|
| nullpacket wrote: | | MarJay wrote: | You still have to pay! They can back date it, but if you don't pay, your insurance for the last however many months is invalid. |
No, I'm certain I don't, if you can cite sources that say otherwise then please do.
This isn't about the unpaid bill for half a pound of bananas from the local corner shop, this is an industry regulated broker who has a legal obligation to correctly incept mandatory motor insurance. Under FSA PRIN asking a customer to pay for a policy 9 months after it should have been incepted would not be considered "fair value" and that's before we get into the failures in controls they are regulated to have in place to avoid exactly this situation.
Under the RTA 1998, using the road without valid insurance is a strict liability criminal offence.
In the world of law, this means a prosecution doesn't need to prove I intended to drive without insurance or even knew if I was uninsured. Strict liability means that if you are using a vehicle on the road and the policy isn't active, the criteria for the offence is met. This is again why its regulated by the FSA because the implications to the driver/rider may be significant.
Backdating an insurance policy does not change the fact that at the time the vehicle was used on the road it was not ensured.
You are correct of course that my insurance for the past 9 months is invalid, invalid because it never ever existed, paying for that now doesn't change that fact but it does allow the broker to "fill a gap" in their record keeping, again covered by the FSA that the broker must keep complete and accurate records and whilst I have no evidence to prove it, it feels like they wanted me to pay so they could close a gap in their records. |
Sounds like you've been listening to AI. You know it's extremely sycophantic right? it'll confirm your biases.
You have received a service, that service being insurance cover between the start of the ghost policy and now. If you don't pay, then that service becomes invalid and you were not insured. It's a little chicken and egg but it does make sense.
If it was to go to court, the insurer would argue that you had a duty of care to check the payment went out successfully, and possibly even that the MID database was updated too.
____________________
British beauty: Triumph Street Triple R; Loony stroker: KR1S; Track fun: GSXR750 L1; Commuter Missile: GSX-S1000F; Cheap project: CBR900RR FireBlade
Remember kids, bikes aren't like lego. You can't easily take a part from one bike and then fit it to another. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| nullpacket |
This post is not being displayed .
|
nullpacket
L Plate Warrior
Joined: 01 Apr 2026
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| nullpacket |
This post is not being displayed .
|
nullpacket
L Plate Warrior
Joined: 01 Apr 2026
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Ste |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Ste
Not Work Safe
Joined: 01 Sep 2002
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| MarJay |
This post is not being displayed .
|
MarJay
But it's British!
Joined: 15 Sep 2003
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| nullpacket |
This post is not being displayed .
|
nullpacket
L Plate Warrior
Joined: 01 Apr 2026
Karma :
|
| Posted: 17:16 - 09 Apr 2026 Post subject: |
|
|
| MarJay wrote: |
Sounds like you've been listening to AI. You know it's extremely sycophantic right? it'll confirm your biases.
You have received a service, that service being insurance cover between the start of the ghost policy and now. If you don't pay, then that service becomes invalid and you were not insured. It's a little chicken and egg but it does make sense.
|
Ultimately, I did not receive any service, this has been confirmed to me both verbally and in writing, the policy doesn't and never did exist, this has nothing to do with poultry, AI generated or otherwise.
Had the situation have been:
Sir, you took an insurance policy that was supposed to start at 4pm last Thursday , we didn't actually process it until 5pm so we need to backdate it
That, as a simple administrative error would be a valid reason to modify the policy and backdate it. Not coming at customers 9 months later and asking them to pay for something that never existed, ever, in any capacity and then backtracking on that when called out on it. If, like you said, I HAVE to pay, then:
Why the sudden backtrack when I called out the legitimacy of it?
Why in a subsequent call, after many attempts to take payment from me, did their supervisor say to me "I rescinded that offer, I looked at it and it is too far in the past to be viable"
Why also then respond to a written complaint with inaccuracies rather than simply stating "You are required to pay for the policy, that is why we asked you to do so"
| MarJay wrote: |
If it was to go to court, the insurer would argue that you had a duty of care to check the payment went out successfully, and possibly even that the MID database was updated too. |
They probably would, it probably wouldn't get them anywhere though. I had every reason to genuinely believe valid insurance was in place when it wasn't.
I have official documentation to prove that and I don't think for a minute under FCA principles that it would be "fair" to expect the customer to audit the payment systems of the broker. Likewise this would be at odds with PRIN 2A.2.8 "A firm must avoid causing foreseable harm to retail customers" and 2A.2.9 "Foreseeable harm may be caused by both act and omission"
Again no AI is needed here, the FCA handbook is publicly available.
But this is all largely moot, I didn't come here for legal advice, I came here to see if others had experienced this situation within the biking community. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| nullpacket |
This post is not being displayed .
|
nullpacket
L Plate Warrior
Joined: 01 Apr 2026
Karma :
|
| Posted: 17:24 - 09 Apr 2026 Post subject: |
|
|
| Ste wrote: | What is it that they want you to pay for and have you got it in writing from them?
One piece of advice would be to tell them that you want to cancel the policy. The reason I suggest that is to avoid the possibility of the insurer deciding they no longer want to do business with you so are cancelling the policy. |
There is no policy, there never was, just documents that said there was a valid policy that never existed, so there is nothing to cancel.
They wanted to take payment in March 2026, the full policy cost for a policy that should have been incepted in July 2025. They tried multiple times until I called out the legitimacy of that, then they backtracked immediately and then in their final response to the complaint they responded to that particular issue with inaccuracy, it all smells fishy... maybe I am wrong but they way this whole situation has been handled feels like they were trying to cover their own arses, take the money, backdate the policy, the ledger is now correct for audit and compliance purposes.
Anyhow, I'm not here to get advice on the complaints procedure or legalities, (the process has been followed and all evidence submitted to the ombudsman so time will tell on that front) apologies if that wasn't clear from my original post. I'm just here to see if others have experienced similar. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| nullpacket |
This post is not being displayed .
|
nullpacket
L Plate Warrior
Joined: 01 Apr 2026
Karma :
|
| Posted: 17:34 - 09 Apr 2026 Post subject: |
|
|
| MarJay wrote: | | Ste wrote: |
One piece of advice would be to tell them that you want to cancel the policy. The reason I suggest that is to avoid the possibility of the insurer deciding they no longer want to do business with you so are cancelling the policy. |
This is risky as he can then be done for riding without insurance for the last few months of 'ghost' policy.
If it were me, I'd pay, I'd not bellyache about it and I'd get something in writing to say I was covered over that time. |
And this is exactly my point "I'd pay" yes, and im sure the vast majority of people would because its insurance right. I also almost paid but something just told me this wasnt right.
The problem here is, this is a regulated industry but the FCA dont work like the ombudsman. The ombudsman will consider if my complaint was valid, if the brokers response was fair, if any compensation and what level of compensation is due. That's pretty much it.
Of course I could go to the FCA and make a complaint (and I absolutely will when the result of the ombudsman investigation comes back) but the FCA do not look at individual complaints, they look for patterns/trends so if 100 people got called by the broker today, and 100 people just paid, they almost certainly didn't complain and the broker gets to simply sweep their compliance and control failures under the carpet, job done.
Also, I'm not sure why you have any faith in a ghost policy?
That isn't insurance.
No underwriter has ever accepted the risk of me being on the road on my motorbike because there is no real policy in effect, just some paperwork that the broker issued, it is not valid in any capacity. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Kawasaki Jimbo |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Kawasaki Jimbo
World Chat Champion
Joined: 09 Oct 2015
Karma : 
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| MarJay |
This post is not being displayed .
|
MarJay
But it's British!
Joined: 15 Sep 2003
Karma :
|
| Posted: 18:48 - 09 Apr 2026 Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, but they have said they can backdate it, IF you pay. You're paying, and you're getting the service you paid for. If you don't pay, you're uninsured and have been for however many months.
I don't know what you want because what you're getting is what you would happily have paid for 9 months ago, but for £20 less. That sounds like a win in anyones book.
I would not be arguing about this, lest I get a doorstep from PC plod who wants to do you for riding without valid insurance.
The point is, the police and ANPR have not yet noticed. They still can, and if they find out the insurance was invalid, they can still do you. If you pay, the insurance is backdated, you're retroactively covered, you're getting what you would have paid for in the first place and everyone is happy surely?
Is this related to the ephemeral nature of insurance? Are you thinking because you've got away with it, then you shouldn't need to pay? Because, I'm sorry but that's bullshit. You need to have the retroactive cover, and you need to pay for it. It's the only option you have now to stay legal.
____________________
British beauty: Triumph Street Triple R; Loony stroker: KR1S; Track fun: GSXR750 L1; Commuter Missile: GSX-S1000F; Cheap project: CBR900RR FireBlade
Remember kids, bikes aren't like lego. You can't easily take a part from one bike and then fit it to another. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| stinkwheel |
This post is not being displayed .
|
stinkwheel
Bovine Proctologist
Joined: 12 Jul 2004
Karma :
|
| Posted: 18:52 - 09 Apr 2026 Post subject: |
|
|
Could be part of a wider fraud too mind. It's not unheard of for brokers to issue a cover note then not actually take out the policy with the insurer in the hopes you don't make a claim then they can pocket the premium.
It's called "ghost broking"
Have you confirmed with the actual insurance company, rather than the broker, that a certificate of motor insurance was issued by them? If not, they might be interested to learn about what has been going on.
____________________
“Rule one: Always stick around for one more drink. That's when things happen. That's when you find out everything you want to know.”
I did the 2010 Round Britain Rally on my 350 Bullet. 89 landmarks, 3 months, 9,500 miles. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Capt Sisko |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Capt Sisko
Renault 5 Driver
Joined: 22 Jan 2022
Karma : 
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| MarJay |
This post is not being displayed .
|
MarJay
But it's British!
Joined: 15 Sep 2003
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| stinkwheel |
This post is not being displayed .
|
stinkwheel
Bovine Proctologist
Joined: 12 Jul 2004
Karma :
|
| Posted: 20:53 - 09 Apr 2026 Post subject: |
|
|
| Capt Sisko wrote: | Bottom line, you need to take professional legal advice, not ask a bunch of strangers on the internet.
As a side note a few days after every MOT or insurance renewal/taking out a new policy I always check the DVLA & MIB websites to see that the details have be update or uploaded correctly. Look after No.1 as no one else will. |
Although it's my understanding that being in posession of a physical certificate of motor insurance is something of a get out of jail free card if it comes to court unless they can show a papertrail of giving notice it has been cancelled using the correct procedure. The police ride roughshod over it though and set their stall out by what is on the MIB and will still confiscate your vehicle based on a phone call to an insurance company.
If they issued one, the vehicle is insured until it is cancelled. The police can try to argue the toss but if you produce it in court, it's hard to imagine how it wouldn't stand up. If there was an irregularity in the way it was issued, that's a civil matter between the holder and the insurance company.
As an example. If someone steals your car, robs a bank, is chased by the police who then ram the car off the road during the getaway, the police will claim for the damage to their car off your insurance. I don't think there can be any argument that the bank robber was covered to drive under the terms of the insurance.
____________________
“Rule one: Always stick around for one more drink. That's when things happen. That's when you find out everything you want to know.”
I did the 2010 Round Britain Rally on my 350 Bullet. 89 landmarks, 3 months, 9,500 miles. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| sickpup |
This post is not being displayed .
|
sickpup
Old Timer
Joined: 21 Apr 2004
Karma :
|
| Posted: 21:53 - 09 Apr 2026 Post subject: |
|
|
| nullpacket wrote: | Under the RTA 1998, using the road without valid insurance is a strict liability criminal offence.
In the world of law, this means a prosecution doesn't need to prove I intended to drive without insurance or even knew if I was uninsured. Strict liability means that if you are using a vehicle on the road and the policy isn't active, the criteria for the offence is met. This is again why its regulated by the FSA because the implications to the driver/rider may be significant. |
That's kind of right but you have failed to understand what a statutory defence is under S.143(3)(c) but in your case its likely that this would fail as you had never paid for the policy but could be mitigated if you had a Certificate of Insurance as that would say, regardless of payment that you were insured unless it was revoked in writing.
Why didn't you contact the broker when no payment was taken?
You haven't actually said if you had a Certificate of Insurance or not, you've been a bit vague about it.
| nullpacket wrote: | Backdating an insurance policy does not change the fact that at the time the vehicle was used on the road it was not ensured. |
Yes it does. It means the insurance company has agreed to cover you during this time regardless of whether you had an incident in this time.
| nullpacket wrote: | You are correct of course that my insurance for the past 9 months is invalid, invalid because it never ever existed, paying for that now doesn't change that fact but it does allow the broker to "fill a gap" in their record keeping, again covered by the FSA that the broker must keep complete and accurate records and whilst I have no evidence to prove it, it feels like they wanted me to pay so they could close a gap in their records. |
Paying for it now does change the fact, there is nothing in law that states an insurance contract cannot be retroactive unless of course it is fraudulent.
I think you are playing games along with not understanding law as well as you think you do. You are being indignant because you don't want to pay for the backdated policy and trying to work out reasons why you shouldn't pay.
Guess you better hope HMRC don't come after you for fraudulently obtaining VED. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| to v or not to v |
This post is not being displayed .
|
to v or not to v
World Chat Champion
Joined: 24 Nov 2020
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Capt Sisko |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Capt Sisko
Renault 5 Driver
Joined: 22 Jan 2022
Karma :
|
| Posted: 09:12 - 11 Apr 2026 Post subject: |
|
|
| stinkwheel wrote: | As an example. If someone steals your car, robs a bank, is chased by the police who then ram the car off the road during the getaway, the police will claim for the damage to their car off your insurance. I don't think there can be any argument that the bank robber was covered to drive under the terms of the insurance. |
A similar situation applies if you sell your vehicle but don't inform your insurance company. Should that vehicle then be involved in an accident, because the insurance company has issued a Certificate of Insurance for it, they are still liable for the third parties costs, however unlike the above example, because you failed to tell your insurance company you've sold the vechicle they can come after you, personally to recoup their costs. I really don't know how long between selling and advising is considered acceptable, but given all the stuff modern technology lets us do on the move, I doubt you're going to be given much leeway if you dilly & dally to long.
Going back to the OP's posts, I can't see anywhere that says 'and I got a Certificate of Insurance'. Yes he says "I was issued a schedule, policy document and welcome email." but no mention of a C of I. Furthermore when asked directly by 'sickpup' do have you actually have a C of I, things have gone a bit quite from the OP. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Capt Sisko |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Capt Sisko
Renault 5 Driver
Joined: 22 Jan 2022
Karma :
|
| Posted: 09:12 - 11 Apr 2026 Post subject: |
|
|
| stinkwheel wrote: | As an example. If someone steals your car, robs a bank, is chased by the police who then ram the car off the road during the getaway, the police will claim for the damage to their car off your insurance. I don't think there can be any argument that the bank robber was covered to drive under the terms of the insurance. |
A similar situation applies if you sell your vehicle but don't inform your insurance company. Should that vehicle then be involved in an accident, because the insurance company has issued a Certificate of Insurance for it, they are still liable for the third parties costs, however unlike the above example, because you failed to tell your insurance company you've sold the vechicle they can come after you, personally to recoup their costs. I really don't know how long between selling and advising is considered acceptable, but given all the stuff modern technology lets us do on the move, I doubt you're going to be given much leeway if you dilly & dally to long.
Going back to the OP's posts, I can't see anywhere that says 'and I got a Certificate of Insurance'. Yes he says "I was issued a schedule, policy document and welcome email." but no mention of a C of I. Furthermore when asked directly by 'sickpup' do have you actually have a C of I, things have gone a bit quite from the OP. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
|
Help & FAQs
Search BCF
Members
Groups
Events Calendar
rating
rating