MCE

Wapping

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Messages
78,760
Reaction score
3,522
Location
Wapping, London
Having just listened to and seeing the paperwork relating to a motorcycle theft claim a colleague of mine has been perusing against MCE since February, I wouldn’t touch them with a barge pole.

Their opening stance was an aggressive declinature of his legitimate claim. When he disputed the reasons for their denial of his claim, they bombarded him with some long words and some important looking documents, none of which were relevant. As he works in the industry he was able to knock them back, document by document, word by word. It’s my honest summation that someone without the patience (or the knowledge) might well have failed.

Despite having batted back MCE’s spurious attempts not to indemnify him, they still declined. This left him with no choice but to approach the Financial Ombudsman Service, FOS, for a resolution.

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/

The FOS were easy to deal with, reasonably efficient and (importantly) up to the moment of making their ruling, completely evenhanded. To cut a very long story short, FOS ruled a month or so ago in his favour, overturning each of MCE’s incorrect objections, importantly on a basis and reasoning that can be seen as ‘fair’ in the FOS’s eyes. To use FOS’s own words:

We make decisions based on what we think is fair, taking into account the unique circumstances of each case we receive.

Having failed to deny the claim and having effectively been fined (8% interest on the claim amount plus an additional monetary levy) by the FOS, MCE are now trying to play stupidly with the settlement amount. My colleague has had no choice but to go back to FOS for yet another ruling. FOS are more than willing to take the matter on again.
 
Thanks for that my Insurance is up for renewal soon!

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk
 
The FOS site is useful as you can search for rulings, successful and unsuccessful and by the name of the insurer. It’s as good a guide as any as to how the Ombudsman works as the clear details (both sides of the story, often missing on these pages) are there to read. It’s also helpful as a guide as to what an insurer might be like.... and sometimes what the complainants are like, too.

If anyone wants one simple truth, it’s that there is nothing more expensive than cheap insurance that doesn’t pay.
 
I had a theft claim whilst I was with MCE, they paid out but knocked money off for no service history although the bike only did 200 miles a yr
Would never use again
McKenzie Hodgson are shit as well, paid £140 for a policy and had to cancel has they would cover new bike, £11 refund
 
Thanks for this. Would it be possible to summarise the circumstances of the theft and what their issues were with the claim. Just interested as to how they could object to a theft claim.
 
Thanks from me too.
I'm with MCE, and my friend whose KTM has been just stolen was too. I warned him, will see how it goes for him.
 
......

If anyone wants one simple truth, it’s that there is nothing more expensive than cheap insurance that doesn’t pay.

So true. Amazing that most insurance posts refer only to price, being ripped off, etc, often mentioning the broker, but rarely the insurer or level of cover, claims service etc.
 
Question.
I agree on the outcomes of using "cheap" services.

Insurance though, it's not like buying salad from the corner shop.
They are a regulated financial business.

Yes with cheaper brokers like MCE you get higher excesses (I do). They will probably drag the payment process, but they cannot refuse to pay for made up reasons.

Am I wrong?
 
40 quid admin charge too if you change your bike ,never again will i ever use them
 
Only once been with MCE way back in 2008. Changed from a a Bandit 1250 to a Bandit 650 with only a couple of months to run on the policy. Bastards charged me over a £100 to change when the original policy was only £109 for 12 months. I almost told em to stick it but at the time i was trying to build up my NCB so payed up but told them in no uncertain terms what i thought about them. Crooks Shysters & crooks thats what MCE Insurance are.
 
Thanks for this. Would it be possible to summarise the circumstances of the theft and what their issues were with the claim. Just interested as to how they could object to a theft claim.

Needlessly, it all revolved around the classic bike (which had broken down) being secured with a disc lock, as opposed to the bike’s steering lock. The policy specified that the steering lock was to be used, with no mention of a disc lock.

The FOS ruled that it was not my colleague’s role to prove that the use of a proper disc lock was as good or better than a steering lock. Rather it is the insurer’s job to prove that the use of a disc lock (as opposed to the steering lock) contributed directly to the theft and the loss of the bike. As the insurer couldn’t, then their rejection of the claim was ruled as ‘unfair’.

In summary, the FOS ruled (not unreasonably) that - in the circumstances- the use of a motorcycle disc lock was as good as a steering lock, it’s use did not itself contribute materially to the theft of the bike.
 
Needlessly, it all revolved around the classic bike (which had broken down) being secured with a disc lock, as opposed to the bike’s steering lock. The policy specified that the steering lock was to be used, with no mention of a disc lock.

The FOS ruled that it was not my colleague’s role to prove that the use of a proper disc lock was as good or better than a steering lock. Rather it is the insurer’s job to prove that the use of a disc lock (as opposed to the steering lock) contributed directly to the theft and the loss of the bike. As the insurer couldn’t, then their rejection of the claim was ruled as ‘unfair’.

In summary, the FOS ruled (not unreasonably) that - in the circumstances- the use of a motorcycle disc lock was as good as a steering lock, it’s use did not itself contribute materially to the theft of the bike.


Thanks, wriggling knobs. Glad it all worked out ok
 
Thanks for the 'heads up'. Unfortunately I am insured with MCE but hopefully won't need to pursue a claim. I'll be thinking very carefully about reinsurance when the time comes.
 
I was with them for a year, but having read their tems and conditions, I jumped ship.
As far as I could judge, if my bike was stolen, I would near enough have had to pay them the value of it.
 
MCE just sent my renewal for my Africa Twin, renewed with Bennetts, thanks for posting
 
Gents, for fear of sounding like a walking advert for Bike magazine, there's a really useful and interesting article in the latest edition, about bike insurance and in particular, advice relating to theft claims. FYI etc.
 
So true. Amazing that most insurance posts refer only to price, being ripped off, etc, often mentioning the broker, but rarely the insurer or level of cover, claims service etc.
I tried and failed to steer our younger son away from MCE for his insurance renewal on his MT-07. I detest them (shan't bore you with the details) though don't exactly have faith in any broker / insurer. They're all very quick to take your money and very slow to pay out.

For my son, MCE were nearly half the price of the next cheapest, so unsurprising that my warnings went unheeded. Point is, I couldn't honestly say to our lad that the dearer brokers would offer anything better in the event of a claim. They're all thieving fuckers.
 
Cheapest is best though Bikermates

We all seek the cheapest - irrespective of the words written, don't we ??
 
Cheapest is best though Bikermates

We all seek the cheapest - irrespective of the words written, don't we ??

Nope we all dont do that, over the years ive turned down cheaper quotes because i had info on the way the insurance co work or the cover level is significantly different for just a few quid more. So NO i dont always go for the cheapest.:thumb
 


Back
Top Bottom