Drink Drive Charge - Question

uk1

DarbyM wrote: »

She decided to not disclose that information so her employee and insurer are currently unaware.

Will she need to then update her insurer once the punishment is decided?

I fear that when she completed the accident claim form, by not stating that the police attended, and that she failed the tests, was cautioned and reported for drink driving that she has increased the likelihood of the insurers demanding repayment and almost certainly cancelling the policy. By not disclosing a material fact on the claim form she has misled them and they are not going to be happy. She should also stop driving as technically she is probably or at best possibly not covered from the time she failed to accurately report the accident. It is a grey area she should be cautious about. A drink driving offence followed by a driving whilst uninsured won’t be good.

As the car she was driving was the property of her employers it is sensible that she discloses to her employer the full facts as quickly as she can.

iammumtoone

I also suggest she reads her work contract very carefully.


She has destroyed company property by drink driving, they have given her another car under false pretenses. The company have might have lost money due to this situation.



As the car is not used for her work, it probably would have been possible she could keep her job but she has withheld information companies do not like that. I am no expert but she needs to read the contract regarding the car and her obligations due to this.

Aretnap

Worth adding that her alcohol level classifies her as a high risk offender and she will have to prove that she doesn't have a drink problem before she can get her licence back at all. The court won't necessarily tell her this as it's a DVLA scheme rather than one imposed by the courts.

https://www.drinkdriving.org/drink_driving_information_DVLA_medical.php#hro

DCFC79

DarbyM wrote: »

Apologies I meant, does the court update her insurance records or does she need to update them?

Cant say for sure but she should be informing the insurers asap of the important facts.

dacouch

uk1 wrote: »

I fear that when she completed the accident claim form, by not stating that the police attended, and that she failed the tests, was cautioned and reported for drink driving that she has increased the likelihood of the insurers demanding repayment and almost certainly cancelling the policy. By not disclosing a material fact on the claim form she has misled them and they are not going to be happy. She should also stop driving as technically she is probably or at best possibly not covered from the time she failed to accurately report the accident. It is a grey area she should be cautious about. A drink driving offence followed by a driving whilst uninsured won’t be good.

As the car she was driving was the property of her employers it is sensible that she discloses to her employer the full facts as quickly as she can.

She does not need to volunteer this information to the Insurer unless they ask about it.

As Dangermac mention, fleet policies tend not to have the invalidation clause for drink driving as the Insurers rights of recovery are against the Employer and not the employee.

Not disclosing the drink driving to the Employer is a different matter and not likely to be well received by many Employers

Lorian

dacouch wrote: »

As Dangermac mention, fleet policies tend not to have the invalidation clause for drink driving as the Insurers rights of recovery are against the Employer and not the employee.

Doesn't look like it was insured by the company

DarbyM wrote: »

Hi All,
It gets more complicated, its a company car but she has to insure it.

uk1

dacouch wrote: »

She does not need to volunteer this information to the Insurer unless they ask about it.

As Dangermac mention, fleet policies tend not to have the invalidation clause for drink driving as the Insurers rights of recovery are against the Employer and not the employee.

Not disclosing the drink driving to the Employer is a different matter and not likely to be well received by many Employers

Reread fhe OP. It isn’t a fleet policy. The driver arranged cover. The driver was oblgated to disclose all material facts when making the claim. I am suprised you think that they only need to disclose it if specifically asked. You are obligated to FULLY answer all questions. The suggestion that they needn’t record that they were drunk whilst criminally driving is absurd. Itis the same obigation as when completing the proposal form.

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/46/46_non_disclosure_insurance.htm

"clearly reckless" non-disclosure

We are likely to conclude that non-disclosure is "clearly reckless" if a policyholder appears not to have had any regard for accuracy when completing the proposal form. Typically, in such cases, the matters the policyholder failed to disclose will be of significance, and will have been well-known by the policyholder. We will probably have found it difficult to believe that the policyholder could simply have overlooked these matters. But we will not have found sufficient grounds to conclude that the non-disclosure was deliberate.

In such cases, we consider that the firm can decline to meet the claim and can cancel the policy from its start date. The firm should normally return the premiums paid. It can also seek to recover whatever it may have paid the policyholder in relation to previous claims made under the policy.

Quentin

uk1 wrote: »

The driver was oblgated to disclose all material facts when making the claim. I am suprised you think that they only need to disclose it if specifically asked. You are obligated to FULLY answer all questions

The driver is not "obligated" to decide on what is and isn't material when making a claim


You are only required to answer the questions asked and there is no need to "FULLY" do so if you mean by that to volunteer anything not specifically asked



From the FOS link in your post:

The insurer must first provide evidence that it asked the customer a clear question when the customer asked to take out or renew a policy

(Separately though the policyholder must comply with the policy conditions which in many cases does require that any driving related NIPs are reported to the Insurer - so the OP's sister could well be in trouble with her insurer should her policy include that requirement)

iammumtoone

.I get that you only have to answer the questions ask and don't have to give extra information but do insurance companies not ask as standard if there is a police investigation when there has been an incident?

uk1

iammumtoone wrote: »

.I get that you only have to answer the questions ask and don't have to give extra information but do insurance companies not ask as standard if there is a police investigation when there has been an incident?

You need to apply a degree of common sense when reading opinions ......

Claimants are under an obligation to provide all relevant information, and if some want to interpret that as meaning you needn't disclose that you are being prosecuted for the crime of being drunk when you wrote off two cars then that choice doesn't sound particularly prudent and risk-free to me. Deception by omission is still deception. What applies is what is "reasonable". You decide! Insurers are obligated to provide cover to third-parties but are also entitled to pursue policy holders for lossess if they feel they were misled.

I haven't read every motor claim form but I do know that many ask specifically if police attended the accident and many also instruct claimants to inform the insurers if they receive any communications from the police. The reason why insurers ask this is because they do not want to be in a situation where they are denying liability on behalf of their insured only to find subsequently that their insured is being prosecuted for an incriminating motoring offence.