Speed awareness - notifying insurance
Discussion
joe_90 said:
Really? Why do I have to answer? Can I not just say 'I do not recall'.
What if they ask me any other stupid questions, am I legally obliged to answer those too?
You're not allowed to lie - by lying to obtain a cheaper premium you'd be committing fraud, and the insurer would be entitled to void or reduce your cover if they found out.What if they ask me any other stupid questions, am I legally obliged to answer those too?
You don't *have* to answer. You can reply "I'm not telling" if you want to, or "I don't remember" if it's the truth, and in return the insurer can say "we're not insuring you then" or "that will be £squillions then" if they want to.
If/when the upcoming changes to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act are implemented "alternatives to prosecution" will be treated in the same wy as cautions and will become spent immediately. That would seem to mean that SACs will become non-disclosable to insurers at some point in the future, but it's not in force yet.
Well I have just insured my bike and renewed my van insurance and neither co asked if I had been on a SAC or any pending so I didn't voulenteer the information, and as they inform me that the conversation is recorded I would say that there shouldn't be a problem if god forbit I have a claim.
highflyer said:
Well I have just insured my bike and renewed my van insurance and neither co asked if I had been on a SAC or any pending so I didn't voulenteer the information, and as they inform me that the conversation is recorded I would say that there shouldn't be a problem if god forbit I have a claim.
I'm afraid that you have a duty to disclose the information voluntarily. This changes on 6(?) April this year when it becomes the insurers duty to ask the nescessary questions and the customer is no longer required to volunteer any information (although you must still answer the questions truthfully).I wonder if the only effect of this will be that insurers add a "Is there anything else we should know?" box which you can write some paragraphs in onto quote forms. That would put the onus straight back on to the customer. It's within the letter of the new law, but not the spirit.
Edited by Raize on Sunday 10th March 13:26
Raize said:
I'm afraid that you have a duty to disclose the information voluntarily. This changes on 6(?) April this year when it becomes the insurers duty to ask the nescessary questions and the customer is no longer required to volunteer any information (although you must still answer the questions truthfully).
I wonder if the only effect of this will be that insurers add a "Is there anything else we should know?" box which you can write some paragraphs in onto quote forms. That would put the onus straight back on to the customer. It's within the letter of the new law, but not the spirit.
More bI wonder if the only effect of this will be that insurers add a "Is there anything else we should know?" box which you can write some paragraphs in onto quote forms. That would put the onus straight back on to the customer. It's within the letter of the new law, but not the spirit.
Edited by Raize on Sunday 10th March 13:26
ks from saaby93's alter ego.I really should report you (as I assume your saaby93 logon is perma-banned from SP&L).
Insurers are currently required to ask about questions they deem material. Although you still have to inform them of material changes (i.e. if you have changed your car, moved house) to the risk.
Don't know many quote forms that have "Is there anything you haven't told us". But it is already covered (i.e. not clear) and sweeping statements like that will become void anyway.
Raize
I'm afraid that you have a duty to disclose the information voluntarily.
That's Bo110cks
The whole reason you take the SAC is so that you don't get the points on your licence and the insurance goes up when you come to renew.
they tell you on the course there is no need to volunteer the information to the insurance co, at least in Cheshire anyway.
I'm afraid that you have a duty to disclose the information voluntarily.
That's Bo110cks
The whole reason you take the SAC is so that you don't get the points on your licence and the insurance goes up when you come to renew.
they tell you on the course there is no need to volunteer the information to the insurance co, at least in Cheshire anyway.
Cooperman said:
Not a lot of point in paying £90 to attend an SAC if you still have increased premiums for a few years. Might as well take the £60 + 3 points instead and save yourself the time, aggrevation & cost of attending the SAC.
.........and avoid feeding the racket that will only result in more poorly placed, discretion free enforcement of ever-reducing speed limits and ever lowering prosecution thresholds at the bottom end.Take the points if it's your first set of 3 and break the disgusting cycle!!
Raize said:
Noger said:
More bks from saaby93's alter ego.
You're saying that the duty of disclosure is bks from saaby93's alter ego.ks? What the actual fk dude.Unless you're just saying that I got the date for the new rules wrong.
Edited by Raize on Sunday 10th March 15:04
However, for all practical consumer purposes the FOS's stance, that if you want to rely on a material fact you must ask it, is standard practice. If was part of the ABI code too.
The problem, hence the legislation, is that whilst the FOS have a duty to be fair (they have no duty to uphold the law) they can be trumped by legal process (for example if evidence is disputed). The FOS can't deal with everything, and sometimes must defer to a court. This is exactly what the FSA don't want, the shorn lamb consumer vs the corporation.
Hence the new act. Which isn't in any way a big deal for insurers, it is standard practice. If you don't ask something, you can't expect to rely on not being told it. Obvious, really.
Same with those big statements of warranty (known as "basis of contract") ... "I warrant that everything I have said is true and I have told you everything you need to know". Few, if any, rely on them.
highflyer said:
The whole reason you take the SAC is so that you don't get the points on your licence and the insurance goes up when you come to renew.
they tell you on the course there is no need to volunteer the information to the insurance co, at least in Cheshire anyway.
Ongoing (i.e. not pre-contract) duty of disclosure is a whole other topic. By and large there is no duty, and any contractual requirement is watered down. If the the insured object has changed (e.g. you car has changed) that is different. But getting a SAC isn't. they tell you on the course there is no need to volunteer the information to the insurance co, at least in Cheshire anyway.
If they don't ask, you don't *have* to say. If they do ask, for now, you do.
nonuts said:
littlebasher said:
Since there is no possible way for the insurance companies to find out whether you've been on a SAC or not, what incentive is there to tell them?
Because what's to say the speed awareness folks haven't sent one hell of a long list to the insurance companies, then I write off my car through no fault of my own and they invalidate my insurance?I really don't get people that don't want to be 100% sure there insurance is valid, it's almost as bad as just not bothering with insurance in the first place.
SV8Predator said:
Raize said:
Noger said:
More bks from saaby93's alter ego.
You're saying that the duty of disclosure is bks from saaby93's alter ego.ks? What the actual fk dude.Unless you're just saying that I got the date for the new rules wrong.
liner33 said:
If my insurers insisted on raising the premium due to a SAC i would change insurers , at this point in time only a few insurers do take this view, if you vote with your feet they may reconsider
And when they all realise they have a captive market and hike the price - then what. Despite what some on here might have you believe insurance is an effective cartel. If the price goes up too much you can't "do without it" unless you ditch the car completely. It will not be long before they cotton on to the fact that they can make money from this as well as "points" and since the others are doing it they have nothing to lose.over_the_hill said:
And when they all realise they have a captive market and hike the price - then what. Despite what some on here might have you believe insurance is an effective cartel. If the price goes up too much you can't "do without it" unless you ditch the car completely. It will not be long before they cotton on to the fact that they can make money from this as well as "points" and since the others are doing it they have nothing to lose.
If it's as effective a cartel as you think, why not just raise the prices for everyone? (Like they did a lot in 2010/2011 - but not so much recently for some reason) Why would they need an "excuse" - points, SACs or anything else?TwigtheWonderkid said:
over_the_hill said:
insurance is an effective cartel.
Have you actually got any evidence of this?That isn't really a cartel at work, more of a free market reaction to conditions.
The point about motor insurance is that it is very price sensitive. You don't want to price EVERYONE higher. You just want to be able to differentiate and price SOME people lower (that you think are a lower risk). This means you can tempt these people away from insurers who don't price on that.
These levers to effect price are gradually reducing, gender is gone. Age...hmmm, know knows. Convictions won't be around as long. What is next ?
Hence people (me included) are looking for ways to make insurance cheaper, for SOME.
over_the_hill said:
And when they all realise they have a captive market and hike the price - then what. Despite what some on here might have you believe insurance is an effective cartel. If the price goes up too much you can't "do without it" unless you ditch the car completely. It will not be long before they cotton on to the fact that they can make money from this as well as "points" and since the others are doing it they have nothing to lose.
You worry about it IF and WHEN is happens , none of my insurers levy a fee for a SAC if they did I'd move my business to someone that didn't.liner33 said:
over_the_hill said:
And when they all realise they have a captive market and hike the price - then what. Despite what some on here might have you believe insurance is an effective cartel. If the price goes up too much you can't "do without it" unless you ditch the car completely. It will not be long before they cotton on to the fact that they can make money from this as well as "points" and since the others are doing it they have nothing to lose.
You worry about it IF and WHEN is happens , none of my insurers levy a fee for a SAC if they did I'd move my business to someone that didn't.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff