Delaying Finalisation of Insurance Claims (for some)
“Your name’s not on the door, you’re not coming in”, or more correctly “your insurer is not on our list, we will not assist”.
Some constabularies are selectively supporting victims of crime, expediting the finalisation of their insurance claim, subject to who they are insured with. To be afforded assistance, they must have obtained cover with specific insurers. Read more here. The process results from a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the Association of British Insurers (ABI) and the National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) a copy of the June 2022 agreement can be read here.
For those who insure with an ABI member, a police report can be obtained for £158.90.
There are ways, despite concerns about data security, the process could be simplified to benefit all concerned; the police, victims and insurers. This has been demonstrated with one forward-thinking constabulary.
The police need assistance. There appears to be no deterrent to stealing vehicles; theft numbers are up, recoveries down. Of those located vehicles, many are no more than a few components – an increase in total losses, an increase in claims that progress to a payment; greater demand on police ‘information disclosure departments’.
When the police cannot find a stolen vehicle and return it intact, ‘as was’, to the victim, when the police ‘fail’ (please excuse the harsh term) a casualty of this ‘low priority’ offence, who does the victim turn to? Who can put the aggrieved back in the position they were before the incident, bring them nearer to ‘closure’? The answer is their insurer.
Currently, the difficulty and/or delay obtaining reports is adversely affecting victims and reflecting poorly on the police, inviting criticism/complaint. This can be avoided. There are ‘positives’ to be achieved and in turn, these would reflect well upon the police – surely praise would be welcomed?
It surely cannot be the case police constabularies would be selective in who they help based upon who they insure with.
There has been no change to the 2022 NPCC MoU, no review, despite our approaches to the NPCC and constabularies in early 2023*.
11/2024
*with regard to ‘review’ the MoU states, at section 7:
Review is an essential part of any guidance. The aim is to ensure that
the guidance is achieving its original purpose and the actual process of
sharing is operationally smooth and lawful. The NPCC lead for
information will lead the review in conjunction with the partner to ensure
both Parties are satisfied with the guidance.
Initial review to be conducted within 6 months of publication;
Then every 2 years as a minimum requirement or such other period as
agreed by The Parties; …
A review provides an opportunity to establish if the guidance is useful
and relevant.
If it is no longer required it should be withdrawn.
In the event of legislative change and/or changes made as the result
of judicial decisions this guidance may be withdrawn.
Could creating a dedicated car-crime force, financed by insurers, be the answer?
Such a force would remove (other than prosecution) the related demands on police time. Insurers would benefit from an improved recovery rate, which elsewhere on this site, is quoted as an annual net loss of £1.3 billion, as currently mishandled by Mr Plod.
A dedicated force of, say, 1,000 officers on an average national wage would cost maybe £50 million and well below insurers’ losses, especially if one considers that they already have investigation and recovery costs, on top of reimbursements to policyholders. A larger “private” force might well-be needed but the stakes are high and a larger force would still be viable.
A dedicated force could work even covertly with the right legislation. It could be empowered by already-established tools, such as databases, ANPR and authority to inspect, for example.
High-end cars are often surreptitiously exported to the Middle East in shipping containers. Containers coming from suspect sources, rather than from manufacturing exporters, could be earmarked for closer scrutiny by officers stationed at shipping points. Content detection technology already exists.
Such containers have been detected and intercepted in transit from Canada to Middle East destinations. The Times of Malta website (timesofmalta.com) has reported interception by Maltese port authorities on more than one occasion. (link: https://timesofmalta.com/article/60-stolen-cars-intercepted-malta-returned-canada.1013019)
It is often reiterated that where there’s a will, there’s a way. A lack of will must surely exist in the insurance industry. Instead, it factors-in and recovers its disbursements (plus mark-up) in the following years’ premiums. On top, it victimises innocent good-faith defrauded buyers.
DVLA does not come out smelling of roses either because it doesn’t follow its own procedures when registering vehicles as personal imports. In one case, because procedure was not followed, they did not pick up the fact that the import being registered (to an address outside its catchment area) was different in colour, size, transmission etc, from what was listed in the presented manufacturer’s certificate and logbook that actually belonged to a vehicle that was in Germany. At that time, DVLA procedure required sight and inspection of the imported vehicle, when the registering keeper was from outside the area. There are various reasons why procedure is not followed that might not be unwitting.
This is not just about cars either. Think about all the building, farming and haulage plant that gets stolen.
All in all, what is currently being treated by the authorities as victimless crime, is anything-but. Potentially, a dedicated force (maybe already-trained, retired police officers can be incentivised) would achieve better results than current ones.
But, of course, as already stated, there has to be a will.