How to come clean to car insurer re: occupation

paddedjohn

epsilondraconis wrote: »

OP, but haven't you done some voluntary work which involves admin in the last 12 months. ;-)

I think you'll find that you did.

If you can remember, then surely that is problem solved.

Surely this could make things worse if the DWP found out.

lostneedhelp

epsilondraconis wrote: »

OP, but haven't you done some voluntary work which involves admin in the last 12 months. ;-)

I think you'll find that you did.

If you can remember, then surely that is problem solved.

I appreciate the sentiment - but I really don't want to get any further bogged down with fibs. I'm totally stressing out about this as it is. :eek:

Thanks anyway.

x

lostneedhelp

paddedjohn wrote: »

Regardless of your reason for not working you are still unemployed whichever way you look at it, you are either 'employed' or you are not.

But surely car insurance is assessed based on risk? I know (from what I've read over the last wee while) that people in the "Unemployed" category are seen as a higher risk of making claims. Perhaps because it is assumed that they will have more time on their hands and therefore driving a lot - or perhaps because they will be assumed to be driving to various job interviews. I don't necessarily agree with either of those assumptions, but I'm sure they form the basis of the cost of premiums.

However, surely someone with chronic ill health who is unable to work, cannot really be considered to be the same risk (in terms of the points I mentioned above)?

Was there ever a category in the past for "Not employed due to illness" and it has somehow been amalgamated into the umbrella term "Unemployed"?

x

vaio

paddedjohn wrote: »

Regardless of your reason for not working you are still unemployed whichever way you look at it, you are either 'employed' or you are not.

Nah, employed & unemployed aren't the only two choices. I'd say.....

employed is working
unemployed is not working, getting JSA and looking for work
retired is not working and not intending to ever look for work
housewife is not working but might look for work in the future
not working due to illness
etc etc,

Trentenders

As a few others have said, go with a new insurer this year (regardless of whetehr it costs a little more) and ensure you enter something credible for your occupation, whatever you decide.

Worst case scenario if you change jobs at this renewal with your existing company is that someone will spot it, ask questions, and then kick out your claim and cancel your policy. As you probably know, trying to get insurance after having a policy cancelled can be an expensive nightmare (incl. for your home insurance, etc.). Don't even consider renewing

dacouch

paddedjohn wrote: »

Regardless of your reason for not working you are still unemployed whichever way you look at it, you are either 'employed' or you are not.

The OP would be unemployed if they were seeking work and / or receiving JSA.

There are many occupations where they are not unemployed if they have no job, not limited to the following.

Independent Means
Retired
Housewife

None of the above are classed as unemployed

Cheeze83

from my memory of the FSA regulations, an Insurer is unable to deny a claim on any material fact that is not linked to the claim.

So, provided your illness was not anything to do with the accident then they should have to pay the claim regardless, however they may refuse to offer a renewal.

System

Did they ask originally for "job" or "occupation"?

Job is what you are actually doing now. Occupation is what you are trained and qualified for, regardless of whether you are actually practising it at the moment.

An actor between appearances is still an actor. An author is an author while he is thinking about his next book, not just writing it. He doesn't stop being an author the moment he has posted the proofs back.
A plumber whose job finished on Friday doesn't stop being a plumber over the weekend until his new job starts on Monday.

My mother is a teacher. She qualified as a teacher, but hasn't actually worked as one for 60 years.

lostneedhelp

Sorry - I'm back again!!

I've done a few comparisons and found a couple of companies offering slightly more expensive deals - but I'm happy to pay that to get a "fresh start" with honest information.

However, I've just discovered that my current insurer: Sheila's Wheels, and the other two alternatives: Esure and First Alternative - are all connected! I think Esure are the main company, and the other two are off-shoots (or whatever).

Does this mean that I should avoid Esure and FA because they can easily look up my previous file with Sheila's Wheels and then potentially start asking questions about my previous employment? Or should I just go for it anyway and hope that they don't question it?

I was actually starting to feel relaxed about it all, but now I am back to worrying!

x

Quentin

lostneedhelp wrote: »

Does this mean that I should avoid Esure and FA because they can easily look up my previous file with Sheila's Wheels and then potentially start asking questions about my previous employment? Or should I just go for it anyway and hope that they don't question it?

As you are worried, why not make a clean start, but it's your call!