Driving no insurance

[saaby93]

TVR1 said:

Blimey! Deva link and Saaby having a discussion. This could go on (and in circles) for a very long time.

Why shouldnt me and Deva link be discussing things or Noger R1Loon anyone else?
- It's a forum, it's what we do

Noger R1Loon and Zollar put the insurers point of view so we can see why things are the way they are. Although it's true it doesn't mean its right that due to a mistake you can be left with no cover whn you thought you had and either 6 points and/or fully liable for an accident.
They all seem keen to keep uninsured drivers off the roads but seem unable to raise the issue back at base which is giving rise to uninsured drivers.

It doesnt take much to type the wronng thing into the computer as you can see from our typos

Can anyone can think why there might be greater incentive to support continuous insurance despite doubts it will save any uninsured use?
None of the above is meant to be libellous BTW and none implied.

[R1 Loon]

saaby93 said:

Noger R1Loon and Zollar ......
They all seem keen to keep uninsured drivers off the roads but seem unable to raise the issue back at base which is giving rise to uninsured drivers.

Actually I did just that today.

I suggested that we get the phone numbers of all our policyholders, cross-reference it to the national database of phone numbers and then employ 5,000,000 people to ring the rest of them and ask if they are actually insured or not.

[saaby93]

R1 Loon said:

Actually I did just that today.
I suggested that we get the phone numbers of all our policyholders, cross-reference it to the national database of phone numbers and then employ 5,000,000 people to ring the rest of them and ask if they are actually insured or not.

Sounds expensive to me
Woudnt it be cheaper that when someone phones up about a mistake to rectify the situation as if the mistake had not been made?
Although obviously not as cheap as leaving them uninsured.
No libellous intent etc as before

[R1 Loon]

saaby93 said:

Sounds expensive to me
Woudnt it be cheaper that when someone phones up about a mistake to rectify the situation as if the mistake had not been made?

I'm not starting this all over again. Look up the definition of insurance, here's one for you:

In law and economics, insurance is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss. Insurance is defined as the equitable transfer of the risk of a loss, from one entity to another, in exchange for payment. An insurer is a company selling the insurance; an insured, or policyholder, is the person or entity buying the insurance policy. The insurance rate is a factor used to determine the amount to be charged for a certain amount of insurance coverage, called the premium. Risk management, the practice of appraising and controlling risk, has evolved as a discrete field of study and practice.

The transaction involves the insured assuming a guaranteed and known relatively small loss in the form of payment to the insurer in exchange for the insurer's promise to compensate (indemnify) the insured in the case of a loss. The insured receives a contract, called the insurance policy, which details the conditions and circumstances under which the insured will be compensated.

You'll notice that the payment of a premium is a key piece in this. if you don't pay it, you don't have the cover end of.

Can we leave it now.

[saaby93]

R1 Loon said:

You'll notice that the payment of a premium is a key piece in this. if you don't pay it, you don't have the cover end of.

We're talking of where they have paid (and possibly had it refunded without their kwowledge until too late) or intended to pay (where they had autorenewal which didnt happen).
I cant see anything there which might be construed as libellous

[Tom H]

I'll add that even if you have a piece of paper in you hand saying your insured (certificate) doesn't mean you are.

What if you pay by Direct Debit and fail on payments you policy is cancelled (after a recorded letter) you still have the certificate in your hand and it's now a redundant bit of paper.

I work in the industry and the other day placed client on risk. The next day the MIB call up and ask if client has notified us of his pending IN10 conviction? I ask why and reason being that he was collecting vehilce from impound. Therefore they making it part of there duty to ensure the 'correct' premium paid for the risk. Thus making sure that they are insured correctly. Surely a good thing!!

[Tom H]

Edited by Tom H on Wednesday 8th December 23:13

[saaby93]

Tom H said:

What if you pay by Direct Debit and fail on payments you policy is cancelled (after a recorded letter) you still have the certificate in your hand and it's now a redundant bit of paper.

Unfortunately recorded goes in normal post and is not guaranteed to reach the destination or be signed for, but you probably know that

As often said, where someone appears to have defaulted isn't it better to reduce their cover to RTA not only for the sake of the rest of us but also in case a mistake has been made?

ETA

Tom H said:

I work in the industry and the other day placed client on risk. The next day the MIB call up and ask if client has notified us of his pending IN10 conviction?

I could ask what is a pending conviction? Either he has one or he hasnt.
Prejudging the courts

Did they give the reason for the 'pending conviction'
Deliberately gone out and driven without insurance?
or
Thought he had insurance but turned out he didn't?

Just interested either way as cant find any stats

Edited by saaby93 on Wednesday 8th December 23:43

[Deva Link]

Tom H said:

I'll add that even if you have a piece of paper in you hand saying your insured (certificate) doesn't mean you are.


What if you pay by Direct Debit and fail on payments you policy is cancelled (after a recorded letter) you still have the certificate in your hand and it's now a redundant bit of paper.

I thought the insurer had certain unavoidable liabilities if you were holding the cert in your hand? Hence it's offence not to return it on demand.

Tom H said:

I work in the industry and the other day placed client on risk. The next day the MIB call up and ask if client has notified us of his pending IN10 conviction? I ask why and reason being that he was collecting vehilce from impound. Therefore they making it part of there duty to ensure the 'correct' premium paid for the risk. Thus making sure that they are insured correctly. Surely a good thing!!

That sounds very far-fetched to me on several levels.

[TVR1]

Deva Link said:

Tom H said:

I'll add that even if you have a piece of paper in you hand saying your insured (certificate) doesn't mean you are.


What if you pay by Direct Debit and fail on payments you policy is cancelled (after a recorded letter) you still have the certificate in your hand and it's now a redundant bit of paper.

I thought the insurer had certain unavoidable liabilities if you were holding the cert in your hand? Hence it's offence not to return it on demand.

Tom H said:

I work in the industry and the other day placed client on risk. The next day the MIB call up and ask if client has notified us of his pending IN10 conviction? I ask why and reason being that he was collecting vehilce from impound. Therefore they making it part of there duty to ensure the 'correct' premium paid for the risk. Thus making sure that they are insured correctly. Surely a good thing!!

That sounds very far-fetched to me on several levels.

Welcome back Deva Questioning the validity of a statement from someone who works in a particular industry again, are you? What a surprise.

[skwdenyer]

As ever, the solution to this problem is simple: tack on a little extra to fuel duty and provide RTA cover to all motorists. The current system serves only to keep thousands of people employed in the insurance industry whose roles are quite obviously redundant, and to generate millions - if not billions - of pounds of superfluous advertising, mail-outs, sponsorship, and so on.

[streaky]

saaby93 said:

Woudnt it be cheaper that when someone phones up about a mistake to rectify the situation as if the mistake had not been made?

I have sympathy with that point of view when it is the insurer's mistake - e.g. they failed to renew the policy even though the insured had paid, but not when it's the fault of the insured - e.g. to renew the policy.

Retrospectively covering a period when the 'insured' had failed to maintain cover - especially when they wish to make a claim for a loss suffered during that period [I suppose coincidence does happen] - would be ridiculous.

In my house SWMBO maintains diary entries for the renewal dates of key documents.

Streaky

[Noger]

saaby93 said:

Noger R1Loon and Zollar put the insurers point of view so we can see why things are the way they are. Although it's true it doesn't mean its right that due to a mistake you can be left with no cover whn you thought you had and either 6 points and/or fully liable for an accident.
They all seem keen to keep uninsured drivers off the roads but seem unable to raise the issue back at base which is giving rise to uninsured drivers.

I don't put "The Insurers point of view". I just post the facts, like them or not. I don't work for an insurer anyway and have done, and will continue to, decry bad practice when I see it and try to help.

Uninsured driving is falling. My conclusion is therfore that the various measures are working. And will continue to work.

The UK also has one of (if not the) lowest rate of fatalities per km in the EU. This is a good thing.

[Noger]

skwdenyer said:

As ever, the solution to this problem is simple: tack on a little extra to fuel duty and provide RTA cover to all motorists. The current system serves only to keep thousands of people employed in the insurance industry whose roles are quite obviously redundant, and to generate millions - if not billions - of pounds of superfluous advertising, mail-outs, sponsorship, and so on.

As I have said before, the unintended consequence of this is it prices younger drivers into faster cars.

The same with vehcile pricing rather than driver pricing. You get low uninsured driving rates, but you get higher fatalities.

[Noger]

saaby93 said:

Tom H said:

What if you pay by Direct Debit and fail on payments you policy is cancelled (after a recorded letter) you still have the certificate in your hand and it's now a redundant bit of paper.

Unfortunately recorded goes in normal post and is not guaranteed to reach the destination or be signed for, but you probably know that

As often said, where someone appears to have defaulted isn't it better to reduce their cover to RTA not only for the sake of the rest of us but also in case a mistake has been made?

Er, that is what happens. The insurer will still have to pay.

Reducing your cover to RTA so that you are still legally insured (rather than indemnified) would seem a bit silly. Cancel your insurance and still be covered.

The government make the rules on legality, not the insurers.

[saaby93]

Noger said:

Reducing your cover to RTA so that you are still legally insured (rather than indemnified) would seem a bit silly.

As far as I can tell no-one has mentioned this 'indemnified' before the last few days- has anyone beentold this when theyve tried to rectify a mistake?
Anyway isnt not of much use as you're still technically unisnured so still liable for various offences? Surely it should put you back in the position you would have been, had the mistake not occured i.e. full cover for the period

Noger said:

Cancel your insurance and still be covered.

No-ones arguing about that - if youve cancelled youve cancelled.

Noger said:

The government make the rules on legality, not the insurers.

You'll know the wording better than me but does it say that mistakes should not be rectifiable? I believe it says you can't ask for backdated cover but thats not the same as reinstating cover you should have had in the first place.

[Noger]

saaby93 said:

Noger said:

Reducing your cover to RTA so that you are still legally insured (rather than indemnified) would seem a bit silly.

As far as I can tell no-one has mentioned this 'indemnified' before the last few days- has anyone beentold this when theyve tried to rectify a mistake?
Anyway isnt not of much use as you're still technically unisnured so still liable for various offences? Surely it should put you back in the position you would have been, had the mistake not occured i.e. full cover for the period

Noger said:

Cancel your insurance and still be covered.

No-ones arguing about that - if youve cancelled youve cancelled.

Noger said:

The government make the rules on legality, not the insurers.

You'll know the wording better than me but does it say that mistakes should not be rectifiable? I believe it says you can't ask for backdated cover but thats not the same as reinstating cover you should have had in the first place.

I have probably mentioned "letter of indemnity" several times. If the insurer makes a mistake, then they can provide such a letter to show the court that they would have covered you then this can be taken in mitigation.

You can't reinstate the cover either (hence the letter). That is still backdating. You can "gap reinstate" which restarts the cover from the date you requested, not back to inception.

Funny how people's lottery cheques never "go missing"

[Deva Link]

Noger said:

skwdenyer said:

As ever, the solution to this problem is simple: tack on a little extra to fuel duty and provide RTA cover to all motorists. The current system serves only to keep thousands of people employed in the insurance industry whose roles are quite obviously redundant, and to generate millions - if not billions - of pounds of superfluous advertising, mail-outs, sponsorship, and so on.

As I have said before, the unintended consequence of this is it prices younger drivers into faster cars.

I have no doubt there would be utter carnage with young (and even not so young) lads driving extremely powerful cars with complete impunity.

And the irony is that, being in bigger cars, such drivers would be more likely to survive the accidents that they cause.

[Tallbut Buxomly]

saaby93 said:

ZOLLAR said:

It means most mainstream insurers won't touch him with a bargepole.

so what does he do?
What's the usual defence when this happens after a mistake by the insurer?

Utter Rubbish Zollar.

I had an IN10 up to 2008??? iirc and had no issues getting insurance from mainstream other than their laughter as they added zeros to my premiums.

[ZOLLAR]

Tallbut Buxomly said:

saaby93 said:

ZOLLAR said:

It means most mainstream insurers won't touch him with a bargepole.

so what does he do?
What's the usual defence when this happens after a mistake by the insurer?

Utter Rubbish Zollar.

I had an IN10 up to 2008??? iirc and had no issues getting insurance from mainstream other than their laughter as they added zeros to my premiums.

Its not utter rubbish, if you'd care to read my post again you'll see i said most not all insurers.
I don't mind you disagreeing with me but unless you have conclusive proof that what i said is completely wrong i'd rather you not discredit my posts a number of mainstream insurers don't accept IN10's