Hastings Direct and Advantage Insurance Company

unhappy_harry

BeenThroughItAll wrote: »

You may consider it unfair, but to get banned for an SP30 offence suggests you either had a lot of points already, or were doing significantly more than the prescribed limit. Although you say "It had to happen sooner or later" it really didn't. You chose to speed, and now you're seeing the consequences.


Sorry if that's not the sympathy you're looking for but you made your bed, now you need to lie in it. I don't think Hastings will be that different to a lot of other insurers in that respect - insuring banned drivers is not something many of them are interested in and it will say in your policy documents (you did read them, right?) that you run the risk of cancellation under certain circumstances, and a significant change in your risk profile (such as that represented by a ban) is absolutely grounds for cancellation.

Well thank you for your condescending response , but you don't know the circumstances of my offence but I can put your mind at ease by telling you that all your assumptions about me and it are as far away from the truth as Earth is to the moon. Yes I was going over the limit
I've already admitted that and know it was wrong and the courts have meted out the punishment and I accepted it pleading guilty at the first opportunity. And no, no other points in over 35 years of driving...no accidents either! Can you say the same? I doubt you can.
The car was practically new to me (2.0 diesel astra)and had done 2k miles without ever having gotten into top gear and hardly ever exceeding 40 mph. Now rightly or wrongly when you have that carbon particulate filter warning light illuminated on your instrument panel, your'r supposed to keep driving at an engine speed conducive to burning off the carbon thus cleaning the filter. Traffic up to that point had prevented the engine cleaning itself so it was down to the driver to increase revs to clean it or risk engine damage. When the light changed from a steady one to a flashing one I knew things were serious. The road was rural, straight, clear, dry and devoid of other vehicles and a slight downhill gradient...I hit the " loud pedal " and before I knew it I was doing over 100 mph just in time to see the camera van tucked in a lay by way up ahead, and due to the slight downgrade and a dip in the road was invisible to me when I hit that loud pedal. In hindsight I should have dropped down a gear to attain the required revs...but I didnt. So now you know. I would appreciate you keeping your condescending comments to yourself in future. I'm not looking for sympathy I'm looking for advice on whether anyone else has suffered having their insurance cancelled for a first ever offence ( albeit as serious as mine) as I do think it out of order for an insurance company to simply cancel a policy in such circumstances...oh one more thing Mr smarty pants...I did read the T&C's of my policy and as far as I can see I have not breached any of them. For the avoidance of doubt, I have lodged an official complain to Hastings direct and in due course should they not provide the information I seek ( clarification of what terms or condition I have been deemed to have breached) the financial ombudsman will be brought into the fight.

colino

Harry, are you really darkmatter?

BeenThroughItAll

unhappy_harry wrote: »

Well thank you for your condescending response , but you don't know the circumstances of my offence but I can put your mind at ease by telling you that all your assumptions about me and it are as far away from the truth as Earth is to the moon. Yes I was going over the limit
I've already admitted that and know it was wrong and the courts have meted out the punishment and I accepted it pleading guilty at the first opportunity. And no, no other points in over 35 years of driving...no accidents either! Can you say the same? I doubt you can.
The car was practically new to me (2.0 diesel astra)and had done 2k miles without ever having gotten into top gear and hardly ever exceeding 40 mph. Now rightly or wrongly when you have that carbon particulate filter warning light illuminated on your instrument panel, your'r supposed to keep driving at an engine speed conducive to burning off the carbon thus cleaning the filter. Traffic up to that point had prevented the engine cleaning itself so it was down to the driver to increase revs to clean it or risk engine damage. When the light changed from a steady one to a flashing one I knew things were serious. The road was rural, straight, clear, dry and devoid of other vehicles and a slight downhill gradient...I hit the " loud pedal " and before I knew it I was doing over 100 mph just in time to see the camera van tucked in a lay by way up ahead, and due to the slight downgrade and a dip in the road was invisible to me when I hit that loud pedal. In hindsight I should have dropped down a gear to attain the required revs...but I didnt. So now you know. I would appreciate you keeping your condescending comments to yourself in future. I'm not looking for sympathy I'm looking for advice on whether anyone else has suffered having their insurance cancelled for a first ever offence ( albeit as serious as mine) as I do think it out of order for an insurance company to simply cancel a policy in such circumstances...oh one more thing Mr smarty pants...I did read the T&C's of my policy and as far as I can see I have not breached any of them. For the avoidance of doubt, I have lodged an official complain to Hastings direct and in due course should they not provide the information I seek ( clarification of what terms or condition I have been deemed to have breached) the financial ombudsman will be brought into the fight.

Well you can take it as condescending if you so wish, but I was only attempting to politely point out that the insurer's actions were not unfair, they were simply a result of your actions.


I do find it surprising you consider exceeding 100MPH a 'slip up'. No matter how new the car was or how much the light was flashing, you chose to hit the 'loud pedal' and you got caught.


Am I perfect? No. I've had a total of 3 speeding tickets:


SP30 - 3pts - £40 fine - 27/09/1994. 37MPH in a 30MPH limit
SP30 - 3pts - £60 fine - 11/05/2004. 36MPH in a 30MPH limit
SP30 - 3pts - £60 fine - 19/11/2004. 46MPH in a 40MPH limit


I have also had one minor accident, which was entirely my own fault, in 1995, whilst driving my parents' Citroen ZX 1.9D Avantage.


I have also been the subject of a non-fault accident on 06/06/2014 when a van driver hit my stationary motorcycle from behind at 30MPH whilst I was waiting to enter an A1(M) exit roundabout.


So there you see - I'm not perfect, nor did I ever say I was. But I am man enough to admit my faults and I don't have any excuses for them. On each occasion I've been caught, I was just driving badly and paid the penalty for it.


If I were banned tomorrow, my insurer would cancel my policy, I have no doubt. Would that be fair? Yes. It's not their business to insure banned drivers, there are specialists for that.

unhappy_harry

Who or what is dark matter?
I suppose the short answer is no I'm not.
I'm just someone wanting advice, not arguments or sanctimonious responses , but advice. I thought this might be the place to get it...on first impressions it would seem I was wrong.

unhappy_harry

BeenThroughItAll wrote: »

Well you can take it as condescending if you so wish, but I was only attempting to politely point out that the insurer's actions were not unfair, they were simply a result of your actions.


I do find it surprising you consider exceeding 100MPH a 'slip up'. No matter how new the car was or how much the light was flashing, you chose to hit the 'loud pedal' and you got caught.


Am I perfect? No. I've had a total of 3 speeding tickets:


SP30 - 3pts - £40 fine - 27/09/1994. 37MPH in a 30MPH limit
SP30 - 3pts - £60 fine - 11/05/2004. 36MPH in a 30MPH limit
SP30 - 3pts - £60 fine - 19/11/2004. 46MPH in a 40MPH limit


I have also had one minor accident, which was entirely my own fault, in 1995, whilst driving my parents' Citroen ZX 1.9D Avantage.


I have also been the subject of a non-fault accident on 06/06/2014 when a van driver hit my stationary motorcycle from behind at 30MPH whilst I was waiting to enter an A1(M) exit roundabout.


So there you see - I'm not perfect, nor did I ever say I was. But I am man enough to admit my faults and I don't have any excuses for them. On each occasion I've been caught, I was just driving badly and paid the penalty for it.


If I were banned tomorrow, my insurer would cancel my policy, I have no doubt. Would that be fair? Yes. It's not their business to insure banned drivers, there are specialists for that.

Well thanks for that...at least now I know that what happened with my insurance is the expected norm. Having had no experience of such matters previously, I thought and still do think it's a heavy handed approach simply cancelling an insurance. Not only do insurers have us all over the proverbial barrel in this country, it seems to me like they are going out their way to get increased revenue out of us at each and every possible way.
I was quite happy to have paid a surcharge and have my insurance continue until expiry ...after all I won't be driving it anywhere for a month at least...it's locked away in a garage, so there is little to zero risk for them keeping the insurance live.
Now I've got to SORN it until the ban runs out and I'm once again legal to drive. On top of that I have to declare I've had a policy cancelled so that bumps up the premium as well as the weighting added for the offence itself...I call that unfair. I did the crime I was punished by the law we really don't need insurers putting us on trial again. Having said that had I been the type of driver who collected points like stamps or was making claims left right and centre I could perhaps understand it. But my previous faultless driving record should count for something...and if I'd been stopped by a police officer I'm certain that he/ she would have exercised some descretion, whereas a camera cannot. Not wanting to turn this into another '
I hate speed cameras ' thread, but they never catch the really bad drivers who cut folks up, hedge hop at speed in heavy traffic, fail to give way at roundabouts or the plethora of other due care offences that blight our roads...they just collar those who exceed the speed limit ( however briefly ) at a certain point on a road. They do nothing whatsoever to make our roads safer. It could be argued that they are in fact part of the problem.

unhappy_harry

BeenThroughItAll wrote: »

What advice do you want to hear?


Yep, it's unfair. You should pursue Hastings through the courts as you have a cast-iron case for compo.


Is that better?

No it isn't that's just being sarcastic, you really have a large arsenal of negative responses don't you?
When you run out perhaps you can be a little bit more constructive?

BeenThroughItAll

unhappy_harry wrote: »

No it isn't that's just being sarcastic, you really have a large arsenal of negative responses don't you?
When you run out perhaps you can be a little bit more constructive?

Just because you didn't like the facts I stated in my first couple of posts doesn't make them negative. They were realistic, you've just decided to take them in a negative way.


You took umbrage at the facts and the advice given; that it IS fair for your insurer, who likely do not generally insure banned drivers, to cancel your policy because your risk profile now sits outside their underwriting terms; and that for them to do so is absolutely in line with normal contract terms you will have agreed to, which will doubtless include a catch all 'we can cancel at any time' clause.


At that point, yes, I was sarcastic; because you clearly only want to hear advice that agrees with your point of view.

BeenThroughItAll

unhappy_harry wrote: »

1. I have to declare I've had a policy cancelled so that bumps up the premium as well as the weighting added for the offence itself...I call that unfair.
2. I did the crime I was punished by the law we really don't need insurers putting us on trial again.
3. But my previous faultless driving record should count for something
4. If I'd been stopped by a police officer I'm certain that he/ she would have exercised some descretion, whereas a camera cannot.
5. They just collar those who exceed the speed limit ( however briefly ) at a certain point on a road.
6. They do nothing whatsoever to make our roads safer. It could be argued that they are in fact part of the problem.

1. I call that 'business'. Your policy was cancelled because your risk profile suddenly became too much for your insurer's appetite. Is that their fault? No. Sorry, but however you slice it, you changed your risk profile when you got yourself banned.

2. The insurer's not putting anyone on trial. They're trying to run a business, and if their statistics say that people who have been banned for speeding are more likely to cost them money in claims, they'll not insure them. It's part of making a profit.

3. Maybe it should, but the fact remains it doesn't. The insurer looks at evidence-based risk profiles, and their evidence base is pretty big. I've worked for an insurer, I know how this stuff works. I guarantee given the dataset they have access to I could illustrate that previously banned drivers are more likely to be banned again, to have more accidents, or for those accidents to cost more. Is that true of every case? No; but their business is based on assessments of risk based on experience and evidence and there are exceptions to every rule.

4. I agree, but I suspect ton-up you'd still have ended up in front of the beak.

5. True, but however briefly, you were exceeding the speed limit by a minimum of 43%. That's a lot in anyone's book and takes you from 'inattentive', past 'careless' and into 'dangerous'.

6. Maybe. They can be used as part of an integrated road-safety campaign but are often not. Does that mean all speed cameras are bad? No. Some are, and you're right that in some places they can cause as many problems as they solve.

unhappy_harry

So when you get down of that high horse you're riding, any chance of you answering my questions?
Have you had your insurance cancelled in the same manner as I, or do you just want to carry on holding the moral high ground and being as u constructive as you can?
To be honest I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen you're taking the insurers stance, I get that, perhaps just for once you might wanna forget you worked for them and see it from the little guys perspective for a change?...nah that's never gonna happen either is it...rhetorical question btw.

BeenThroughItAll

unhappy_harry wrote: »

So when you get down of that high horse you're riding, any chance of you answering my questions?
Have you had your insurance cancelled in the same manner as I, or do you just want to carry on holding the moral high ground and being as u constructive as you can?
To be honest I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen you're taking the insurers stance, I get that, perhaps just for once you might wanna forget you worked for them and see it from the little guys perspective for a change?...nah that's never gonna happen either is it...rhetorical question btw.

I have answered your questions. I've tried to deliver you a little bit of insight from the insurers' perspective based on experience. I'm not on their side or on your side, I'm trying to give you an objective picture of the situation.

Ultimately, you don't like the fact that the insurer, and the court, has you bang to rights for the 'slip up' you had of 'accidentally' straying 30+MPH over the speed limit because you were worried about your DPF light. You don't like the fact that they've held you to their T&Cs and that you're going to be paying for it for years to come.

But, here's a newsflash for you - even if the insurer hadn't cancelled your policy, you'd still be bent over and taken advantage of for years because you're now a previously banned driver.

You don't want to accept the consequences of your actions? Fine, I'm done here.