Car Insurance- 3 Speeding points

nobbysn*ts

kingstreet wrote: »

I said the request for payment is reasonable in the circumstances. I didn't say anything about the amount. Only the OP can realistically say what the premiums were over the period in question and whether the amount requested feels reasonable.

If the premium was £500 each year and £200 is the extra premium for a couple of years, then I'd say 20% per annum is a little on the high side and I'd be asking questions.

If the premium was £1,000 a year, then the addition is a lower proportion.

Unfortunately, we can't determine from here what amount would be reasonable without knowing the insured's circumstances.

I merely explained that charging a premium to make up what has been missed is acceptable to FOS in the case of what is deemed to be innocent or inadvertent non-disclosure.

No, you were specific. You say - "In cases of claims and complaint where there has been unintentional/innocent non-disclosure, the FOS has deemed the insurer's requirement for the increased premium for the time inbetween to be a reasonable compromise. IMHO the request for the payment is reasonable here. " - Very clearly you say the payment, twice, the payment here being the £200 the op stated. Not "a premium", that could be justifiably a lot lower, or even zero. But at least now you agree the op should be getting a comparable price to see if the payment is unreasonable. And complain to the FOS if it is.

kingstreet

Yes, I apologise if it read that I was suggesting the £200 in question was reasonable. As I said, I had no comparison on which to base reasonability.

My intention was to affirm the practice of requesting an additional premium in cases of unintentional non-disclosure was acceptable to FOS.

I will endeavour to express myself more clearly in future.

I have amended the post on which you expressed such forensic interest.

nobbysn*ts

kingstreet wrote: »

Yes, I apologise if it read that I was suggesting the £200 in question was reasonable. As I said, I had no comparison on which to base reasonability.

My intention was to affirm the practice of requesting an additional premium in cases of unintentional non-disclosure was acceptable to FOS.

I will endeavour to express myself more clearly in future.

I have amended the post on which you expressed such forensic interest.

Reads much better now.