Car stolen ..forgot I had 3 points from 2 years ago

JimmyTheWig

marleyboy wrote: »

One can be forgiven for not being in the right frame of mind and forgetting a 2 Yr old penalty when they have just found their car has been stolen.

Presumably the time that they forgot the two year old penalty was when they took out the policy, not when they needed to claim on it.

trollopscarletwoman

It's like the old MOT question.

Does lack of MOT invalidate your insurance.

No it does not. Not unless expressly mentioned in the policy-yet to see one that does. And I change my insurance virtually every year.

rs65

trollopscarletwoman wrote: »

It's like the old MOT question.

Does lack of MOT invalidate your insurance.

No it does not. Not unless expressly mentioned in the policy-yet to see one that does. And I change my insurance virtually every year.

It is not like that at all, irrelevant.

OP, read up on the Consumer Insurance Act mentioned above. Hopefully you didn't try quotes with the points then incept a policy without them.

Aretnap

antrobus wrote: »

Dunno about that.

If the insurer cannot show that the misrepresentation affected its decision about whether (or how) to offer cover, we are unlikely to agree it was fair for it to:

• avoid the policy
• charge an additional premium or
• apply additional terms to the policy

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/misrepresentation-and-non-disclosure.htm#a5.

The key phrase being "whether or how" to offer cover. You're right that if they would have offered exactly the same cover on exactly the same terms then the fact is not a material one and insurer can't avoid the policy or reduce the settlement, full stop. However if they would have offered cover on different terms (for example, at a higher price) then it becomes non-disclosure of a material fact and the terms of the Consumer Insurance Act kick in - which allow a proportional settlement in the case of carelessness, or outright avoidance in the case of deliberate non-disclosure.

The section below the one you've quoted says as much.

And where we decide it is likely that the consumer's misrepresentation was made to obtain a benefit they weren't entitled to - for example, cheaper premiums - we may say it is reasonable for the insurer to keep all the premiums when avoiding the policy

I suppose it's possible that the insurer would have charged exactly the same premium had they known about the points, in which case the OP's in the clear. But the majority of insurers these days would likely have offered cover at a higher price. So the odds are that the OP will see some reduction in the settlement, and could in theory have the policy avoided - but only if there's some evidence that he deliberately kept quiet about the points.