Car Insurance policy cancelled with immediate effect on policyholder's death

TooManyPoints

These obstructions are manifestations of insurers procedures. They are not compliances with the DPA because the Act places no such restrictions as those mentioned.

George_Michael

AdrianC wrote: »

Yes, you went on to contradict yourself. I wasn't going to draw attention to that, to save your blushes, just correct the obvious error.

What error?
I stated something that shouldn't happen then gave a couple of exceptions when it didn't apply so no contradiction whatsoever.
If I said that it can't or couldn't happen then there would have been a contradiction,

If I was to state that you shouldn't use a hand held mobile phone when driving then go on to give an example of when you can, is that an obvious error?

Keep digging Adrian and maybe learn the difference between shouldn't and couldn't.

George_Michael

Car_54 wrote: »

What makes you think that?

The insurer is certainly restricted regarding the personal data of living people (e.g. additional drivers), but there's nothing to stop them discussing any other aspect of the policy.

The reason I think what I do (and like most things on forums such as this, it's a personal opinion), is that for an insurer to discuss other aspects of the policy they might first be required to discuss information that may fall under the DPA in order to confirm who they are speaking to (a named driver for example).
With a totally anonymous caller, they would have to be careful about what they did and didn't say.