• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Adverse consequences of MVL

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Adverse consequences of MVL

    So the other day I was looking to take out an insurance policy and reading through the declarations this one caught my attention.

    Neither you, any director or partner of the business or its subsidiary companies either personally or in any business capacity:
    • has been subject of an individual voluntary arrangement with creditors, voluntary liquidation, a winding up or administration order, or administrative receivership proceedings within the last 10 years;


    Insurer is directline. I checked with their underwriting team whether this clause would exclude directors who had carried out a solvent MVL. They said yes, so you cant get insurance with us!

    I'm doubtful that there is any good business reason for them to exclude solvent MVLs.

    Wondering if anyone else has had similar experiences with insurance or elsewhere of being adversely treated due to having MVL'd and if there are any workarounds (other than shopping around?)

    #2
    Originally posted by MrC View Post
    I'm doubtful that there is any good business reason for them to exclude solvent MVLs.
    You aren't them, you don't know their business reasons for doing things. Just because you don't understand their business doesn't mean they are wrong.

    Originally posted by MrC View Post
    ...being adversely treated...
    No, you're not being adversely treated, one company doesn't want to do business with you.
    Is your reason for choosing them because they were cheaper than others?

    Perhaps their business model is the reason why they are cheaper.

    Try contacting these guys:
    Simply Business
    …Maybe we ain’t that young anymore

    Comment


      #3
      Insurance for what? Company car? Office? Professional Liability, Goldfish?
      "A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices," George Orwell

      Comment


        #4
        It's for Landlord insurance.

        I do consider it adverse treatment as loss of opportunity tends to result in getting a worse deal in whatever product or service you are looking at. It's why payday lenders like wonga exploit people.

        My understanding from the clause is that they are tarnishing people who have MVL'd with the "bad debt" brush. This most likely reflects the fact they don't understand insolvency.

        It's not in there interests as a business in a capitalist world to cut down their potential customer market size with poorly thought-thru rules that make no sense.
        Last edited by MrC; 29 May 2020, 12:15.

        Comment


          #5
          There are so many clauses for landlord insurance that I would suggest to go via an insurance broker. Tell them your situation and I am sure they will sort something out.
          "A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves and traitors are not victims, but accomplices," George Orwell

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by Paddy View Post
            There are so many clauses for landlord insurance that I would suggest to go via an insurance broker. Tell them your situation and I am sure they will sort something out.
            Yes I'm sure there are others who will provide cover but was interested to hear if others have found that mvl'ing causes any other complications however minor.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by MrC View Post

              Neither you, ...
              • has been subject of ..., voluntary liquidation, ;

              This doesn't even make sense. You as an individual can never be the subject of a liquidation. Liquidation only applies to companies or other organizations.

              I suspect poor underwriting skills on their part.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by WTFH View Post
                Try contacting these guys:
                Simply Business
                I provided that link based on the normal request for insurance on this forum is relating to PL and PI, not landlord insurance, and the OP failing to mention what sort of insurance they required.

                You should really speak to a broker, but don't bother trying to sue some business claiming they are being illegal. They don't want to do business with you because of your history. That's their call. Move on, find someone who will deal with your specific conditions.
                …Maybe we ain’t that young anymore

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by MrC View Post
                  It's not in there interests as a business in a capitalist world to cut down their potential customer market size with poorly thought-thru rules that make no sense.
                  And it's clearly beyond your comprehension that businesses work in ways you don't understand. I hate repeating myself, but since you didn't read my earlier post, I guess I'll have to.

                  How many million people have they reduced from their "potential customer market size" by making a simple blanket rule about liquidations in the last 10 years?

                  Do you think it's 50% of their potential base for all insurances, or less than 0.01%?
                  …Maybe we ain’t that young anymore

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by MrC View Post
                    So the other day I was looking to take out an insurance policy and reading through the declarations this one caught my attention.

                    Neither you, any director or partner of the business or its subsidiary companies either personally or in any business capacity:
                    • has been subject of an individual voluntary arrangement with creditors, voluntary liquidation, a winding up or administration order, or administrative receivership proceedings within the last 10 years;


                    Insurer is directline. I checked with their underwriting team whether this clause would exclude directors who had carried out a solvent MVL. They said yes, so you cant get insurance with us!

                    I'm doubtful that there is any good business reason for them to exclude solvent MVLs.

                    Wondering if anyone else has had similar experiences with insurance or elsewhere of being adversely treated due to having MVL'd and if there are any workarounds (other than shopping around?)
                    There are much better insurers out there for Landlord insurance than Direct Line. In fact anyone else is better than them if you ever need to make a claim. They are cheap but there is a reason for that. They are crap!
                    Former IPSE member
                    My Website

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X