Spent convictions & insurance

AdrianC

Aretnap wrote: »

B..b..b..but... I read on the internet that it was fine to lie to my insurance company about them because the insurers would never find out! Are you really saying that people on the internet aren't always right?

There's a difference between insurers finding out from the people who run the partnerships, and finding out because you've shouted about it publicly.

rudekid48

Aretnap wrote: »

B..b..b..but... I read on the internet that it was fine to lie to my insurance company about them because the insurers would never find out! Are you really saying that people on the internet aren't always right?

Shocking isn't it

Checking social media profiles (particularly facebook et al) is increasingly common and forms part of many anti-fraud systems that are now in use.

There's already been a lot of success with weeding out dodgy injury claims etc

Doesn't stop people living their life on FB though...

Johno100

Back on planet earth.:o

Who really thinks an insurer is going to locate a new customers social postings and search on the off chance they might have mentoned in passing they attended a speed awareness course, all to add a few extra quid to a premium?

rudekid48

Johno100 wrote: »

Back on planet earth.:o

Who really thinks an insurer is going to locate a new customers social postings and search on the off chance they might have mentoned in passing they attended a speed awareness course, all to add a few extra quid to a premium?

Of course, you are correct....

Car_54

It seems they have found out - by whatever means - that a false declaration was made, and responded with a £30 admin fee. Doesn't that seem astonishingly lenient?

Johno100

rudekid48 wrote: »

Of course, you are correct....

Thank you.

Car_54 wrote: »

It seems they have found out - by whatever means - that a false declaration was made, and responded with a £30 admin fee. Doesn't that seem astonishingly lenient?

But the poster in question was just a named driver on his/her son's (new driver) policy. An attended speed awareness course isn't measurably going to increase any calculation of risk on the policy.

AdrianC

Johno100 wrote: »

But the poster in question was just a named driver on his/her son's (new driver) policy.

And never mind FB - I suspect that's the key to how the SAC was discovered. Inconsistency between policies. Declared on one, not declared on another.

Johno100

AdrianC wrote: »

And never mind FB - I suspect that's the key to how the SAC was discovered. Inconsistency between policies. Declared on one, not declared on another.

Possible, but doubtful going on what the poster in question said.

As his mother we didn't think this had to be declared for his insurance. And to be honest because it avoided any points on my licence I didn't think it had to be declared at all. Am I wrong in this assumption??

Perhaps she is a named driver on another Admiral group of companies policy and that policyholder (husband/significant other?) has disclosed her attendence on the course.

dacouch

Johno100 wrote: »

Back on planet earth.:o

Who really thinks an insurer is going to locate a new customers social postings and search on the off chance they might have mentoned in passing they attended a speed awareness course, all to add a few extra quid to a premium?

The Insurer does not need to do it, they could simply buy a database containing it from a company who have seen a gap in the market and written the software to scrape Facebook for the info.

It's the sort of thing a company such as Admiral who tend to be ahead of the curve on technology would do. Especially as they have been asking about SACs and applying loadings for SAC for a few years now, so any they discover they can legitimately request a back dated premium for