Non disclosure of penalty points must i pay retrospectively?

kavorka

I can't believe some of the sanctimonious responses on here to a genuine enquiry regarding an issue with a multi million dollar insurance company that is trying to charge a customer an extortionate back dated premium for a minor non disclosure infraction. Are we forgetting what the purpose of insurance is for? It is supposed to be a risk based protection system that we pay for... the premium is meant to be directly correlated to RISK. The extra premium requested for non disclosure of a minor traffic infringement should be directly proportional to the increased 'risk profile' as a result of the infringement not some arbitrary charge. In the OP's case the actual increase in premium being requested is around double that of what had already been paid for a scenario that saw a driver with no infringement. Based on the OP's pricing information, D/L are saying that a driver with a minor traffic (I think a DS10) infringement is 3 times more likely to have an accident then a driver without. Does any sanctimonious preacher on here actually believe this is the case? You go into any online insurance quoting system and type in those two scenarios. I've done it. On average a couple of minor traffic infringements will see an increase of around 5%, not the 200% that the OP is being requested to pay. Regardless of whether the OP omitted the traffic infringement on purpose or accidentally... the insurance company has no right to charge an extortionate retrospective premium which appears to be completely arbitrary and in no way correlated to risk. What is stopping them from charging £2,000 or even £50,000... there is no correlation to risk, it is retrospective, the customer has no rights because he 'lied'... why not go for broke!

Further more if you accidentally put a traffic infringement on your insurance that was say was dated a year later then you thought (meaning it would've been older than 5 years and irrelevant but wasn't), do you think the insurance company would refund the difference? I doubt it very much. Let's be honest here, when you take out insurance you provide a very large amount of information and details and each insurance company is different and asks for different things. you try your hardest to get the important things correct but a traffic infringement is a minor detail that changes the risk profile very little. It is a detail a reasonable person would believe to be relatively insignificant and may not give it as much attention as it deserve(this is supported by the premium differences on online quoting systems). It is not a drink driving charge and loss of licence, it is not a careless driving charge resulting in death, it is not a wrong name, date of birth, rego etc. My belief is that that insurance companies are haemorrhaging money due to millions of bogus personal injury claims so they have decided to prop up profits by finding the most minor breach of contract and then applying an extortionate arbitrary back dated charge. This is appalling behaviour and I cannot believe that some sanctimonious zealots on here condone such behaviour. I have searched the internet high and low for a case that has gone before the Financial Ombudsman and amazingly I can't find one. I cannot see how such a case would stand up in court for a second. In my mind we are witnessing fraudulent activity with zero transparency and it is condoned by some people on this thread. The Ombudsman would see this as an open and shut case. It's up there with the PPI fiasco.

rudekid48

Seeing that this thread died a death nearly 9 months ago, the "sanctimoniuos zealots" on here have probably moved on to other things.....

Aretnap

Someone was mean to me on Usenet in 1993. I like to think that one day someone will resurrect that thread and give him a piece of their mind as well.

kavorka

rudekid48 wrote: »

Seeing that this thread died a death nearly 9 months ago, the "sanctimoniuos zealots" on here have probably moved on to other things.....

Maybe they have... but I did not comment for their benefit. This forum is read a lot of people... many of whom may be in a similar situation with their insurance. Some of the things being said in here are dreadful and the thread was in dire need of an opposing view which is what I have attempted to do. What value your comment has or what it has attempted to do I am unable to determine.

kingstreet

There were two undisclosed "minor infractions" as you choose to term them, not one.

The OP was advised to undertake dummy quotes to see what the premiums would have been, had he declared the convictions correctly.

He was then told he had the right to make a complaint, then escalate it to the FOS, if unhappy with the result.

If you feel it necessary to resurrect a thread dead for over nine months in a sense of outrage fine, but at least read the thing thoroughly first!

kavorka

kingstreet wrote: »

There were two undisclosed "minor infractions" as you choose to term them, not one.

The OP was advised to undertake dummy quotes to see what the premiums would have been, had he declared the convictions correctly.

He was then told he had the right to make a complaint, then escalate it to the FOS, if unhappy with the result.

If you feel it necessary to resurrect a thread dead for over nine months in a sense of outrage fine, but at least read the thing thoroughly first!

I did read 'the thing thoroughly' as I did the many responses that followed including yours. Your 'new information' makes absolutely no difference to any of the points I raised above and renders none of them invalid. If you plug in 1 or 5 SP30s or whatever it makes no difference to the premium in all the online quote systems I tried. I don't particularly care how old this thread is because it is read by many of the public TODAY and contains information relevant to many current victims' cases. I truly hope the OP took their claim to the FOS though I suspect they didn't due to a plethora of poor advice. If they did and they are still around id very much like to hear the outcome.

Finally if you'd like to comment on a thread I've resurrected at least day something relevant to the discussion

kingstreet

So, did you try a SP50 and a TS10, or just multiple SP50s, as the outcome may be different if you use the true offences, not those you feel like, or which suit your argument?

FWIW I don't judge, nor favour, one side over another. I set out the OP's options clearly and concisely and if they achieve the outcome they deserve, I'm happy.

I look forward to reading your advice to others in the next few years, on the many other issues which face financial services consumers.

dunstonh

If you plug in 1 or 5 SP30s or whatever it makes no difference to the premium in all the online quote systems I tried.

You are doing something wrong then. Five SP30s would be an interesting one.