The People’s consumer

William’s insurance company asked who else was in the car. William responded by confirming his wife and dog were in the car.

Here the claim took a turn for the worse. The insurer asked how the dog had been restrained.

William told them the dog was lying on the back seat without restraint. It was not needed.

They wrote back stating that they were accepting liability on his behalf as they would not be able to prove that the dog had not been the cause of the accident.

I think what they meant by this was they couldn’t prove the dog had not jumped on William, from Bristol, and caused him to swerve.

They then landed a final blow by saying this had voided the insurance – meaning he would have to pay for all the damage.

I always say if an insurer can wriggle out of paying a claim they will. Don’t give them an excuse.

In William’s case they were given an excuse, which is probably strengthened by the fact that rule 57 of the Highway Code states: “When in a vehicle make sure dogs or other animals are suitably restrained so they cannot distract you while you are driving or injure you, or themselves, if you stop quickly.”

Despite this I’ve told William to fight this because 1) he says the dog did not cause the accident and 2) his policy says nothing about being void if animals are not restrained within a vehicle.

He can lodge a complaint with the Financial Ombudsman Service.