Car Insurance want to charge me for not declaring 3 points

lisyloo

Just to back up option 2 a little.

I have obtained the following quote from Avon and Somerset police.

"We obtained unique UK data shows that 2/3rds of excessive speed accidents do not involve exceeding a speed limit"

from this website
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/main.html

This means that you don't have to be actually going over a speed limit to be going too fast to cause an accident.
But it is perfectly logical that the converse is true i.e. If you are the sort of driver that speeds then you are probably the sort of driver that drives too fast.

As I said before the speed limit is the MAXIMUM in perfect road conditions.
You can still be driving below the speed limit but far too fast for safety.

I would go with option 2, but I would guess that many people with go with 3.
Perhaps that's down to personal bias i.e. I don't have any points so I don't want to pay a premium caused by others.
Whereas those with points will probably want to blame another party despite the fact that they WERE speeding (if they weren't they should appeal).

bringbackmaggie

I got 3 points for speeding 3 years ago, another 3 points 2 years ago and I've just recently been awarded another 3 points again for speeding (not by very much and certainly not dangerously but I know they don't give a toss about that)

I keep forgetting to mention this on my renewal forms and have to admit I'm quite worried if I have an accident the insurance company wont pay up.

After reading all your reports I think maybe I should bite the bullet and own up. Should I just mention the latest offence and hope that will satisfy the declaration requirements and hopefully avoid having to be rogered for 3 years back payment?

lisyloo

No I think you have to honest about ALL your points (otherwise you may not be covered and could potentially lose everything you own in a large claim).

I don't know if it's possible to cancel the current policy and start afresh with a new insurer, thus avoiding back payments.
I am unsure as to whether there are any drawbacks so do your own research.

not by very much and certainly not dangerously but I know they don't give a toss about that

We had a discussion on another thread about men being unfairly charged too much for insurance due to statistics.
The summary was that insurance companies need rules to come up with a quote fairly cheaply.
If you want a thorough examination of each individuals driving skills, attitude, health etc. then that will cost in the order of £400 (just for a quote).

Strangely no-one has showed much support for my new business idea.

mattymoo

One of the basic concepts of insurance is "The Common Pool" or fund. Your premiums pay into that pool of money and that money is then used to pay out for repairs, injuries, solicitors costs etc. Quite often the pool is insufficient to pay the claims and insurers rely on their investment expertise to top it up.

The amount you pay in to the pool is set according to the risk you pose. That is based on insurers statistical evidence relating to area, occupation, accident history, conviction history, type of car and so on.

The advent of speed cameras etc will have increased the number of declared convictions but that is not the insurers fault - it is government policy. Insurers will apply weightings according to the type of conviction. A single SP30 for instance may attract a small additional premium or none at all - depends on the insurers own historical experience. Loadings will be far higher for careless driving and drink / drug related convictions.

Speed in itself is not normally an indication of where liability lies in an accident. As an example, if you pull out from a minor road to a major road and get hit by another car you felt was speeding it will be immaterial. The onus was on you to take care emerging and the speed of the other vehicle is not considered. This is partly because it is impossible to estimate speed - if you ask 10 people to watch a car they will come up with 10 different estimations of its speed.

Speed is however a factor in the severity of accidents. A low speed shunt at 20mph will result in some bent metal and possible whiplash. The same kind of incident at 50+ is likely to result in hospitalisation or even fatalities, thereby pushing up the amount the insurers pay.

If you have multiple speeding convictions the insurers can make a fair assumption that any accident you are involved in is likely to be a costly one.

Bringbackmaggie - insurers do check driving licences. If you back in to a bollard and scrape your car they may not bother. If however your car is stolen or you are involved in a major incident, the accident investigators will check your license and you will be caught out.

I have never quite understood the need for a 5 yr declaration though. You can have the points removed after 4 yrs and I am not aware of any way the insurer can find out whether the license has been cleansed by the DVLA. Obviously within the 4 yrs though you have the offending piece of paper in your wallet.

ollyk

iceman wrote:

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!

so the insurance company should just turn a blind eye to the fact that the op is in breach of contract then? I think the OP is very lucky and should consider themselves so. They have got away with paying little money under the circumstances - the consequencies could have been much worse and someone else could have suffered dearly for this :mad:
The first thing you instinctively think about with points is your insurance so it is actually quite hard to forget to ring your insurance company isn't it?

iceman_2

lisyloo wrote:

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.

Yes I was talking about exceeding the speed limit, not excessive speed. All points prove is exceeding the speed limit.

The stats were published in autocar magazine and at least 1 paper a few months ago, came directly from govt figures.

MarkyMarkD

To address a point which never got answered a long way back in the thread, you should always notify your insurer immediately of any change in circumstances.

As previously noted, many insurers will choose not to amend the premium due until renewal, but that doesn't mean that you don't need to tell them until renewal.

Lisyloo - I simply don't agree with your attitude regarding the back premiums, i.e. the part where you think it's unfair to have to pay because they might not have paid up in the event of a claim. The OP has had the benefit of being insured, from a legal point of view, for the whole period and has used their car during this entire time, whilst unfairly paying too little in premiums due to failing to declare convictions. Whether or not the insurer would have paid up in the event of a claim is irrelevant - there hasn't been such a claim.

If the insurer had voided the policy due to non-disclosure when a claim in fact occurred, they would have refunded the premium, not charged the extra premium due retrospectively. They aren't having their cake and eating it.

bringbackmaggie

MarkyMarkD wrote:

To address a point which never got answered a long way back in the thread, you should always notify your insurer immediately of any change in circumstances.

As previously noted, many insurers will choose not to amend the premium due until renewal, but that doesn't mean that you don't need to tell them until renewal.

Lisyloo - I simply don't agree with your attitude regarding the back premiums, i.e. the part where you think it's unfair to have to pay because they might not have paid up in the event of a claim. The OP has had the benefit of being insured, from a legal point of view, for the whole period and has used their car during this entire time, whilst unfairly paying too little in premiums due to failing to declare convictions. Whether or not the insurer would have paid up in the event of a claim is irrelevant - there hasn't been such a claim.

If the insurer had voided the policy due to non-disclosure when a claim in fact occurred, they would have refunded the premium, not charged the extra premium due retrospectively. They aren't having their cake and eating it.

I hate to say it but this seems fair. Why do people have to be so sensible.

lisyloo

Yes I was talking about exceeding the speed limit, not excessive speed. All points prove is exceeding the speed limit.

So if only 6% of accidents are caused by people who are speeding and 66.7% of accidents are caused by excessive speed (but not speeding) then I would conclude that speeding is REALLY bad (as 60% of accidents aren't even going that fast).
That seems like a good reason to put up insurance for drivers that speed to me.

olly300

MarkyMarkD wrote:

Lisyloo - I simply don't agree with your attitude regarding the back premiums, i.e. the part where you think it's unfair to have to pay because they might not have paid up in the event of a claim. The OP has had the benefit of being insured, from a legal point of view, for the whole period and has used their car during this entire time, whilst unfairly paying too little in premiums due to failing to declare convictions. Whether or not the insurer would have paid up in the event of a claim is irrelevant - there hasn't been such a claim.

If the insurer had voided the policy due to non-disclosure when a claim in fact occurred, they would have refunded the premium, not charged the extra premium due retrospectively. They aren't having their cake and eating it.

This has just occurred to me (and I will ask my solicitor friend later today whether this theory is sound) if you have a serious accident while you have undeclared points the insurer may say you are uninsured due to the wording on your insurance document, which is a contract, which means you could be charged with driving without insurance.