Haven Insurance Customers: Are You Owed a Larger Settlement?
If you’ve had a car insurance claim with Haven Insurance, particularly for a written-off vehicle, you might want to take a closer look at your settlement. Rulings by the Financial Ombudsman Service suggest that Haven customers may have been shortchanged due to a controversial policy term.
The “Limit of Coverage” Issue
At the heart of this problem is Haven’s “Limit of Coverage” clause. Here’s what you need to know:
- When you took out your policy, you likely estimated your car’s value.
- Haven has been using this estimate as a hard cap on payouts, even if your car’s actual market value is higher.
- The Ombudsman has repeatedly[1] ruled this practice as potentially unfair:
“Generally speaking, our service doesn’t consider it fair for an insurer to limit a settlement payment to less than the market value… I don’t think it’s fair to rely on such a significant and onerous condition limiting the settlement payment to less than the car is worth”[2]
Why This Matters to You
Imagine this scenario: you insured your car for £10,000, thinking that was a fair estimate. Later, your car is written off in an accident. The actual market value turns out to be £15,000, but Haven only offers you £10,000 based on your initial estimate. You’re left £5,000 short on replacing your vehicle.
What the UK Ombudsman Says
The Financial Ombudsman has consistently[3] criticised Haven for:
- Not clearly explaining the significance of the initial value estimate
- Applying the “Limit of Coverage” unfairly to benefit only the insurer
- Failing to pay out the true market value of vehicles in cases
Real-Life Example
In one case[4], a customer named Mr. A was offered just £2,000 for his written-off car. The Ombudsman found that the car’s actual market value was £5,077 and ordered Haven to pay this higher amount.
What You Can Do
If you’ve had a claim settled by Haven, for a written-off vehicle, and feel the payout was unfair, Allegiant is here to help you claim back more…
[1] https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-3681694.pdf; https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-3549609.pdf; https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-3480238.pdf;https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-3873049.pdf; https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-4516719.pdf; https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-4278596.pdf; https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-3628179.pdf;
[2] https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-3873049.pdf
[3] https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-3681694.pdf; https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-3549609.pdf; https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-3480238.pdf;https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-3873049.pdf; https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-4516719.pdf; https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-4278596.pdf; https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-3628179.pdf;
[4] https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-3553535.pdf