Non disclosure of penalty points must i pay retrospectively?

dunstonh

My concern with this is that the OP seems to be getting away lightly in as much as (a) they are accepting that it was a mistake rather than fraudulent and (b) they are only charging for the last year.
By making a formal complaint, does the OP risk either or both of these being changed?

The insurer can change its position if a complaint was made. It can say that it was going out of its way to be helpful and not collect the full amount payable. However, now that a formal complaint has been made, things have to be looked at more formally and we withdraw our goodwill offer and require full payment. They could even decide to void the current policy. At the moment, the current insurer seem to be acting very fair. Much fairer than many other insurers would do and also much fairer than the FOS would expect them to act.

If the OP wants to play poker that is his choice. However, its playing poker with a bad hand.

kingstreet

TBH If the insurer wanted to charge him £5k, he could still do the dummy quotes, get the same answer, complain and the end result could be potentially the same.

The OP has got a more than fair result to a case of non-disclosure the insurer has treated as inadvertent. As I said, even if it wasn't fair, the alternative could be a lot, lot, worse.

In general, we have gone so far towards the "consumer is always right and bullet-proof" position, we have stopped seeing the implications of our actions as being our responsibility.

I'm not suggesting the OP should be grateful, but relief would be my reaction.

JimmyTheWig

dunstonh wrote: »

The insurer can change its position if a complaint was made. It can say that it was going out of its way to be helpful and not collect the full amount payable. However, now that a formal complaint has been made, things have to be looked at more formally and we withdraw our goodwill offer and require full payment. They could even decide to void the current policy.

This is backing up what kingstreet is saying.
OP, these are both knowledgeable posters and you would be sensible to heed their warnings. Taking this to a complaint may end up costing you more in the long term.

JimmyTheWig

kingstreet wrote: »

TBH If the insurer wanted to charge him £5k, he could still do the dummy quotes, get the same answer, complain and the end result could be potentially the same.

While I agree that the OP is getting off a lot lighter than they could be, I would still be miffed if I was being charged more than I should be from what they are saying.

Lets consider an analogy...
I buy a pair of trousers from a shop for £20.
When I get home I find that my wife has also bought me a pair of trousers that day, so I don't need the pair that I bought.
I take them back to the shop the next day. Unworn, still with tags (though no price ticket) but I don't have my receipt and am not totally sure how much I paid.
As a goodwill gesture the shop still takes them back, saying that they will give me a credit note for the price the trousers were selling for yesterday.
They look it up on their computer (no way for me to independently verify this) and say they were selling for £10 yesterday and so offer me a £10 credit note.

I am getting better than I am entitled to.
I could complain, and they could withdraw the goodwill gesture leaving me further out of pocket.
But I am miffed that they say they are giving me yesterday's selling price but I don't believe them.
The fact that they are selling for £20 today backs up my suspicions, but doesn't prove what they were selling for yesterday.

If they told me they were deducting £10 as an admin fee, or only offering 50% because they have me over a barrel, then at least I would know where I stood. But to say they are doing one thing and to actually do another is not on.

kingstreet

£5k was a deliberate exaggeration to highlight the issues, rather than to make a suggestion.

I can understand the OP being miffed, but he needs to see the reality of what has happened. I just wish he'd stop seeing everyones' comments as a personal attack.

This is a very good outcome for him.

michaels

2 things

If the OP had really been trying to 'pull a fast one' then they would have cancelled the directline policy when they bought the new car and insured with someone else then directline would never have known.

Altough the charge does sound high for 1 year it is probably not unreasonable for the entire amount the OP has underpaid over the period for his and partners policies so looked at in that context I don't think there is really any grounds for disgruntlement.

OP if they had stated they had reworked out all the premiums back to 2010 and you owed a total of 492 made up of 5 or 6 amounts of about 80-100 would you still be objecting?

vaio

michaels wrote: »

........OP if they had stated they had reworked out all the premiums back to 2010 and you owed a total of 492 made up of 5 or 6 amounts of about 80-100 would you still be objecting?

But that's not what's happening, they are saying £500 for one year, which as you mentioned does seem high and if the dummy quotes agree that it is high then the OP should complain.

As to the insurer cancelling the policy or reneging on the agreement not to charge for previous years if the OP makes a complaint.....I'd hope the FOS would take a very dim view of that sort of vindictive behaviour from an insurer especially as the OP will have evidence that certainly suggests the insurer is over charging.

dunstonh

As to the insurer cancelling the policy or reneging on the agreement not to charge for previous years if the OP makes a complaint.....I'd hope the FOS would take a very dim view of that sort of vindictive behaviour from an insurer especially as the OP will have evidence that certainly suggests the insurer is over charging.

Its not vindictive. A goodwill gesture offering more favourable circumstances than the norm can be withdrawn if the individual rejects that. The insurer can say that it offered favourable terms to close the case down quickly and cheaply but as the individual has rejected that and referred it to the FOS creating a FOS fee as well as increased admin costs, then they can no longer offer the goodwill gesture and it reverts to their standard requirements.

vaio

The complaint isn't about the good will gesture, it's about the additional premium for the year under consideration (assuming the OP does dummy quotes which indicate the £500 requested is significantly more than would be expected)

Insurers (and financial services generally) need to be honest, open, transparent and fair in their dealing with punters.

An insurer who accepts the non disclosure was not deliberate and says they will only charge the additional premium for 1 year but then significantly increases that additional premium isn't being honest, open, transparent and fair.

And if said insurer, when challenged then decides ( as some above have suggested) to change their mind about the innocent nature of the non disclosure and invoke the rightly serious sanctions available for deliberate non disclosure and/or charge for previous year despite having agreed not to then I fail to see how that could be anything other than vindictive and implicitly unfair.

dunstonh

Insurers (and financial services generally) need to be honest, open, transparent and fair in their dealing with punters.

In the same way punters need to be honest and fair too?

An insurer who accepts the non disclosure was not deliberate and says they will only charge the additional premium for 1 year but then significantly increases that additional premium isn't being honest, open, transparent and fair.

Why not? The person has already proven to be unreliable and gave a false declaration. Some insurers will increase their price because of that.

And if said insurer, when challenged then decides ( as some above have suggested) to change their mind about the innocent nature of the non disclosure and invoke the rightly serious sanctions available for deliberate non disclosure and/or charge for previous year despite having agreed not to then I fail to see how that could be anything other than vindictive and implicitly unfair.

It is very common in law and in general. It is not unfair in the slightest. If you are given an easy get out because the company doesnt want the hassle but then you reject that and create more hassle then withdrawing the offer is not unfair.