Insurance question for a lunatic

AdrianC

sparkychris wrote: »

I don't get your point

Just putting the "almost half his driving life" into perspective. He's been banned for almost all of the other half of his driving life.

sparkychris

Okay....

He's been driving for 14 years and has been banned for fewer than four so your fractions are slightly askew but I'm not going to nitpick...

As I said... just wondered about his current predicament. Nothing more than that.

AdrianC

sparkychris wrote: »

and has been banned for fewer than four

If we're being picky, he was banned for four - which is the absolute bare minimum - but got let off some of that.

sparkychris

AdrianC wrote: »

If we're being picky, he was banned for four - which is the absolute bare minimum - but got let off some of that.

Covered in post #31

AdrianC

sparkychris wrote: »

Covered in post #31

Yes, I do understand how it works. The ban was for three years, on top of the previous one. His licence was returned early - but the ban was still three years.

Well, I say "his"...?

sparkychris

Well we can both do a big fist pump then because we're both right!

He was banned for three years (you) but he wasn't banned for three years (me)

Aren't we both a pair of bright shiny buttons?

AdrianC

<sigh> You miss my point, probably deliberately.

If "he" has been telling "his" insurer that "he" had a two year ban, then they're going to do one hell of a double-take when they request "his" licence as part of the claim process. Because "he" didn't get sentenced to a shorter ban, which would be a serious first offence. "He" was sentenced to a three-year ban, which is the mandatory minimum for a second offence, but which was reduced because "he" did a rehab course.

As such, "he's" been giving them false information as part of the insurance quotation, which may well lead to a reduced premium. There is a risk of the policy being voided as a result.

This is not just a point of willy-waving pedantry, this is potential fraud, and it could get VERY expensive for "him" as a result.

sparkychris

Where did you get the idea that he (or I, if you like!) told his insurance company he got a two year ban?

He has been completely honest, as far as I'm aware.

My initial query was about future premiums after driving into a merc.

I think we may have crossed wires...

AdrianC

sparkychris wrote: »

Where did you get the idea that he (or I, if you like!) told his insurance company he got a two year ban?

OK, so he was honest and told them it was a three year ban?

dacouch

AdrianC wrote: »

<sigh> You miss my point, probably deliberately.

If "he" has been telling "his" insurer that "he" had a two year ban, then they're going to do one hell of a double-take when they request "his" licence as part of the claim process. Because "he" didn't get sentenced to a shorter ban, which would be a serious first offence. "He" was sentenced to a three-year ban, which is the mandatory minimum for a second offence, but which was reduced because "he" did a rehab course.

As such, "he's" been giving them false information as part of the insurance quotation, which may well lead to a reduced premium. There is a risk of the policy being voided as a result.

This is not just a point of willy-waving pedantry, this is potential fraud, and it could get VERY expensive for "him" as a result.

If the conviction was over five years ago, the Insurer would not know about the ban as the rehabilitation period is five years (Assuming no jail sentence).