Car Insurance want to charge me for not declaring 3 points

brazilianwax

olly300 wrote:

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.

It sounds possible, in theory.

So for not declaring 3 points you get another 6 and a probable ban!!!

Maybe people wouldn't 'forget' so often if they knew that! :rolleyes:

lisyloo

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

If it can be proven (on the balance of probabilities) that the insurance would not have covered them then they have NOT been insured for the period.

Whether or not the insurer would have paid up in the event of a claim is irrelevant - there hasn't been such a claim.

I disagree and don't understand your logic.
Firstly you are saying they were insured so they should pay, then you are saying whether they were insured is irrelevant.

If the insurer had voided the policy due to non-disclosure when a claim in fact occurred, they would have refunded the premium

In which case it's not logical that they can charge for cover when they would not have provided it (assuming that can be proven on the balance of probabilities i.e. the standard required by a civil court).

They aren't having their cake and eating it.

Yes they are. They want the extra premium but they may not have provided cover.

I have to declare that I am not a lawyer or an insurance person so I would suggest the OP gets proper professional advice if thikning of going down such a route.
It's possible that free legal advice may be available on the house insurance.
(I'm pretty sure you can't use the legal insurance on a motor policy in a claim against your insurer).

lisyloo

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.

I don't think this is what happens in general.
I think generally insurance companies pay out to 3rd parties (probably because of the bad press that would ensure if they didn't) and then they could pursue the policy holder for the costs.
I believe it's generally a civil matter rather than a criminal matter i.e. fraud.

If insurance companies left 3rd parties without companesation then I think that would be all over the tabloids.

HelpWhereIcan

The issue of non disclosure is one that is affecting all sectors of the insurance market.

With regards to the liklihood of an inusrer paying a claim, this would be dependant upon their perception of the cause of non disclosure. The Financial Ombudsman Service (where many refused claims end up) have the following 'classifications':

fraudulent or deliberate non-disclosure

innocent non-disclosure

inadvertent non-disclosure

‘clearly reckless’ non-disclosure

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/27/27-ins-nondisclosure.htm

In many cases the FOS would expect the firm to pay the claim less any unpaid additional premium that would have been charged

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/1/non-disclosure-case-studies.htm gives some of the FOS decisions regarding motor insurance and non disclosure.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/25/25-insurance-casestudies-non-disclosure.htm includes one about the non disclosure of speeding convictions

It is, therefore, clearly wrong for anyone to state with any certainty whether a company would pay or not as a company would have to be able to justify it's decision not to pay up to the F.O.S and would therefore consider any claim carefully. No company wants the bad publicity that comes with a rejected claim and would not do so unless they were happy they could justify their decision.

As for whether the OP has benefited from the insurance. well of course they have. Do you not need an insurance certificate to tax the car? Could the police not ask to see a copy of the certificate at the roadside without calling the comapny to check that all has been declared?

Not every claim would result in the insurance company asking to see your licence (the way they would find out about the points) eg a windscreen claim, a minor bump with no injuries involved may not need it. In other words, the company may have paid out a claim depending on the circumstances.

As Lisyloo has stated, there is every chance that the company would have paid a third party and then pursued the OP (which would still have costs for them)

Above all, the premiums for the rest of us are higher due to the number of uninsured drivers and fraudulent claims that insurance companies experience each year.

Unless we all want to have to complete a full form and produce our licences at renewal or pay increased car tax for a basic universal cover (like to Australians do) then we have to be grown ups and accept the responsibilities that come with being trusted to provide full disclosure.

Have to say that when I got my points, it was not something I forgot about a year later when I was asked the very straightforward question "have you had any driving convictions in the last 3 years?"

IMHO, the OP should pay up - he would have expected the insurance company to and would have complained the the FOS if they did not!!!

iceman_2

lisyloo wrote:

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.

I think you've misunderstood the stats slightly (easily done!). The stat is that 66.6% of speed related accidents do not involve breaking the speed limit. And accidents involving exceeding the speed limit make up 6% of the total accidents. Therefore if my maths is correct, only 18% of all accidents are speed related.

iceman_2

HelpWhereIcan wrote:

Unless we all want pay increased car tax for a basic universal cover (like to Australians do)

Sounds like a fantastic idea!!

lisyloo

re if my maths is correct, only 18% of all accidents are speed related.

But (on a slightly different point) would you agree that accidents involving speed cost more (because the damage to both cars and humans is more severe).
If you do agree then it's entirely logical that insurance companies should put up premiums for people that go fast and one indicator is points for speeding.

Personally I would agree that insurance are not entirely fair.
On another thread I suggest having a completely fair system where we all pay for a driving assesment, a health question, an attitude assement, a polic check and personal quotation from an actuary.
My estimate was that this would cost about £400 per person.

The way insurance works is by broad brush rules.
These are never going to be entirely fair but it doesn't cost policyholders anything for a quote.

I don't like to get too santimonious on threads (because I don't think it's useful) but the option of NOT speeding is there for everyone.
If you have broken the law and exceeded the speed limit then only one person is to blame and it's not the police or the insurance companies.

MarkyMarkD

I agree wholeheartedly with HelpWhereICan's post addressing lisy's points, my reply to those and her reply to me. I haven't got anything to add what HelpWhereICan said.

I don't agree (again) with lisyloo, but this time about her understanding of speeding and its relevance to accident risk.

It's perfectly possible to speed (i.e. break a speed limit) without driving dangerously or in a way which makes an accident more likely in itself. Those who speed (i.e. break speed limits) are often quite well aware of the issues involved and drive at more sensible speeds in certain circumstances than others who do not break speed limits.

A large proportion of accidents involving speeding (i.e. breaking speed limits) motorists involve those who are unfit for other reasons - uninsured, unlicensed, due to alcohol or drugs. The statistics need to be understood in their full context, and doing this indicates that breaking speed limits per se is a very limited indicator of accident risk.

That's why insurers rarely impose any increase in premium for one speeding conviction and many do not impose particularly large increases in premium for more than one. Insurers understand risk and causality a lot better than spin merchants working for "safety camera partnerships" and the like.

iceman_2

Totally agree with you with regard to speed not necessarily being dangerous.

MarkyMarkD wrote:

That's why insurers rarely impose any increase in premium for one speeding conviction

The OPs premium went up £150 (i understood this to be increased premium rather than any kind of penalty charge) for just 3 points. This seems like a pretty large increase to me.

MarkyMarkD

Not that significant when it was for 3 or 4 years worth of non-disclosure. My wife has a recent SP30 and she certainly isn't getting charged any noticeable amount extra for it.