Car insurance and speed awareness course

Double_V

ChumLee wrote: »

ACPO no longer exist.

+1
Yeah, it's now NPCC (National Police Cheifs Council).

System

ChumLee wrote: »

ACPO no longer exist.

Change of name - same people

GabbaGabbaHey

Joe_Horner wrote: »

If they don't ask you don't need to tell them.

Are you sure of that?

Most/all insurance companies require you to declare any "material facts" which might affect your insurance, regardless of whether you are explicitly asked about them.

I can envisage circumstances where not declaring a SAC could cause them to refuse to pay out on a future claim (especially one where excessive speed was a causal factor).

Quentin

GabbaGabbaHey wrote: »

Are you sure of that?

Most/all insurance companies require you to declare any "material facts" which might affect your insurance, regardless of whether you are explicitly asked about them.

I can envisage circumstances where not declaring a SAC could cause them to refuse to pay out on a future claim (especially one where excessive speed was a causal factor).

ignore this scaremongering.

You are only required to answer the questions asked.

(We aren't required to volunteer any info not asked about)

System

From a report by the Chartered Insurance Institute (http://www.cii.co.uk/media/4048082/cii_new_generation_uw_group_-_speed_awareness_courses_-_the_implications_for_insurance.pdf)

Financial Services Authority (FSA) and the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS)

The FSA advised that they had not been made aware of any contested claims or complaints referred to on the basis of speed awareness courses and their disclosure.
The FOS also advised that they were not aware of any motor claims that had been repudiated on the basis of non-disclosure of attendance at a speed awareness course. The opinion of the FOS was that insurers would need to make it very clear to customers at the point of sale that they considered speed awareness course attendance to be a material fact which must be disclosed. As the policyholder has no motoring convictions they would not be expected to declare that they had attended a course unless an insurer asked the question specifically.

Johno100

Quentin wrote: »

ignore this scaremongering.

You are only required to answer the questions asked.

(We aren't required to volunteer any info not asked about)

But we are talking about renewal of a policy here not it's initial inception.

Joe_Horner

GabbaGabbaHey wrote: »

Are you sure of that?

Most/all insurance companies require you to declare any "material facts" which might affect your insurance, regardless of whether you are explicitly asked about them.

I can envisage circumstances where not declaring a SAC could cause them to refuse to pay out on a future claim (especially one where excessive speed was a causal factor).

Yes, quite sure thanks (see link provided by !!!!!! above) :beer:

dacouch

!!!!!! wrote: »

From a report by the Chartered Insurance Institute (http://www.cii.co.uk/media/4048082/cii_new_generation_uw_group_-_speed_awareness_courses_-_the_implications_for_insurance.pdf)

I've not seen that case before.

Thanks.

That is of course the correct stance for the Ombudsman to adopt on SAC declaration.

It's a good demonstration of how the recentish change in law requiring Insurers to ask specific questions and for the consumer to only have to answer the questions answered.

They do not have to second guess the Insurer and declare anything that was specifically asked.

Quentin

Johno100 wrote: »

But we are talking about renewal of a policy here not it's initial inception.

Equally irrelevant

Your policy will spell out what changes you have to notify your insurer about at renewal.

And still no need to tell them anything they don't ask about.

Skintski

My Dad has recently had a course and on the letter it said the only place this information was held was on the police database. Not even the DVLA are informed. That was from Thames Valley Police.