I find it very difficult to take the article by Charlie Whelan (`Going to the dogs... fast', 4 April, Insurance Times) over his insurance problems with Churchill seriously.
As far as I am aware, every motor proposal asks the proposer if they are the registered owner of the vehicle and therefore an inaccurate proposal was probably completed.
It is also possible that he may have claimed an insured and spouse discount to which he was clearly not entitled.
With regard to the inability to take it to the nearest garage and authorise his own repairs, is he oblivious to the historical situation where many garages have two pricing structures - one for insurance work and one for pound notes?
The advantage of an approved repairer scheme is that the work can normally proceed without the need for an estimate, the work is guaranteed and the policy usually provides for a courtesy car.
He comments on the fact that he had maintained insurance cover on a car that was subsequently written off for £950.
Is he not aware that a comprehensive policy enjoys an age of vehicle discount whereas a third party fire and theft policy does not? Consequently, in many cases, comprehensive cover can be cheaper than third party fire and theft.
The only aspect of his article that I totally agree with is the lack of service currently prevalent throughout the insurance industry.
I would suggest that he places his business with a good broker (and probably the smaller the better) which will then monitor the progress of any future claims and really "kick a few butts" if the service standard falls short of that to which he is entitled.
Frank Cottle
The Lansdown Brokerage
Bath
