Car Insurance - Data Protection Act

RatCav

Hi folks.

11 months ago I took out an insurance policy (Octagon Insurance) for my girlfriend. We live together and I am a named driver on the policy as a common law partner/spouse.

I set it all up and the payments even go out from my bank account by direct debit. We are in the process of changing the car and I want to swap it to the new vehicle. Due to various reasons she cannot do it and needs the new car. The Insurance company is saying that even though I am a named driver, the bank account is in my name and I am paying for it, I have all the details and security stuff I cannot do it. It has to be her. I am being told it is due to a recent change in the Data Protection Act. Is this right?

Cheers
Neal

hop3y

Yes - why don't you pass the phone to her and get her to tell them it's okay to deal with you.

GingerBob_3

hop3y wrote: »

Yes - why don't you pass the phone to her and get her to tell them it's okay to deal with you.

So what's the change?

InsideInsurance

Its not due to recent changes in the DPA, there havent been any for many a year.

It is the norm that insurers wont take instructions from anyone other than the policyholder post setting up the policy. A malicious recently/ soon to be "ex" could otherwise phone up, take their partner off the policy/ cancel it and then sit back and laugh as their partner gets arrested for driving without insurance.

Some wont allow you to set up insurance for someone else as this could too cause some problems if the person was doing it maliciously but its a much more tenuous set of circumstances that would trigger that causing major problems and so others arent as bothered.

glentoran99

Always find it farcical, basically any Woman could do it if they have the right info, but you cant as your a man,




It seems to be down to the individual answering the phone, I arrange my wifes insurance and any changes all the time but just once got a jobsworth who wouldn't let me, I hung up and phone back and got someone else who would

RatCav

hop3y wrote: »

Yes - why don't you pass the phone to her and get her to tell them it's okay to deal with you.

Because she is in a field 200 miles away, with no phone reception, and now cannot drive legally to a location where there is signal.

What if my partner couldn't speak say from illness, accident etc etc. It is a bit ridiculous. As for protecting against malicious ex-partners I resolved that one by changing my security questions and answers. It seems that these things are brought in to make things incredibly annoying/impossible to deal with in a legitimate manner.

InsideInsurance

How is the new car going to get to her if she is in the field in the middle of no where with no mobile signal?

Ultimately given, in theory, the person answering the call is risking imprisonment and their employers a £0.5m fine it is down to them to balance the need for protection against the greater good and ultimately that comes down to how plausible stories are etc, possible consequences of it being wrong etc.

dunstonh

It is a bit ridiculous.

Whilst you may think that way, there are plenty of others that would make a complaint that information was given/taken when it shouldnt. They cant win. So, sticking to the law makes more sense.

Quentin

RatCav wrote: »

Because she is in a field 200 miles away, with no phone reception, and now cannot drive legally to a location where there is signal......

How you gonna inform her she is safe to drive?


(If you have a trustworthy female in your circle could she be taught the security questions and impersonate the policy holder and instruct the insurer to speak with you)

magpiecottage

RatCav wrote: »

We live together and I am a named driver on the policy as a common law partner/spouse.

Whatever the Data Protection Act says, the law says there is no such thing as a common law spouse. That means you are simply a named driver.

Quentin

magpiecottage wrote: »

Whatever the Data Protection Act says, the law says there is no such thing as a common law spouse. That means you are simply a named driver.

"common law spouse" is the definition used to describe the named driver's relationship to the Proposer when completing an application, and doesn't have to comply with the "law"! And where does DPA come into it?


(You probably would refer to it as living in sin??)