Car Insurance ripoff

Lesley1958

Getting quotes for my son's first insurance, to bring cost down he is policy holder and me and husband named drivers, BUT as I did a speed awareness course last year, instead of points/convctions, the price has jumped up but £400. Punishing son for my misdemenour - charming. Was told on my course that insurance co's had no right to do this!

King_Nothing

I've never been asked about speed awareness courses when getting quotes? Who was this with?

Rolandtheroadie

Just name your husband?

happy35

we have just insured our son's car with 'Quinn' and OH had done the same, there was no increase.

I dont work for them etc but found them the cheapest for us

forgotmyname

Dont add your name to the policy, Sorted.

The people on the course said the insurance had no right? get insurance with the people who run the course because they are obviously fairer.

Your insurance can charge what they want when they want. As long as they dont dicrimate.

They should now charge men and women the same, How long before they cannot discriminate against age and poor driving?

McKneff

They arent penalising your son for what you did, they are assessing the risk and the risk is you and your driving history.

So not a rip off. That;s the insurance business.

vikingaero

About the only Insurer that asks for details of speeding courses are the scummy Admiral Group.

rev_henry

Don't use Admiral - use any other insurance company that doesn't ask.

Alternatively someone on here a while ago did propose a loophole. It went something like this. The website asks for details of convictions. A SAC is not a conviction. Therefore you don't have to declare it, even if there is an option to do so in the drop down box. Be it upon your head if you chose to do that though!

thenudeone

rev_henry wrote: »

.... a loophole. It went something like this. The website asks for details of convictions. A SAC is not a conviction. Therefore you don't have to declare it

I refer you to

Road Traffic Act 1988 s174
False statements and withholding material information.

(5)A person who makes a false statement or withholds any material information for the purpose of obtaining the issue—
(a)of a certificate of insurance or certificate of security under Part VI of this Act [Third-Party Liabilities],
...
is guilty of an offence.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/contents

and

ombudsman news
issue 46 - non-disclosure in insurance cases

An insurance contract is a "contract of utmost good faith", which means that all parties to the contract are under a strict duty to deal fully and frankly with each other. Customers must disclose all facts that are "material" (or relevant) to the risk for which they are seeking cover.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/46/46_non_disclosure_insurance.htm

dacouch

thenudeone wrote: »

I refer you to

Road Traffic Act 1988 s174
False statements and withholding material information.

(5)A person who makes a false statement or withholds any material information for the purpose of obtaining the issue—
(a)of a certificate of insurance or certificate of security under Part VI of this Act [Third-Party Liabilities],
...
is guilty of an offence.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/contents

and

ombudsman news
issue 46 - non-disclosure in insurance cases

An insurance contract is a "contract of utmost good faith", which means that all parties to the contract are under a strict duty to deal fully and frankly with each other. Customers must disclose all facts that are "material" (or relevant) to the risk for which they are seeking cover.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/46/46_non_disclosure_insurance.htm

An Insurer needs to ask a clear question if they want to rely on it, they cannot state you're required to declare "All material facts" unless the matter is so incredibly obvious to joe public. In the absence of a clear question about SAC the Admiral could not cause a problem.

The Ombudsman (Quite rightly) works on the basis that a member of public (Not businesses) has very little knowledge of Insurance so expect an Insurer to ask clear questions.

It explains it in the link you provided.

notanewuser

dacouch wrote: »

An Insurer needs to ask a clear question if they want to rely on it, they cannot state you're required to declare "All material facts" unless the matter is so incredibly obvious to joe public. In the absence of a clear question about SAC the Admiral could not cause a problem.

The Ombudsman (Quite rightly) works on the basis that a member of public (Not businesses) has very little knowledge of Insurance so expect an Insurer to ask clear questions.

It explains it in the link you provided.

The question is perfectly clear on all of the Admiral group websites.