Car Insurance Cancelled HELP

GingerBob_3

csgohan4 wrote: »

You can't drive without a license and you can't continue to drive if you keep accumulating penalty points can you? So it's not a right but to be respected and not drive recklessly

This is the key sentence from my post:

It is a right, but it comes with responsibilities and qualifying criteria.

It IS a right, because no one can arbitrarily come along and take away your licence. Although, I remember a few years back some scumbag politicians did want to implement such a undemocratic regime.

paddyandstumpy

Whilst it might be recorded in that one database for 5 years, there are others. SIRA and Hunter to name two more.

Regardless of how long it's held on whatever database; the OP would still need to disclose "yes" to EVER had insurance cancelled (which is usually the question).

Also, any quotes the OP gets in the next 5 years, assuming he discloses it; could then flag as a discrepancy at a later stage of the OP stops disclosing it after a timeframe.

PW333

Thanks for the replies, I appreciate them.

Lets just say there are two Insurance companies A & B,
and there are two 'Database' companies 1 & 2.

Insurance company A reports all claims, cancellations etc. to database company 1

Does the Insurance company B have access to the database that insurance company A has, vice versa?

paddyandstumpy

PW333 wrote: »

Thanks for the replies, I appreciate them.

Lets just say there are two Insurance companies A & B,
and there are two 'Database' companies 1 & 2.

Insurance company A reports all claims, cancellations etc. to database company 1

Does the Insurance company B have access to the database that insurance company A has, vice versa?

In a word; Yes.

GingerBob_3

paddyandstumpy wrote: »

Whilst it might be recorded in that one database for 5 years, there are others. SIRA and Hunter to name two more.

Regardless of how long it's held on whatever database; the OP would still need to disclose "yes" to EVER had insurance cancelled (which is usually the question).

Also, any quotes the OP gets in the next 5 years, assuming he discloses it; could then flag as a discrepancy at a later stage of the OP stops disclosing it after a timeframe.

They all have the same retention period, dictated by the ICO. I recall reading somewhere recently that this question '...EVER...' is deemed to be unfair by the regulators (not sure of the exact circumstances), and quite rightly so, I might add.

paddyandstumpy

OP, until the question is changed (if at all) you need to answer the question as asked.
Regardless of Bob's protestations.

societys_child

PW333 wrote: »

Thanks for the replies, I appreciate them.

Lets just say there are two Insurance companies A & B,
and there are two 'Database' companies 1 & 2.

Insurance company A reports all claims, cancellations etc. to database company 1

Does the Insurance company B have access to the database that insurance company A has, vice versa?

Hoping that this is a way around it, is going to cause you untold grief.
Insurance companies actually talk directly to each other as well, and targetting insurance fraud is high on their list.

wongataa

GingerBob wrote: »

No. Five years.


Driving IS A RIGHT!! We don't yet live in a country like North Korea or Saudi Arabia. It is a right, but it comes with responsibilities and qualifying criteria.

Driving is not a right. It is a privilege that you have when you pass certain criteria (the driving tests). The privilege can be revoked if you have been found to be breaking the rules in a serious way.

If driving was a right there would be no need for driving tests and that would be a bad thing.

indesisiv

PW333 wrote: »

Thanks for the replies, I appreciate them.

Lets just say there are two Insurance companies A & B,
and there are two 'Database' companies 1 & 2.

Insurance company A reports all claims, cancellations etc. to database company 1

Does the Insurance company B have access to the database that insurance company A has, vice versa?

If a good broker can't get you insurance by telling the truth then forget it for the time being.
It will only be worse later on if you lie and get caught. (Which is highly likely)

The whole point of the black box policies are to get people to drive safely as they are terrified of speeding or driving carelessly. Personally if I had one I wouldn't be going over that speed limit fullstop!

ThinkingOutLoud_2

PW333

So I am not judging here but trying to help / guide.

The guys are right - if you commit insurance fraud - you will be writing off your chance of insurance period for years and then it will be pricy. Don't go there.

You don't suggest the black box was lying, so I imagine your insurer saw repeated and elevated risk in your driving speed / style represented and understandably didn't want to pay out for the almost inevitable claim to come.

Being 17 not even 21 makes it more expensive because as you are learning, adult life teaches us tough lessons and we tend to become less reckless as we get older. It is tough to wait, but we cannot have it all from day one.

The suggestion of a broker is a maybe good one in that the tend to have knowledge of insurers who may be willing to take on higher risk. BUT assuming there is one - with an inevitably much higher premium and other costs to run a car - would the daily costs really outweigh the alternative transport options? Even taxis?

Might be worth seeing if some further driver training could improve your profile to an insurer e.g. PassPlus. You need to show you are going to be a good risk to your next insurer.

Finally, it sounds like you own what you have done, that you got lucky not to have many points on your license and / or worse to have hurt yourself or someone else. Don't stay angry, get smart and take the lesson and the consequence on the chin.

Lessons repeat until learned.