VOID Car Insurance

Quentin

Well...................when you get your policy voided, they don't "fine" you by keeping the premium, whatever the reason they voided it!!

dacouch

How long were you banned for?

raskazz

crodge25 wrote: »

Not sure was the same underwriter but quote was only 1300 with the dr10 and is for a pug 206 gti so yes I would have paid this no problem

Hopefully will be same under writer so I can use this to help my case

As a note of caution, even if it is the same underwriter, just because they will quote for a DR10 today does not mean that they would have necessarily quoted for a DR10 when you incepted the policy.

raskazz

GIK wrote: »

Deliberate fraud is exactly the reason they returned your premium...you need to face the fact you are liable.

If it was deliberate fraud (i.e. with proven intent) then the insurer would have retained the premium rather than refunded it.

raskazz

vaio wrote: »

my understanding is the endorsement stays for 11 years but the conviction is spent after 5. The endorsement remains to allow courts to cane repeat offenders but insurance companies can't take it into account after five years. See http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/25/25-disclosure-of-spent-motoring-convictions.htm

That link is factually incorrect when it says:

"For example, someone applying for motor insurance six years after they were convicted of a drink-driving offence may consider that, since the endorsement remains on their licence for 11 years, they are obliged to disclose the conviction to the insurer. However, under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, the conviction is "spent" after five years"

If the driver was given a custodial sentence - which is possible for the more serious instances and repeat offenders - then it would take more than 5 years to be spent. Poor show and a lack of research from the FOS there.

chanz4

I have a feeling that even if bankrupt the pi side can still be chased as its exempt.

vaio

Quentin wrote: »

Well...................when you get your policy voided, they don't "fine" you by keeping the premium, whatever the reason they voided it!!

Not in the case of deliberate non disclosure according to the FOS (from the link I posted earlier)

deliberate

Customers deliberately mislead the insurer if they dishonestly provide information they know to be untrue or incomplete. If the dishonesty is intended to deceive the insurer into giving them an advantage to which they are not entitled, then this is also a fraud and – strictly speaking – the insurance premium does not have to be returned.

mikey72

crodge25 wrote: »

just done a dummy quote on their website inputting my drink drive disqualification and it seems they WOULD STILL insure me

will this help my claim??

How much was the quote, and how much did you actually pay for the year in question?

vaio

raskazz wrote: »

That link is factually incorrect when it says:

"For example, someone applying for motor insurance six years after they were convicted of a drink-driving offence may consider that, since the endorsement remains on their licence for 11 years, they are obliged to disclose the conviction to the insurer. However, under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, the conviction is "spent" after five years"

If the driver was given a custodial sentence - which is possible for the more serious instances and repeat offenders - then it would take more than 5 years to be spent. Poor show and a lack of research from the FOS there.

Fair point but I read it as a general statement on the need to disclose "spent" convictions i.e. IF your conviction is spent (after 5/7/10 years) then there is no need to disclose even though the endorsement lingers on and is covered by a specific question.

It's semantics but I'd say it's more "incomplete" than "incorrect"

thenudeone

crodge25 wrote: »

just done a dummy quote on their website inputting my drink drive disqualification and it seems they WOULD STILL insure me

will this help my claim??

YES - it may do, depending on whether the disclosure was inadvertent or deliberate.

Non-disclosure is mentioned in a number of the FOS bulletins https://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=disclosure+site%3Afinancial-ombudsman.org.uk

The most relevant one to you is this the firs case on this page: http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/25/25-insurance-casestudies-non-disclosure.htm

If you can prove that they would still have covered you even with the conviction disclosed, although for a higher premium, you should be able to get them to pay a proportion of the claim (the same proportion of the true premium that you actually paid)