When is consent not consent, when is consent not freely given? When it is given to a loss adjuster it
would seem!
Currently we can provide the insured / victim’s consent but it is rarely acceptable to
constabularies. We use the standard MoU document, a consent (Appendix D of the MoU) but to
quote the City of London police (again), when I wrote:
- The ABI and Lloyds MoU’s, whilst not applying to non-members, form a perfectly acceptable template for approaches.
The response was;
- “This is not the case ….there is an expectation that the required controls would be in place within the receiving organisation prior to any disclosure taking place, which membership of the ABI, as the professional representing body, provides.”
This concern could be addressed by a change in recording process, for example, when making a
report of crime the police could ask the person reporting, at the conclusion:
- do you consent to us providing a copy of the information you have imparted to your insurers, their representatives or a finance company with an interest in the property?
Where’s the harm in adopting this belt-and-braces approach?
Similarly, if a non-police reporting process is adopted, this could be asked by the interviewer, aiding subsequent release/dispatch of the report. Constabularies are missing the wood for the trees. The primary purpose of reporting a vehicle crime is to obtain a crime reference number, such that an insurance claim can be pursued by the victim. Yet the victim’s claim is unnecessarily delayed because the constabularies have created an onerous process which obstructs that report being disclosed to authorised representatives of the insurer, which the insured has also expressly confirmed.