We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Car Insurance want to charge me for not declaring 3 points

13567

Comments

  • iceman_2
    iceman_2 Posts: 130 Forumite
    easynotec3 wrote:
    It usually states in the terms and conditions of the policy that "all material facts must be disclosed over the duration of the policy. Any non-disclosure may result in the policy being cancelled and any claim not been paid"

    Points on your license are a material fact and therefore the Insurance Co would have been withen their rights NOT to pay for a claim


    Yes indeed, so back-charging for cover that wouldnt have existed is pretty disgraceful.
  • lisyloo
    lisyloo Posts: 30,094 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    Any non-disclosure may result in the policy being cancelled and any claim not been paid

    The operative word is MAY.
    Points on your license are a material fact and therefore the Insurance Co would have been withen their rights NOT to pay for a claim

    Agreed.
    Yes indeed, so back-charging for cover that wouldnt have existed is pretty disgraceful.

    No, it does not say that cover would not have existed.
    It's says that they MAY not cover you and they are within their rights not to cover you.

    This doesn't PROVE what they would or would not have done.
    To win a case in court you need to PROVE that on the balance of probabilities which would mean demonstrating other cases.

    If I had proof then I would challenge it in court (but expect a degree of hassle and stress).
    If you can't get proof then it's probably not worth going to court over because IMO the case isn't strong enough.

    Remember that in court it's what you can prove that matters, not what you think.
  • webuserisme
    webuserisme Posts: 1,138 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    I reckon speed cameras are the best thing that's ever happened to insurance companies. Think about it, I have been driving for 30 years, never had an accident in that time but got 3 points on my licence 3 years ago. My insurance company charged me a premium for it. At the time I had been with them for several years (it was before I discovered sites like this and became savvy about loyalty). Now, I was exactly the same driver I had always been, never had a claim on my insurance blah blah blah but the insurance company can charge me more wonga. I think they should sponsor speed cameras, as I'm convinced they are making millions (collectively) out of their increasing useage without effectively taking on any more risk as such.
  • lisyloo
    lisyloo Posts: 30,094 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    Now, I was exactly the same driver I had always been

    Just playing deveils advocate, but you could have always been a speeding driver and never got caught.
    Therefore you are right. Speed cameras are good for insurance companies because they giev the insurer more information about your driving style.

    It's possible for someone to be a bad driver but not have had any accidents or claims. This gives them more information about you.
    (I'm not saying you're a bad driver - as I said - I'm playing devils advocate).

    Of course there is a counter argument that speed isn't always related to safety and I have heard that teh safest drivers are at the 75th percentile.

    However the "perceived wisdom" amongst the police and insurance companies is that speed is a BIG contributor to accidents and certainly increases the severity of the accident and injuries (maybe death).
    For the time being I can't see this changing for one simple reason.

    SPEED IS SIMPLE TO MEASURE.
    It's much more difficult for police and insurance companies to asses driving skill so they use a blunt measure which is easy to implement.

    Of courss in a court case they would be able to take into account weather conditions etc. So you could still be liable (or convicted) for driving too fast even if you are within the speed limit (although they'd have to convict you for lack of due care and attention rather than speeding).

    I am some sympathy for the view that they are there because it's easy to measure and makes money.
    However I think we are all going to have to live with it.
  • iceman_2
    iceman_2 Posts: 130 Forumite
    lisyloo wrote:

    No, it does not say that cover would not have existed.
    It's says that they MAY not cover you and they are within their rights not to cover you.

    This doesn't PROVE what they would or would not have done.
    To win a case in court you need to PROVE that on the balance of probabilities which would mean demonstrating other cases.

    If I had proof then I would challenge it in court (but expect a degree of hassle and stress).
    If you can't get proof then it's probably not worth going to court over because IMO the case isn't strong enough.

    Remember that in court it's what you can prove that matters, not what you think.

    Yes, this is a discussion forum not a courtroom and I think it's disgraceful. You clearly work in insurance, do you think they'd have paid up if the OP had claimed?? I most certainly don't. I also don't think it would be too difficult to find precedent if you look hard enough.

    If the OP went to court then I'm sure the insurance company would have to testify, ask them if they would have paid a claim, problem solved. Do you think the insurance company would try to force their employee to commit perjury?? I think they probably would but then I have an extrememly low opinion of insurance companies as may be obvious!
  • iceman_2
    iceman_2 Posts: 130 Forumite
    lisyloo wrote:
    Just playing deveils advocate, but you could have always been a speeding driver and never got caught.
    Therefore you are right. Speed cameras are good for insurance companies because they giev the insurer more information about your driving style.

    It's possible for someone to be a bad driver but not have had any accidents or claims. This gives them more information about you.
    (I'm not saying you're a bad driver - as I said - I'm playing devils advocate).

    Of course there is a counter argument that speed isn't always related to safety and I have heard that teh safest drivers are at the 75th percentile.

    However the "perceived wisdom" amongst the police and insurance companies is that speed is a BIG contributor to accidents and certainly increases the severity of the accident and injuries (maybe death).
    For the time being I can't see this changing for one simple reason.

    SPEED IS SIMPLE TO MEASURE.
    It's much more difficult for police and insurance companies to asses driving skill so they use a blunt measure which is easy to implement.

    Of courss in a court case they would be able to take into account weather conditions etc. So you could still be liable (or convicted) for driving too fast even if you are within the speed limit (although they'd have to convict you for lack of due care and attention rather than speeding).

    I am some sympathy for the view that they are there because it's easy to measure and makes money.
    However I think we are all going to have to live with it.

    Exceeding the speed limit was given as a contributary factor in an exceptionally low proportion of accidents (i believe the figure was 6% last year). Seeing as insurance companies are so keen on stats when it comes to everything else, why do they ignore these statistics????
  • webuserisme
    webuserisme Posts: 1,138 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    lisyloo wrote:
    Just playing deveils advocate, but you could have always been a speeding driver and never got caught.
    Therefore you are right. Speed cameras are good for insurance companies because they giev the insurer more information about your driving style.

    It's possible for someone to be a bad driver but not have had any accidents or claims. This gives them more information about you.
    (I'm not saying you're a bad driver - as I said - I'm playing devils advocate).

    Of course there is a counter argument that speed isn't always related to safety and I have heard that teh safest drivers are at the 75th percentile.

    However the "perceived wisdom" amongst the police and insurance companies is that speed is a BIG contributor to accidents and certainly increases the severity of the accident and injuries (maybe death).
    For the time being I can't see this changing for one simple reason.

    SPEED IS SIMPLE TO MEASURE.
    It's much more difficult for police and insurance companies to asses driving skill so they use a blunt measure which is easy to implement.

    Of courss in a court case they would be able to take into account weather conditions etc. So you could still be liable (or convicted) for driving too fast even if you are within the speed limit (although they'd have to convict you for lack of due care and attention rather than speeding).

    I am some sympathy for the view that they are there because it's easy to measure and makes money.
    However I think we are all going to have to live with it.


    I have no argument with the theory of introducing speed cameras onto our roads at all. The problem I have is with the implementation of them. The Safety Camera Partnership, as I understand it, is a non publically funded BUSINESS, in the sense that I believe it is self-financing. It doesn't take a genius to work out where they will decide to install their cameras, does it, especially as their income depends on it? Recognised accident danger zones or money-spinning locations? If the GENUINELY was interested in stopping danger on the road, there would be a speed camera outside EVERY school in the land.
  • impy78
    impy78 Posts: 3,157 Forumite
    I hear that for points, it's just when you renew? Is that right?

    No, they should be notified as soon as you get your licence back with the points on.
    Hi, we’ve had to remove your signature. If you’re not sure why please read the forum rules or email the forum team if you’re still unsure - MSE ForumTeam
  • lisyloo
    lisyloo Posts: 30,094 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    You clearly work in insurance

    Nope I don't work in insurance.
    I am just offering my advise on the legal process about what it is PRACTICAL to do.
    There is no point going to court or not paying it if that means the balliffs will come and take your property.
    I am offering advice on the practicalities of the case.
    You are talking about the moralities which are 2 completly different things.
    do you think they'd have paid up if the OP had claimed??

    To be honest I don't know becuase I don't work in insurance.
    I don't know whether they even check.
    The point is that in practice what matter is what you can PROVE.
    Do you think the insurance company would try to force their employee to commit perjury??

    Yes, yes, yes I do.

    When you are considering taking a legal case to court you have to consider your likelohood of winning (which isn't the same as whether you are right).

    Now I don't know what evidence is available about whether they would pay out or not, but there is clearly no point going to court if the fees are going to escalate, you have tatooed balliffs hammering on the door and it screws up your credit record for 6 years.

    I agree with you that IF they wouldn't payout then they have no business claiming for the money. However I am trying to advise the OP on the practicalities.

    You are backing them up with sympathy which is great but it doesn't help them decide what to do.

    I don't think we are necessarily at odds. Just taking about different aspects (moral vs practical).
  • lisyloo
    lisyloo Posts: 30,094 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    Exceeding the speed limit was given as a contributary factor in an exceptionally low proportion of accidents (i believe the figure was 6% last year).

    I thought speed was a factor in 2/3rds of accidents?
    (this is not the same as the speed limit).
    Note that the speed limit is the MAXIMUM so if it's expeptionally foggy etc. then it isn't necessarily safe to drive at that speed.
    Seeing as insurance companies are so keen on stats when it comes to everything else, why do they ignore these statistics????

    Possible explanations.

    1) Your stats are wrong (do you have a link?)

    2) You are talking about speed limit and not about speed. Perhaps both of our stats are right and 2/3rd of accidents are caused by too much speed (but not over the speed limit). They may therefore conclude that people over the speed limit are more llikely to be in the 2/3rds category.

    3) It's not in their interest to consider those statistics and they are money grabbing bar stewards?
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.2K Spending & Discounts
  • 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.5K Life & Family
  • 258.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.