Admiral trying to charge extra for previous year's cover

anandp

I have just renewed with Admiral for another year's cover on a multi-car policy and they have rightly pointed out that some SP30's I've had weren't declared. This was purely an oversight and they've said there's extra to pay which is fine.

What I'm confused about though is that they want to charge me extra for last year's policy which expired weeks ago for the same reason. Though it was my oversight, are they able to charge extra for a policy which has expired? Any options I had to compare a full cost vs the rest of the market is now gone so I don't necessarily see this as fair. Is it?

rev_henry

I think they can, though seems stupid to me, like buying a lottery ticket when you know it'll win. If you don't want to I think you'd have to cancel and go with another insurer this year.

vaio

Yep, the points apparently make you more of a risk so they are entitled to the extra premium for carrying that risk on the old policy.

Unless the extra is unreasonable you need to pay it

InsideInsurance

They could also void the insurance for non-disclosure if they believed you did it maliciously or alternatively for non-payment.

Yes they can charge you

to give you a simple example.... you phone a company and tell them you have 5 tonnes of rubble to take away. They tell you it is $500. They come and collect the rubble and obviously dont have a set of scales with them. When they get back to depot it turns out it was 6 tonnes of rubble, they obviously can charge you for that additional tonne because they job they have done is not the job you asked for a quote for because you understated the amount of rubble.

UsernameAlreadyExists

And whether he had 3 points, or 9 points, the risk doesn't matter because he didn't claim, and no-one claimed against him. There is no risk anymore.

Moving rubble = "doing work", "effort" & "actual expense". Fair enough

Back charging for covering risk that never transpired = blatent money making!!! Hurrah for more insurance scamming!

rev_henry

UsernameAlreadyExists wrote: »

And whether he had 3 points, or 9 points, the risk doesn't matter because he didn't claim, and no-one claimed against him. There is no risk anymore.

Moving rubble = "doing work", "effort" & "actual expense". Fair enough

Back charging for covering risk that never transpired = blatent money making!!! Hurrah for more insurance scamming!

Exactly what I was trying to get at, although there's a small risk of someone claiming against him during that period still. Which is highly unlikely.

InsideInsurance

UsernameAlreadyExists wrote: »

And whether he had 3 points, or 9 points, the risk doesn't matter because he didn't claim, and no-one claimed against him.

If you state the risk doesnt matter why arent you saying that everyone should pay the same premium? Or are you instead saying that if you get away with fraud for 12 months then you should be scot free for life? Should we all declare clean license, no accidents etc so we all pay the same premiums and just those that have an accident should have to subsequently pay the increased premium for what the reality was?

Given a third party has up to 6 years to make a claim (non-injury) and a minor has until their 21st birthday (injury) there is no certainty that there will be no claims

UsernameAlreadyExists

InsideInsurance wrote: »

If you state the risk doesnt matter why arent you saying that everyone should pay the same premium?

Everyone shouldn't pay the same, because I think it should be on fuel consumption. The more fuel you use, the more "dangerous" you are. Quite simple really.

Why should I pay a shed load of money to insure a fast car that sits on my drive for 355+ days of the year? Oh, that's right ... because it's "risky and dangerous" and I have to.

Motor insurance is a goverment enforced legalised scam in the UK. And why do insurance companies even EXIST? To make money! How do they do that? Hmmm .... I wonder ...

UsernameAlreadyExists

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Or are you instead saying that if you get away with fraud for 12 months then you should be scot free for life?

What's the "fraud"? depriving insurance companies of the extra money that they didn't have to spend? and what's the punishment ... having to spend MORE money next time? Jeez.

dacouch

UsernameAlreadyExists wrote: »

And whether he had 3 points, or 9 points, the risk doesn't matter because he didn't claim, and no-one claimed against him. There is no risk anymore.

Moving rubble = "doing work", "effort" & "actual expense". Fair enough

Back charging for covering risk that never transpired = blatent money making!!! Hurrah for more insurance scamming!

As II have explained, the risk of an accident for the Insurer was increased during the previous year even though there was no claim.

The Insurers have to abide by the Ombudsman's guidance on non disclosure eg no void policies where there has been a non disclosure assuming it was not intentional and they would have covered the increased risk. In return they are entitled to request a revised premium should they at a later date discover non disclosed information.

UsernameAlreadyExists

dacouch wrote: »

The Insurers have to abide by the Ombudsman's guidance on non disclosure eg no void policies where there has been a non disclosure assuming it was not intentional and they would have covered the increased risk. In return they are entitled to request a revised premium should they at a later date discover non disclosed information.

"Ombudsman's guidance".
"entitled to request".
Sounds like a wishy washy excuse to grab more money to me ...

"covering risk" doesn't matter ... he didn't claim and no-one claimed against him.

insideinsurance wrote:

Given a third party has up to 6 years to make a claim (non-injury) and a minor has until their 21st birthday (injury) there is no certainty that there will be no claims

An extra £30 or something new from the OP makes this all right? That should cover any future claims? Of course ...