Non disclosure of penalty points must i pay retrospectively?

*Scarlett

As you have been on an automatic renewal for 8 years it's easy just to let these things carry on without taking to much notice of what they send you in the renewal.

They probably did ask questions about any changes in circumstances which could affect your insurance ie points on your licence but being realistic not everyone reads the renewal thoroughly (although they should!) especially if the have auto renewed with the same company for several years.

The fact is that if you had declared the points at the time of renewal the premium would have been higher so you probably do owe them extra money.

You definitely do not want a record of a voided / cancelled policy on your insurance but if you feel that the amount that they are charging is high you can ask for a breakdown of the costs to see how this is justified and see if you could negotiate.

Unfortunately, however unintentional, the error was yours and D/L are entitled to ask for the additional premium.

Hope you get it sorted.

dunstonh

.so cynical as you are I was never asked the questions again until the new insurance for the new car.

Yes you were. You were asked in writing every year of renewal.

honestly i think the insurance industry knows they have you by the balls so they charge what they can

Dont go down that route. Lets strip all emotion away and look at the facts.
1 - you lied. Either accidental or on purpose. The insurer is assuming accidental and treating it as such luckily for you.
2 - you would have paid more had you disclosed the information as you were a higher risk than you said you were. They are only asking you to pay what you should have paid.
3 - The FOS position is published in their non-disclosure guidelines. So, a complaint is unlikely to help you. Indeed, going adversarial could see the insurer decide you did it on purpose and take that approach instead.
4 - The insurer could void your currently policy due to non-disclosure and non-payment and you would have to declare that for the rest of your life.

None of us here are emotionally attached to what you have done. So, we can be objective. You made a mistake. You are now being asked to pay for your mistake the amount you should have paid had you not made your mistake. The lesson you should learn from this is to never assume and to read your letters when they are sent to you. No point in ranting about insurers. Sure, they have their faults and issues but in this case, this is all your own fault.

molerat

Out of interest what is a TG10, can't find it on any lists

JimmyTheWig

stepmaxi wrote: »

my my my a huge favour eh...£750 charge which could have been thousands...I feel grateful now... please explain that if I pay retrospectively it isn't the cost i should have paid minus what i did pay? then I would pay that gladly as i have made a mistake? honestly i think the insurance industry knows they have you by the balls so they charge what they can

I believe it is supposed to be the cost you should have paid minus what you did pay plus an admin fee.
Who knows what the cost you "should have paid" was. As customers we can only take their word for it.

People have said to ignore the effect of the convictions on your new policy as it is for a different car. While it is true that different cars can have different premiums, I can't believe that a conviction would have such a different impact on different cars.
BUT what is true is that the convictions are getting older all the time. Consider the first renewal after your second conviction. It would have looked like you were a pretty careless driver. The premium then could well have been a few hundred more because of them. But a few years later, with no new convictions added, it seems more like what happened in the past was a blip and that you're a better behaved motorist now. So it doesn't make such a difference now.

I think the thing to do is to get two quotes from Direct Line's website now, based on your old car. This will only tell us what things are like now, rather than what they would have been like in the past, but it would be a reasonable approximation.
For the first quote don't put in any convictions.
For the second quote put in the two convictions - but don't put the real dates they happened, put the relative dates as if this had been your first renewal after the second conviction. So if you renewed in January 2012, put the convictions as August 2011 and November 2012.
What is the difference between the first and second quote?

JimmyTheWig

dunstonh wrote: »

They are only asking you to pay what you should have paid.

This is what the OP is querying. They accept that they should pay this, but feel that what they are being asked for is too high for this.
The only people able to give an answer to the question of what difference would it have made are the insurance company. And you must admit that the insurance company have something of a vested interest here.

Yes, the OP made a mistake.
Yes, it is good for the OP that it is being treated as a mistake rather than fraud.
Yes, the OP should have to pay what they would have paid originally.
Yes, the OP is much better off paying this than letting the policy get cancelled due to non-disclosure.
But it would be unfair on the OP if the insurance company exagerate what they say the OP would have paid originally now they know the OP has no choice but to pay it.

stepmaxi

dunstonh wrote: »

Yes you were. You were asked in writing every year of renewal.



Dont go down that route. Lets strip all emotion away and look at the facts.
1 - you lied. Either accidental or on purpose. The insurer is assuming accidental and treating it as such luckily for you.
2 - you would have paid more had you disclosed the information as you were a higher risk than you said you were. They are only asking you to pay what you should have paid.
3 - The FOS position is published in their non-disclosure guidelines. So, a complaint is unlikely to help you. Indeed, going adversarial could see the insurer decide you did it on purpose and take that approach instead.
4 - The insurer could void your currently policy due to non-disclosure and non-payment and you would have to declare that for the rest of your life.

None of us here are emotionally attached to what you have done. So, we can be objective. You made a mistake. You are now being asked to pay for your mistake the amount you should have paid had you not made your mistake. The lesson you should learn from this is to never assume and to read your letters when they are sent to you. No point in ranting about insurers. Sure, they have their faults and issues but in this case, this is all your own fault.

I think what i am asking is if there is a genuine mistake that the fees match the mistake given this is only for yr 2012-2013. Yes it is my fault.. very objective of you. I feel this charge is rapacious and although I have the funds to cover it ...other wouldn't. Like i said it most likely would have been 10 pounds a month more. Which ever way you cut it, its over charging.

stepmaxi

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

This is what the OP is querying. They accept that they should pay this, but feel that what they are being asked for is too high for this.
The only people able to give an answer to the question of what difference would it have made are the insurance company. And you must admit that the insurance company have something of a vested interest here.

Yes, the OP made a mistake.
Yes, it is good for the OP that it is being treated as a mistake rather than fraud.
Yes, the OP should have to pay what they would have paid originally.
Yes, the OP is much better off paying this than letting the policy get cancelled due to non-disclosure.
But it would be unfair on the OP if the insurance company exagerate what they say the OP would have paid originally now they know the OP has no choice but to pay it.

finally someone who isn't giving me a lecture and sees I have made a mistake but I will pay the cost but the cost to me is far too high. All the moral high ground is insulting and I appreciate your comments as I feel I am a criminal to the others:)

Captain_Shambolic

Personally I don't think we've been too judgmental, it just seems like you are getting a little upset because you've not been told what you wanted to hear. Insurance companies aren't in the habit of mollycoddling people, they send documents for you to check and to inform them if something isn't right and if they find an instance of non-disclosure they are well within their rights to claim back the money they would have charged had they known about the extra risk from the start.

I forget who it was but calling D/L and asking for a breakdown of the fee does sound like a good idea, once you have that breakdown post it here and we can look into it further to see if it does seem high or not. Also just to check, when was your renewal date?

stepmaxi

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

I believe it is supposed to be the cost you should have paid minus what you did pay plus an admin fee.
Who knows what the cost you "should have paid" was. As customers we can only take their word for it.

People have said to ignore the effect of the convictions on your new policy as it is for a different car. While it is true that different cars can have different premiums, I can't believe that a conviction would have such a different impact on different cars.
BUT what is true is that the convictions are getting older all the time. Consider the first renewal after your second conviction. It would have looked like you were a pretty careless driver. The premium then could well have been a few hundred more because of them. But a few years later, with no new convictions added, it seems more like what happened in the past was a blip and that you're a better behaved motorist now. So it doesn't make such a difference now.

I think the thing to do is to get two quotes from Direct Line's website now, based on your old car. This will only tell us what things are like now, rather than what they would have been like in the past, but it would be a reasonable approximation.
For the first quote don't put in any convictions.
For the second quote put in the two convictions - but don't put the real dates they happened, put the relative dates as if this had been your first renewal after the second conviction. So if you renewed in January 2012, put the convictions as August 2011 and November 2012.
What is the difference between the first and second quote?

Moreover D/L stated they will only retrosepctively charge me for 2012-2013. Given I pay 45 per month and they have chagred me £492 for the yr 2012-2013... you can start to see my anger with the charges

kingstreet

molerat wrote: »

Out of interest what is a TG10, can't find it on any lists

It isn't. It's a TS10 traffic light offence.