Pulled over for tints-Getting 6 points for invalid insurance
Discussion
autoshop213 said:
Super Sonic said:
Don't think 'having correct insurance on another car' cuts any ice. Either you updated your insurance to cover the car you drove to work or you didn't. If you did, you will be able to prove it and appeal.
I updated my insurance within the hour and I have paperwork to prove it. Is this a good case for appeal then? It was a genuine mistake as I didn't even remember that the insurance didn't cover commuting.Edited by fflump on Sunday 19th May 22:47
autoshop213 said:
I updated my insurance within the hour and I have paperwork to prove it. Is this a good case for appeal then? It was a genuine mistake as I didn't even remember that the insurance didn't cover commuting.
Within the hour AFTER being stopped? IANAL, but it's not looking good.
Agtlaw would be better to advise on this.
autoshop213 said:
Super Sonic said:
Within the hour AFTER being stopped?
IANAL, but it's not looking good.
Agtlaw would be better to advise on this.
Yes I did it as soon as I could. Also why did the police let me drive to the local mcdonalds to update my insurance?IANAL, but it's not looking good.
Agtlaw would be better to advise on this.
autoshop213 said:
why did the police let me drive to the local mcdonalds to update my insurance?]
autoshop213 said:
I updated my insurance within the hour
OMG, this is comedy gold!
Did it really take you an hour to get through a Big Tasty and fries before you thought you'd better contact your insurance company to inform them of your stupidity?
autoshop213 said:
Super Sonic said:
Within the hour AFTER being stopped?
IANAL, but it's not looking good.
Agtlaw would be better to advise on this.
Yes I did it as soon as I could. Also why did the police let me drive to the local mcdonalds to update my insurance?IANAL, but it's not looking good.
Agtlaw would be better to advise on this.
absolute nitpicking but iif it were me I'd have probably taken the day off after this had happened and said I wasnt commuting, I had a day off but was going to work to pick up a personal item that I must have forgotten the day before.
the insurance game seems to be as crazy as ever in the UK - but I guess the higher the population the bigger the games and the more fun they have enforcing it.
the insurance game seems to be as crazy as ever in the UK - but I guess the higher the population the bigger the games and the more fun they have enforcing it.
Insurance ombudsman have an interesting answer to this little racket which commuting cover could have been included for little or no extra cost.
https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DR...
They now take the position that if you didn't select commuting cover by mistake or because you didn't think you needed it, then that is a qualifying misrepresentation, which is normally a bad thing, it means if the insurer would have insured you on different terms then they should be the terms, which normally means more restrictive, but in this case less so.
And when dealing with a claim they must pay out proportionately, which in many cases is 100% because often there is no additional cost for adding commuter cover, its just an excuse for them to try and provide less cover for the same money if you tick the wrong box.
I would suggest getting a lawyer, but basically you need to argue that you negligently didn't disclose the possibility that you would occasionally use your 2nd vehicle to travel to work and as a qualifying misrepresentation under CIDRA the terms of your insurance should be based on if you had disclosed that usage which would have included cover for commuting.
https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DR...
They now take the position that if you didn't select commuting cover by mistake or because you didn't think you needed it, then that is a qualifying misrepresentation, which is normally a bad thing, it means if the insurer would have insured you on different terms then they should be the terms, which normally means more restrictive, but in this case less so.
And when dealing with a claim they must pay out proportionately, which in many cases is 100% because often there is no additional cost for adding commuter cover, its just an excuse for them to try and provide less cover for the same money if you tick the wrong box.
I would suggest getting a lawyer, but basically you need to argue that you negligently didn't disclose the possibility that you would occasionally use your 2nd vehicle to travel to work and as a qualifying misrepresentation under CIDRA the terms of your insurance should be based on if you had disclosed that usage which would have included cover for commuting.
e-honda said:
Insurance ombudsman have an interesting answer to this little racket which commuting cover could have been included for little or no extra cost.
https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DR...
They now take the position that if you didn't select commuting cover by mistake or because you didn't think you needed it, then that is a qualifying misrepresentation, which is normally a bad thing, it means if the insurer would have insured you on different terms then they should be the terms, which normally means more restrictive, but in this case less so.
And when dealing with a claim they must pay out proportionately, which in many cases is 100% because often there is no additional cost for adding commuter cover, its just an excuse for them to try and provide less cover for the same money if you tick the wrong box.
I would suggest getting a lawyer, but basically you need to argue that you negligently didn't disclose the possibility that you would occasionally use your 2nd vehicle to travel to work and as a qualifying misrepresentation under CIDRA the terms of your insurance should be based on if you had disclosed that usage which would have included cover for commuting.
No. It can be considerably more. Depending on the vehicle and other driver/location factors. https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DR...
They now take the position that if you didn't select commuting cover by mistake or because you didn't think you needed it, then that is a qualifying misrepresentation, which is normally a bad thing, it means if the insurer would have insured you on different terms then they should be the terms, which normally means more restrictive, but in this case less so.
And when dealing with a claim they must pay out proportionately, which in many cases is 100% because often there is no additional cost for adding commuter cover, its just an excuse for them to try and provide less cover for the same money if you tick the wrong box.
I would suggest getting a lawyer, but basically you need to argue that you negligently didn't disclose the possibility that you would occasionally use your 2nd vehicle to travel to work and as a qualifying misrepresentation under CIDRA the terms of your insurance should be based on if you had disclosed that usage which would have included cover for commuting.
In addition 'commuting' is to ONE place of work (usually your main).
If you occasionally or rarely pop to another location you still need 'for business'.
Again that's more.
People do try to get away with playing with their quote to get a lower figure.
e-honda said:
Insurance ombudsman have an interesting answer to this little racket which commuting cover could have been included for little or no extra cost.
https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DR...
They now take the position that if you didn't select commuting cover by mistake or because you didn't think you needed it, then that is a qualifying misrepresentation, which is normally a bad thing, it means if the insurer would have insured you on different terms then they should be the terms, which normally means more restrictive, but in this case less so.
And when dealing with a claim they must pay out proportionately, which in many cases is 100% because often there is no additional cost for adding commuter cover, its just an excuse for them to try and provide less cover for the same money if you tick the wrong box.
I would suggest getting a lawyer, but basically you need to argue that you negligently didn't disclose the possibility that you would occasionally use your 2nd vehicle to travel to work and as a qualifying misrepresentation under CIDRA the terms of your insurance should be based on if you had disclosed that usage which would have included cover for commuting.
This would be useful if he had crashed and was claiming but that’s not what’s happening here.https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DR...
They now take the position that if you didn't select commuting cover by mistake or because you didn't think you needed it, then that is a qualifying misrepresentation, which is normally a bad thing, it means if the insurer would have insured you on different terms then they should be the terms, which normally means more restrictive, but in this case less so.
And when dealing with a claim they must pay out proportionately, which in many cases is 100% because often there is no additional cost for adding commuter cover, its just an excuse for them to try and provide less cover for the same money if you tick the wrong box.
I would suggest getting a lawyer, but basically you need to argue that you negligently didn't disclose the possibility that you would occasionally use your 2nd vehicle to travel to work and as a qualifying misrepresentation under CIDRA the terms of your insurance should be based on if you had disclosed that usage which would have included cover for commuting.
It would be worth asking his insurer if they would agree to be held liable in the OPs circumstances, and if they say yes then try and get the penalty cancelled. A vaguely similar thing happened to a mate of mine and his insurer said no.
Hugo Stiglitz said:
In addition 'commuting' is to ONE place of work (usually your main).
If you occasionally or rarely pop to another location you still need 'for business'.
My SDP+commuting policy states ".. and for travel to and from a place of paid employment".If you occasionally or rarely pop to another location you still need 'for business'.
No restriction on the number of locations.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff