Backdating and reinstating insurance

System

I suppose if it is the result of a genuine error they could split hairs and say it is not actually backdating, it is merely acknowledging that the policy commencement date was earlier, it's just that no one realised it at the time.

A bit like the difference between an annulment and a divorce, only the other way round. A divorce cancels a marriage from a given day, an annulment says it never happened.

Cpu2007

As a result of their error, I was driving the car uninsured without knowing, they said that because the police didn't stop me so it's fine.

Quentin

As they have seemingly agreed this was in error, then they would have supplied the required paperwork to show the police had you been stopped.


And dealt with any claim had you been involved in any incident.


As you say you knew nothing about it, it looks no harm done.

huckster

InsideInsurance wrote: »

I can see a fair few small websites saying similar mentioning the RTA but no one mentions any sections. A few say even backdating to covernote dates could be considered illegal however its common practice (so evidently the sites are old as cannot remember the last covernote I saw). A few do however say there is no case law on the matter.

Would be interested to see the exact terms people are referring to, certainly I've known insurers to backdate new motor policies when they've messed up but none of the sites are mentioning any exception for this.

RTA section 174

(5)A person who makes a false statement or withholds any material information for the purpose of obtaining the issue—
(a)of a certificate of insurance or certificate of security under Part VI of this Act, or
(b)of any document issued under regulations made by the Secretary of State in pursuance of his power under section 165(2)(a) of this Act to prescribe evidence which may be produced in lieu of a certificate of insurance or a certificate of security,
is guilty of an offence.

So this basically means that someone who backdates Insurance, when cover was not arranged at the time, would be committing an offence. S 175 covers issuing false documents. So if Joe Bloggs an Insurance clerk backdates Insurance to help out a mate who was stopped driving without Insurance, they would be guilty of an offence under the RTA. But someone who legitamately backdates Insurance documents to when cover was actually arranged, would not be committing any offence. As someone else says, it is actually not backdating, it is just issuing documents showing the correct date/time cover was arranged.

InsideInsurance

huckster wrote: »

RTA section 174

(5)A person who makes a false statement or withholds any material information for the purpose of obtaining the issue—
(a)of a certificate of insurance or certificate of security under Part VI of this Act, or
(b)of any document issued under regulations made by the Secretary of State in pursuance of his power under section 165(2)(a) of this Act to prescribe evidence which may be produced in lieu of a certificate of insurance or a certificate of security,
is guilty of an offence.

So this basically means that someone who backdates Insurance, when cover was not arranged at the time, would be committing an offence. S 175 covers issuing false documents. So if Joe Bloggs an Insurance clerk backdates Insurance to help out a mate who was stopped driving without Insurance, they would be guilty of an offence under the RTA. But someone who legitamately backdates Insurance documents to when cover was actually arranged, would not be committing any offence. As someone else says, it is actually not backdating, it is just issuing documents showing the correct date/time cover was arranged.

Hope its kept you entertained this afternoon :A

If you string it together as a sentence (for those thick people like me who struggle with the legalese layouts) you effectively get:

A person who makes a false statement or withholds any material information for the purpose of obtaining the issue of a certificate of insurance or certificate of security under Part VI of this Act is guilty of an offence

Now if I were an underwriter and duly authorised and produced a cert of insurance giving a backdated date and the insurer fully intends to give TP cover as of that date I dont see what the false statement is or withheld material information would be. Obviously trying to fake a cert or breaching your authority to create one would.

I wonder if its true about there being no case law on prosecutions for this?

It would seem a fraud/ perverting course of justice would be an easier route of prosecution and could be the cause of lack of caselaw

Cpu2007

huckster wrote: »

As someone else says, it is actually not backdating, it is just issuing documents showing the correct date/time cover was arranged.

and this doesn't make much sense to me as in practical you aren't really showing the correct date/time cover was arranged but actually creating a sort of new one. Your statement suggest that the cancellation notice from the insurance company doesn't matter.

My understanding here is that there are simply double standards.

An insurance company job is to provide support in case something goes wrong (damages,accidents etc.)

The customer pays the insurance to drive the car so that if something goes wrong, the insurance company covers it.

If the insurance cancels your insurance then you're not covered (even if it's done by mistake) but the insurance company can create documents showing they would have covered the driver even if it wasn't insured.

By this logic, can't the driver simply decide not to have an insurance and state that he would have covered damages had something gone wrong.

rs65

Cpu2007 wrote: »

By this logic, can't the driver simply decide not to have an insurance and state that he would have covered damages had something gone wrong.

I don't see logic there. A driver can't insure themself (other than by bond).

huckster

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Hope its kept you entertained this afternoon :A

If you string it together as a sentence (for those thick people like me who struggle with the legalese layouts) you effectively get:

A person who makes a false statement or withholds any material information for the purpose of obtaining the issue of a certificate of insurance or certificate of security under Part VI of this Act is guilty of an offence

Now if I were an underwriter and duly authorised and produced a cert of insurance giving a backdated date and the insurer fully intends to give TP cover as of that date I dont see what the false statement is or withheld material information would be. Obviously trying to fake a cert or breaching your authority to create one would.

I wonder if its true about there being no case law on prosecutions for this?

It would seem a fraud/ perverting course of justice would be an easier route of prosecution and could be the cause of lack of caselaw

I had forgotten than MSE was a place for long arguments about a simple issue.

My understanding is that with legislation where it has 'or' in a sentence you would read that it can be either of the things before and after 'or'. So the meaning would be A person who makes a false statement for the purpose of obtaining the issue of a certificate of insurance or certificate of security.

So then the argument is what was the intention of legislators. Is this about a policyholder making a false statement to obtain Insurance or could also be an Insurance clerk using false information they know to be false to issue a certificate of Insurance.

I agree with your last paragraph " It would seem a fraud/ perverting course of justice would be an easier route of prosecution and could be the cause of lack of caselaw"

InsideInsurance

huckster wrote: »

I had forgotten than MSE was a place for long arguments about a simple issue.

My understanding is that with legislation where it has 'or' in a sentence you would read that it can be either of the things before and after 'or'. So the meaning would be A person who makes a false statement for the purpose of obtaining the issue of a certificate of insurance or certificate of security.

So then the argument is what was the intention of legislators. Is this about a policyholder making a false statement to obtain Insurance or could also be an Insurance clerk using false information they know to be false to issue a certificate of Insurance.

Well it is a discussion forum and discussions can go on for a while even on possibly simple things.

I ignored the "or certificate of security" as I assume this is what you receive if you make the £0.5m deposit to the court which then excludes you from requiring motor insurance and so was fairly irrelevant to the discussion/ "simple issue".

My question is, what false information the insurance clerk is using? They arent saying the customer was insured yesterday they are saying we will cover the insured for their RTA liabilities between the dates listed on the certificate and the start date happens to be before the date it was created.

Outside of motor insurance it isnt necessarily uncommon for contracts to be retroactive. I know this year some of our reinsurance treaties werent executed until May despite being effective from 1st Jan and there was no formal letter of intent/ memorandum of understanding or any other pre-contract agreement that you could in any way say was a proxy of a cover note.