Car Insurance non-declared points

jonesMUFCforever

MountainMan101 wrote: »

If the original poster had been involved in an accident (supposing he was clearly responsible), would the insurer have paid out or claimed he was uninsured due to not letting them know.

If they would have paid out then I think he should pay them the money owed. If they would have got out of it - which would have looked very tempting if the crash was tens of thousands of pounds, then I think they should refer the matter to the police and ideally he'd lose his license for driving uninsured.

Philip

It is my opinion that they would have paid out any third party costs but would have not paid anything due to him.

dunstonh

However, what they cannot now do is backdate the loading to previous years.

Yes they can.

The OP failed to pay the correct amount for the level of risk taken and they are allowed to backdate it to the time the points were added or they took on the risk.

As for the FOS and whether a claim would be paid or not, the FOS would look at whether non disclosure was deliberate or accidental. As you will see from the copy and paste below, the FOS consider that offences over 4 years maybe "innocent non-disclosure". This would indicate that if the offence was less than 4 years old at the time then they would not uphold your complaint.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]fraudulent or deliberate non-disclosure
If we consider that a policyholder’s non-disclosure (or misrepresentation) involved a material fact, induced the firm to offer the policy (on the relevant terms), and was fraudulent or clearly deliberate, then the firm can decline to meet the claim, as well as ‘voiding’ the policy ‘from inception’ (cancelling it from its starting point). It can also decline to return the premiums and seek to recover money it has paid out to the policyholder in relation to previous claims under that policy. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]innocent non-disclosure
Conversely, if the policyholder’s non-disclosure is innocent, then the firm should meet the claim in full, regardless of whether, if it had known of the matter that was not disclosed, it would have increased the premium or refused to offer cover.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]We are likely to conclude that non-disclosure is innocent if the questions posed by the firm were not clear (or did not clearly apply to the fact(s) in question). We are also likely to conclude this if we consider it was reasonable for the policyholder to have overlooked the fact(s) that he or she failed to disclose. This could be the case, for example, with minor childhood ailments or minor motoring offences that occurred more than four years earlier. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Of course, policyholders have no duty to disclose information that they are not, in fact, aware of.
Inevitably, most of the disputes we see lie somewhere between these two extremes. In dealing with them we try to distinguish between those cases where the policyholder seems to have been reckless, and those where the non-disclosure seems more the result of a genuine oversight or inadvertent error. [/SIZE][/FONT]

meester

dunstonh wrote: »

Yes they can.

The OP failed to pay the correct amount for the level of risk taken and they are allowed to backdate it to the time the points were added or they took on the risk.

As for the FOS and whether a claim would be paid or not, the FOS would look at whether non disclosure was deliberate or accidental. As you will see from the copy and paste below, the FOS consider that offences over 4 years maybe "innocent non-disclosure". This would indicate that if the offence was less than 4 years old at the time then they would not uphold your complaint.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]fraudulent or deliberate non-disclosure[/SIZE][/FONT]
[SIZE=-1][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]If we consider that a policyholder’s non-disclosure (or misrepresentation) involved a material fact, induced the firm to offer the policy (on the relevant terms), and was fraudulent or clearly deliberate, then the firm can decline to meet the claim, as well as ‘voiding’ the policy ‘from inception’ (cancelling it from its starting point). It can also decline to return the premiums and seek to recover money it has paid out to the policyholder in relation to previous claims under that policy. [/FONT][/SIZE]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]innocent non-disclosure[/SIZE][/FONT]
[SIZE=-1][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Conversely, if the policyholder’s non-disclosure is innocent, then the firm should meet the claim in full, regardless of whether, if it had known of the matter that was not disclosed, it would have increased the premium or refused to offer cover.[/FONT][/SIZE]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]We are likely to conclude that non-disclosure is innocent if the questions posed by the firm were not clear (or did not clearly apply to the fact(s) in question). We are also likely to conclude this if we consider it was reasonable for the policyholder to have overlooked the fact(s) that he or she failed to disclose. This could be the case, for example, with minor childhood ailments or minor motoring offences that occurred more than four years earlier. [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Of course, policyholders have no duty to disclose information that they are not, in fact, aware of.[/SIZE][/FONT]
[SIZE=-1][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Inevitably, most of the disputes we see lie somewhere between these two extremes. In dealing with them we try to distinguish between those cases where the policyholder seems to have been reckless, and those where the non-disclosure seems more the result of a genuine oversight or inadvertent error. [/FONT][/SIZE]

I am not sure why you are telling people insurers can claim ADDITIONAL premium for previous years, when that clearly says that in the worst case, deliberate non-disclosure

"the firm can decline to meet the claim, as well as ‘voiding’ the policy ‘from inception’ (cancelling it from its starting point). It can also decline to return the premiums and seek to recover money it has paid out to the policyholder in relation to previous claims under that policy. "

in other words:

refuse to pay any claims, claim back the cost of any past claims, and not pay back any premiums paid to date.

But it does certainly not say they can charge additional premiums unilaterally!

anna42hmr

i work for an insurance company, and have seen customers being charged back dated premiums for non disclosure, not just on penalty points etc but also on undeclared modifications, and "fronting" etc when they have been 100% sure customers have knowingly hid the information.

in my opinion, you should just pay the backdated premiums (though if you talk to them, they may be willing to negotiate a lower price) and learn from it in the future,

by the way, some insurers state that points on licences should be advised to them at the point of them being applied to the licence and not the next renewal date

raskazz

meester wrote: »

But it does certainly not say they can charge additional premiums unilaterally!

But nor does it state that they cannot charge additional premiums for non-disclosure.

It is perfectly legitimate for the insurer to do this.

rejory

Thanks for everyone's input. While I was never trying to excuse the accrual of licence points I was still a bit shocked that they could do this. Regarding the points, that some posters would wish me to lose my licence for, I have since found out that 3 of the points should not have been due because the camera was on the other side of the road another 3 was on a deserted motorway at 2am where it went from 70 to 50 and I hadn't noticed and as for the split second procrastination before going through a red light in a deserted town centre at a similar time they are all things that I have paid the price for. regarding my appeal there was hope of intervention or help from Martin & the Guardian money pages neither of which materialised unfortunately by which time the debt collector's were after me.
The latest situation is I have spoken to the insurers to try and reach a settlement, they are inflexible but have put the case on hold. I have spoken to the financial ombudsman who said they are entitled to do this. It looks like I will have to pay (so some of you will be overjoyed). It is a lesson learnt that is for sure. I was always willing to pay at least my last year's increased premium. I'm sure all would agree a thousand pounds is quite a harsh lesson!
Happy Money Saving

Tozer

I admire the OP's frankness and acceptance (albeit rather late) of responsibility.

Bottom line is that as the insurance company did not have to pay out on a claim, they haven't actually suffered any loss by the non-disclosure. They should bear that in mind when trying to agree a settlement.

Hey_Dude

Oscar_The_Grouch wrote: »

Hi there,

When you take out insurance (including at each annual renewal) you are required to tell your insurers of any changes to your circumstances. They are under the same obligation and have to tell you about any changes they are making to your policy that could affect the cover they provide. This is the "disclosure of material facts".

Let's face it, that's only fair!!

When they send you the renewal details, they will tell you what information they are basing it on. If you do not tell them it has changed (if you were insuring a 2 bed semi in Bath and then moved to a 2 bed semi in the centre of London, the risk has changed. In your case, you have gone from "clean driver" to "one SP30 short of a ban"), they do not know. Insurers are quite nice and rather than calling this "fraud" they call it "non-disclosure".

The key here is whether you have made any claims during the time you have been with your insurers. If not, then you may be able to strike a deal. If you have, make arrangements to pay them the premium you owe them and live with it. If not:

1. Call your insuurer (not the broker - look for the name of the insurer on the certificate).
2. Give them your policy number or the "certificate" number off your certificate of motor insurance and say that you need to speak to the Manager of the Underwriting Department or the Manager of the Complaint Department. Don't speak to anyone else and if they will not put you through, ask for the address of the Managing Directors Office.
3. Explain to them that you did not realise that you should have told them about the points on your licence. Tell them that you do not have the money to pay them the premium they are asking for and suggest that if you "lapse" (cancel from renewal) your policy, as you want to anyway, you will not have to refer the matter to the Financial Ombudsman if they agree to waive the outstanding premium from the prior years. They should agree as it will cost them more to chase you than to write it off. At worst, ask them for a breakdown in the costs by year and offer to pay 50% of the last years additional premium.

Now, I have been criticised for telling people to go to the Ombudsman before because it costs the insurers money (£400+ a pop) and could result in the Ombudsman deciding to charge policyholders in the future for new complaints. I don't think the insurers or Ombudsman could get away with this (you don't pay to submit a question to any other ombudsman), so give it a go!!

Remember, before you can refer to the Ombudsman, your insurer MUST have sent you a "final decision letter", otherwise they can delay by up to 8 weeks. If your insurer is not willing to waive the money, ask them for their final decision letter, including the "you and the Ombudsman" leaflet that you are entitled to.

The final decision letter (according to the FSA DISP Handbook - which is available on line at http://fsahandbook.info/FSA/html/handbook/DISP) must confirm that it is the final decision of the insurer, that if you are not satisfied you may refer to the Financial Ombudsman Service and that you only have 6 months to do this from the date of their letter.

Good luck and let us know how you get on.

A terrible post.

Dear me.

I am truly lost for words

Dude

jonesMUFCforever

rejory wrote: »

Regarding the points, that some posters would wish me to lose my licence for, I have since found out that 3 of the points should not have been due because the camera was on the other side of the road another 3 was on a deserted motorway at 2am where it went from 70 to 50 and I hadn't noticed and as for the split second procrastination before going through a red light in a deserted town centre at a similar time they are all things that I have paid the price for.

You have lost the argument all the way but you still don't accept responsibility for your poor driving skills do you.
Who cares which side of the road the bloody camera was on it got you didn't it?

masgio

Hi there,
My story is very similar to many other people on the forum. Last year my insurance was renewed and I do not remember if I declared my 3 points (CU80). The strange thing is that I have declared them on my wife policy and somehow missed it on mine. I have followed your steps and tried to dispute the charges and cancelled the policy.
Waited for their correspondence which somehow was received a week after the writing date and replied immediately.
In my letter I was disputing their charges as they were demanding charges on a retrospective bases and for more in case of a claim they would have void my contract and disallow the claim.
I have now, instead of receiving a reply, gota demand from a collection agency threatening me to take legal action if I don't pay.
This is the first time I deal with debt collector and I don't know what can happen.
What do you suggest I should do?
Thanks