Car Insurance unfair rip off - IN10 conviction

vaio

phill99 wrote: »

........The reality is that now you have been banged to rights, you are likely to drive again without insurance.......

Spot on, and what better way is there to discourage the OP from the "likely to drive again without insurance" part of his character than to make it punitively expensive to renew the insurance he holds (and has held for at least 6 years). :rotfl:

Because I don't condone driving without insurance I hesitate to point out that if I was the OP I would have been insured as every policy I've held over the past 40+ years (TP, TPFT & FC) has included DOC cover as standard. Why insurers are trimming this back I really don't understand.

dunstonh

Spot on, and what better way is there to discourage the OP from the "likely to drive again without insurance" part of his character than to make it punitively expensive to renew the insurance he holds (and has held for at least 6 years).

offset by those that do it repeatedly.

DCFC79

Sorry to tell you OP but there is no scam here, what there is is an increase in premiums for the IN10 conviction which was fair since you were caught driving. You did committed the offence so you pay the price for the error.

bouncydog1

With regards to putting down somebody else as the main driver make sure that this really is the case. Othewise if there is an accident (and it doesn't have to be you or a named driver on your policy at fault) insurers will make enquiries to ensure that this is true. If it is found that you have deliberately mislead them to get cheaper insurance a.k.a. fraud, then paying the extra premium for the driving without insurance conviction will be the least of your worries. You will find that you are either uninsurable or the premium you are being asked to pay now, will look like a drop in the ocean.

Best bet IMO is to go to a broker, get them to find you the cheapest quote based on your record - which might mean a smaller car etc - pay the premium and move forward. You can't change anything - you have the conviction - just work on keeping your licence clean for the future and you should see your premiums drop.

barney2005

By the letter of the law, there may be no grey areas, but there are differences in IN10 offences.

If I understand the original poster correctly, they were insured for their own vehicle and drove another, thinking that they were covered under the "other car" section of their policy. Unfortunately, this section now only covers you if the car you are driving is covered by its own policy. Not a lot of people know that, as the saying goes! This section was useful when buying a new car, just to get the car home, before arranging permanent insurance.

I agree, if someone is blatantly driving around without any insurance, then they deserve to be clobbered, both by the law and the insurance companies, but the offence outlined above is ludicrous and brings the law into disrepute. It is a situation which used to be legal, but is now illegal because of the addition of a few words to insurance policies.

To say that they are now a serial uninsured driver (or would be if they had not been caught) is ridiculous. True, they will not make the mistake again, but that is because they are now aware of the situation.

vaio

barney2005 wrote: »

.......If I understand the original poster correctly, they were insured for their own vehicle and drove another, thinking that they were covered under the "other car" section of their policy. Unfortunately, this section now only covers you if the car you are driving is covered by its own policy. Not a lot of people know that, as the saying goes! This section was useful when buying a new car, just to get the car home, before arranging permanent insurance.......

Welcome to MSE but fail on your first post....

Some (but by no means all) insurers require the other car to be insured in its own right for your DOC cover to be valid.

Very very few (none?) insurers will cover another car you have bought under DOC as invariable the cover is "for car not owned or hired to you"

All will be revealed in the small print of your policy

kingstreet

barney2005 wrote: »

Unfortunately, this section now only covers you if the car you are driving is covered by its own policy

That may be the case, or it may not. In every case, the insured should read his own policy document, not rely on an internet forum. Not every policy is the same, nor should it be treated as such.

dacouch

Slightly topical but worth posting this link for future reference as this happens a lot with esure and Viao can bookmark it.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=75522

and my favourite epic fail on behalf of the ex cop father...

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=76224

kingstreet

FWIW, the certificate of my CSIS Drive policy, underwritten by Royal & Sun Alliance says;-

Provided the policyholder is aged 25 or over, and not employed in the motor trade, he/she may also drive, with the owner's permission, a motor car not belonging to nor hired or leased to them or their partner.

While my wife's Sheila's Wheels certificate reads;-

The Policyholder may also drive with the owner's permission a motor car that they do not own and that is not hired or leased to them under a hire purchase or leasing agreement.

So, two from two in our house. Neither asks for the vehicle to be insured first.

dacouch posted while I was typing. Post unrelated.

dacouch

kingstreet wrote: »

FWIW, the certificate of my CSIS Drive policy, underwritten by Royal & Sun Alliance says;-



While my wife's Sheila's Wheels certificate reads;-


So, two from two in our house. Neither asks for the vehicle to be insured first.

dacouch posted while I was typing. Post unrelated.

To be fair, the small minority of Insurers that stipulate that the car being driven under DOC tend to have the requirement in the policy wording.

The current Sheilas Wheels policy does stipulate it, your RSA policy has no information about DOC in the policy so would be subject to the wording on the Certficate.