Car insurance comparison sites - premium affected!

peiluj

I recently renewed my car insurance with Diamond. I had an email today asking for an extra £110 because of an accident they claim I didn't disclose. On speaking to them it turns out they check through quotes generated on comparison sites & found one listing an accident in Jan 2011. I didn't have an accident at this time but did have one in Jan 2008 which I have always disclosed. I can only assume I somehow entered the wrong year on the comparison site. I accept this was stupid but it was an honest mistake. As I've been with Diamond for 3yrs they know I haven't claimed for any accidents in 2011. However, as I'm also a named driver on my partner's car they are insisting I get written confirmation from his previous insurer within 10 days that I haven't had an accident in his car. This could prove difficult as he only keeps the current years' details.

I can't help feeling insulted that they won't accept my word - written or spoken - that I haven't had an accident in 2011. They seem to believe approximate details on a comparison site above information provided by me specifically for the renewal. Incidentally, I did not renew via the comparison site, I just used it to negotiate down the premium.

I wondered whether anyone else has fallen foul of this problem? I shall certainly be more careful using comparison sites in future!

forgotmyname

Yes they use quotes to catch people out who try to manipulate premiums also.

peiluj

Interesting that they wait until one day after the cooling-off period rather than running these checks straight away!

Quentin

You have no grounds to feel insulted.

They have it in writing you made a claim and are equally entitled to getting it in writing that you did not!

It may be worth paying the £10 to find out if the claim has been recorded on the CUE database otherwise the issue could come up again in future and get harder for you to convince insurers it's all a mistake!

sithemadmonkey

I understand why you may feel that your integrity is being questioned, but you can't expect Diamond to simply take your word for it when they have evidence that you aren't disclosing full details on your policy. I doubt everyone who gives the 'typo' excuse is actually telling the truth, and it shouldn't take too long for your partner to find out who they were insured with a couple of years ago (just ask the current insurer who they got the No Claims Discount from, then repeat with that insurer until you get the right year).

Anti-fraud measures such as these keep premiums down for everyone, and false positives (as seems to have happened in your case) are an unfortunate but unavoidable side-effect.

Wywth

peiluj wrote: »

I recently renewed my car insurance with Diamond. I had an email today asking for an extra £110 because of an accident they claim I didn't disclose. On speaking to them it turns out they check through quotes generated on comparison sites & found one listing an accident in Jan 2011. I didn't have an accident at this time but did have one in Jan 2008 which I have always disclosed. I can only assume I somehow entered the wrong year on the comparison site. I accept this was stupid but it was an honest mistake. As I've been with Diamond for 3yrs they know I haven't claimed for any accidents in 2011. However, as I'm also a named driver on my partner's car they are insisting I get written confirmation from his previous insurer within 10 days that I haven't had an accident in his car. This could prove difficult as he only keeps the current years' details.

I can't help feeling insulted that they won't accept my word - written or spoken - that I haven't had an accident in 2011. They seem to believe approximate details on a comparison site above information provided by me specifically for the renewal. Incidentally, I did not renew via the comparison site, I just used it to negotiate down the premium.

I wondered whether anyone else has fallen foul of this problem? I shall certainly be more careful using comparison sites in future!

They accepted cover on the terms you disclosed to them for the premium requested (and presumably you have paid)

Tell them that the details disclosed by you on renewal were correct and that you accept cover is provided on that basis.

(Should that later prove to be incorrect, then you may find you are not covered in the event of a claim)

Quentin

Wywth wrote: »

They accepted cover on the terms you disclosed to them for the premium requested (and presumably you have paid)

Tell them that the details disclosed by you on renewal were correct and that you accept cover is provided on that basis.

(Should that later prove to be incorrect, then you may find you are not covered in the event of a claim)

The insurer has subsequent to renewal found a quote application to them from their insured disclosing a claim they knew nothing about.

They of course want proof that the claim was entered in error, otherwise they are correctly recalculating his premium in view of the claim!

chris1973

Should that later prove to be incorrect, then you may find you are not covered in the event of a claim)

This is a very common misconception. If you have a policy which is in force on the vehicle and with up to date payment(s) then nothing can remove or negate the liability of the insurance company from paying out in the event of a third party claim against you.

Yes, they can refuse to cover damage to your own vehicle, and yes they can even take you to court to recover any losses which they have paid out to third parties whilst the material facts on the policy were incorrect, but it does not remove their obligation to pay out if another party has a valid claim against you.

The only way that the third party minimum level of cover can be voided would be if the premium isn't paid (or installment payments aren't up to date) or the policyholder had been convicted of an insurance fraud. In the majority of cases including non payment, the insurer HAS to give you at least 7 days written notice of any cancellation of your policy.

The fact that the OP's insurer is now asking for the additional £110 premium would indicate that their minimum insurance requirement has been continuous up to this point as there has been no previous written notice of their insurance being cancelled or voided, and it seems that the insurer is happy for cover to continue (albeit with the increase in premium). If the insurer believed that the policyholder had deliberately mislead them, then common sense would suggest that it would be unlikely to offer any continuation of the policy.

Of course that could change very quickly if the policyholder doesn't pay the (increased) premium or volunteer the information, but they would still have been considered to have had at least the legal minimum 3rd party insurance cover in place up to the date stated on any future Cancellation Notice.

I'm also a named driver on my partner's car they are insisting I get written confirmation from his previous insurer within 10 days that I haven't had an accident in his car. This could prove difficult as he only keeps the current years' details.

Given the information in your first post then yes they do have enough reason to ask for this, however there is a national database which we all financially contribute to the running of through a portion of our insurance premiums. Often insurers will be quick to use this database to try and either double check the original material facts or get historical information on a policyholder / vehicle at some later date - usually in the event of a claim, however they are not as quick to volunteer the use of it in order to help out a client. But since we all fund it, there is no reason why you can't instruct them to use it for your advantage in order to satisfy themselves of your integrity..

So I would get your partner to write a statement of fact, giving the vehicle details / reg number etc (and any previous policy numbers if you still have the paperwork) and his permission for any database to be searched in respect of any previous claims or accident history, and send this to Diamond. A few clicks on a keyboard by them should establish that there is no claim history for that vehicle, in which case, they should be satisfied that you, as a named driver, have also never had a claim in respect of that vehicle either.

It does seem worrying that historical quote data, non of which, I assume, was ever used to enter a legal contract with any insurance company, is being used against you. I know several people who have run 'test' quotes via comparison sites for various speeding convictions just to see how it would affect their premiums *if* they ever got caught speeding. I also know that this forum also promotes the testing of slight variations of a policy holders' occupation in order to reduce premiums, so could the fact that the policyholder was recorded to have slightly changed occupation in the space of 10 minutes during an old quote, also be used to haunt them in a similar manner?.

It might be worth contacting the Ombudsman in order to ascertain whether this is actually 'reasonable'

Spiderham

chris1973 wrote: »

It does seem worrying that historical quote data, non of which, I assume, was ever used to enter a legal contract with any insurance company, is being used against you. I know several people who have run 'test' quotes via comparison sites for various speeding convictions just to see how it would affect their premiums *if* they ever got caught speeding. I also know that this forum also promotes the testing of slight variations of a policy holders' occupation in order to reduce premiums, so could the fact that the policyholder was recorded to have slightly changed occupation in the space of 10 minutes during an old quote, also be used to haunt them in a similar manner?.

It might be worth contacting the Ombudsman in order to ascertain whether this is actually 'reasonable'

The counter-argument is that you agree via the terms & conditions of the websites when you enter the info that it is accurate (ie you shouldn't be doing those "checks" as the insurers' rating methods are confidential and commercially sensitive). If you choose to ignore the T&Cs and play around with details it could be argued the insurers are well within their rights to make sure you haven't "accidentally" missed off any details.

eddddy

Spiderham wrote: »

The counter-argument is that you agree via the terms & conditions of the websites when you enter the info that it is accurate (ie you shouldn't be doing those "checks" as the insurers' rating methods are confidential and commercially sensitive). If you choose to ignore the T&Cs and play around with details it could be argued the insurers are well within their rights to make sure you haven't "accidentally" missed off any details.

But from what I can see of Diamond's car insurance quote "conditions of use", the OP was not breaking any conditions.

http://www.diamond.co.uk/existing-customers/legal-and-complaint-information/conditions-of-use.php

(unless they display further T&Cs later on in the quote process.)


The only part that seems vaguely relevant is:

Commercial use
This website is for non-commercial, personal use only unless contractually agreed with EUI Limited.

You warrant that any application that you may make using this website in connection with obtaining a quotation for motor insurance is genuine and is only made for your own personal purposes of seeking to purchase a motor insurance policy.
...
...

This condition is intended to prevent commercial use of the website anyway, so it's not even relevant really. However, the OP was genuinely using the website in connection with obtaining a genuine quotation for his/her personal purposes.

I think it would be equally 'genuine' to put in rough details of claims and convictions to get an approximate quote (perhaps because you don't have precise details to hand). If the quote looks good, you return later with the accurate details.

For my own part, when my daughter was 19 yrs and 9 months old, I wanted to know the approx difference in premium between insuring her straight away, and waiting 3 months until she was 20. So I got quotes with her true DoB, then changed it to make her seem 20 and got re-quotes. This possibly set alarm bells ringing with the insurers. But I believe that I was 'genuinely using the website in connection with obtaining a genuine quotation' - so not breaking any T&Cs.

And my home insurance broker seems to do this kind of thing quite freely with their systems, when discussing premiums with me.

Quentin

You can ensure that you don't (in ignorance or deliberately) contravene the ts + cs when playing around with quotes by doing them with aliases!