Full UK Licence

ellnhodg

Just been told by car insurance company that because I have an automatic licence it is NOT a full UK Licence and I will have to pay over 350.00 extra as statistically automatic cars make more claims. I asked if manual licence holders driving automatic cars have to pay this and they said no. Surely this is discrimination and totally unfair.

Quentin

Did you use a broker to get this policy? If so, they may be responsible for not getting the required info about your licence from you, and should put matters right at their expense.

Otherwise, how did they ask about your licence in the first place? (Online/in writing or on the phone)

CKhalvashi

Tere is a separate Auto box on the insurance form, or at least with the company I'm with.

I don't know anything about the statistical end of things, but this would sound about right from the insurance company's point of view.

Best of uck with getting it died out, and if done through a broker than they should be the ones to so this out.

CK

ellnhodg

I just renewed my insurance a month ago with no changes to my details through this company and then recieved a letter stating my licence details provided were incorrect. This is the same company I have been with for three years so don't understand why it has suddenly changed.

CKhalvashi

ellnhodg wrote: »

I just renewed my insurance a month ago with no changes to my details through this company and then recieved a letter stating my licence details provided were incorrect. This is the same company I have been with for three years so don't understand why it has suddenly changed.

I honestly don't know the answer here, but it's going to be better to pay it than have the insurance cancelled due to fraud, whether deliberate or not.

CK

Quentin

ellnhodg wrote: »

This is the same company I have been with for three years so don't understand why it has suddenly changed.

If the info they held was incorrect and they have now found out the truth, it's irrelevant how long this has gone on for (though they may now be wanting back dated premium!)

But how did they get the incorrect details in the first place?

(That is the question that needs answering to see if there is any way to appeal this charge.)

thenudeone

Discrimination is perfectly legal unless it is a specific type where the law prohibits. So its' perfectly legal for motor insurers to charge different prices for different people based on: where they live; their occupation, whether they own the car or it's leased, whether they've replaced the stereo, whether they've been the victim of vehicle crime, whether they've committed a minor crime unrelated to motoring, their gender (soon to be stopped), their age (probably next to be outlawed). So charging a different premium based on the type of test they took seems reasonable by comparison.

silvercar

ellnhodg wrote: »

Just been told by car insurance company that because I have an automatic licence it is NOT a full UK Licence and I will have to pay over 350.00 extra as statistically automatic cars make more claims. I asked if manual licence holders driving automatic cars have to pay this and they said no. Surely this is discrimination and totally unfair.

Seems reasonable in that a lot of people (and I know it isn't everyone, particularly those that have learned to drive overseas where auto is standard) choose to get an auto licence when they find learning on a manual too difficult.

Arg

ellnhodg wrote: »

Just been told by car insurance company that because I have an automatic licence it is NOT a full UK Licence and I will have to pay over 350.00 extra as statistically automatic cars make more claims. I asked if manual licence holders driving automatic cars have to pay this and they said no. Surely this is discrimination and totally unfair.

There was a similar issue with bikers where some insurers were trying to jack up the price or cancel mid term because they said a 33hp bike license wasn't a full one.

http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/News/newsresults/General-news/2012/January/jan3012-thousands-unwittingly-uninsured/
I'm of the opinion of this poster from there.

I wouldn't lose any sleep over it, chaps. eBike are the exception in that they do distinguish between the different types of license. They're also demonstrably a bunch of pig headed stubborn pedants, since by forcing Mr Osborn to take it to the FOS, they spent £400 in order to get £35 back, let alone the bad publicity from it. If your insurer doesn't distinguish between license categories at the point where you agree on the contract, they can't reasonably decide to change their mind later. And worst case, at least now we know to just bypass the FOS (losing them their £400 tithe) and invite our insurers to see us in proper grown up court. It'd be a civil case, small claims, and it costs nothing to represent yourself.