Insurance requires a copy of driving licence by law
Discussion
Red Devil said:
Mandalore said:
Rick101 said:
Mandalore said:
This is just a silly case of the company being a bit late in training their call centre staff on the changes
Have to say this lack of training really riles me. Have suffered it on both sides and in most cases its the management just absolutely not giving a s
t about offering a decent service. Just cheapest operating cost.In such systems, all the logical thinking is built in an IT (the system) asks for the call centre guy to upload the paper copy as one of the 'steps'.
The idea is to reduce user error, by dumbing down the humans contribution.
They DONT work like you said.....
Perhaps if I simplify an explanation for you?
Think of it as a sequential checklist of items that you have to complete (or manually override, with a set reason).
One of those items is POTENTIALLY a paper copy, so companies who uses workflow systems will probably ask for it. And they will probably still ask for it - until such time as they fix said workflow system (which could potentially be packaged up as part of an annual software upgrade), or they introduce a workaround, as the new DVLA process starts to sink in.
I'm guessing you are now asking why they don't fix these things up front - knowing that something like a driving licence change is happenning?
Well, they probably would IF they knew about it in advance, sadly government departments are generally s
te at giving people advance notice, (apart from HMRC).We've just renewed one vehicle insurance with this system and it worked fine with declaring the named driver licence numbers. Don't see a problem really.
One other thing that was new to me was that we declared x years no claims which was what was shown on the renewal details. We had a lot more in years in reality but frankly we're up to 72% discount so cba to do anything else knowing that we would have to provide proof of ncd and what we declared matched the renewal notice.
When the papers came through they wrote to say that they'd investigated the ncd and we were entitled to more than claimed so they had knocked another 10% ish off the premium. Obviously some insurance outfits are on the ball.
One other thing that was new to me was that we declared x years no claims which was what was shown on the renewal details. We had a lot more in years in reality but frankly we're up to 72% discount so cba to do anything else knowing that we would have to provide proof of ncd and what we declared matched the renewal notice.
When the papers came through they wrote to say that they'd investigated the ncd and we were entitled to more than claimed so they had knocked another 10% ish off the premium. Obviously some insurance outfits are on the ball.
Variomatic said:
LoonR1 said:
You can't justify mega staff investment with no guarantee of loyal customers / increased premium income to shareholders by routinely doubling, or even trebling, premiums on renewal despite no claims being made.
ftfy 
Why do you think your own personal claim record matters as an absolute with no other factors coming into play?
For example, premiums may be rising across the board, the cost of parts, paint, labour may have increased a lot, the insurer may have experienced a surge in either frequency or severity of claims across their book, or maybe just your demographic (car, age, area, job etc), or maybe you're no longer part of their target market and as a result they've decided to quote you a silly price so that you can choose to go elsewhere, rather than being absolutely forced to by not offering renewal terms.
Of course, there's also the possibility that the insurer offered a daft low loss leading quote to entice you in initially and are now asking for nearer the correct technical price.
Variomatic said:
LoonR1 said:
You can't justify mega staff investment with no guarantee of loyal customers / increased premium income to shareholders by routinely doubling, or even trebling, premiums on renewal despite no claims being made.
ftfy The insurer is Bell, no telematics or similar what have you, just a conventional fully comp policy. No DOC cover though, but I have that on the policy for one of my other cars.
LoonR1 said:
Great snippet and complete BS.
Why do you think your own personal claim record matters as an absolute with no other factors coming into play?
For example, premiums may be rising across the board, the cost of parts, paint, labour may have increased a lot, the insurer may have experienced a surge in either frequency or severity of claims across their book, or maybe just your demographic (car, age, area, job etc), or maybe you're no longer part of their target market and as a result they've decided to quote you a silly price so that you can choose to go elsewhere, rather than being absolutely forced to by not offering renewal terms.
Of course, there's also the possibility that the insurer offered a daft low loss leading quote to entice you in initially and are now asking for nearer the correct technical price.
So which of your explanations covers this (which has happened on my last two renewals):Why do you think your own personal claim record matters as an absolute with no other factors coming into play?
For example, premiums may be rising across the board, the cost of parts, paint, labour may have increased a lot, the insurer may have experienced a surge in either frequency or severity of claims across their book, or maybe just your demographic (car, age, area, job etc), or maybe you're no longer part of their target market and as a result they've decided to quote you a silly price so that you can choose to go elsewhere, rather than being absolutely forced to by not offering renewal terms.
Of course, there's also the possibility that the insurer offered a daft low loss leading quote to entice you in initially and are now asking for nearer the correct technical price.
Quote for first year, around £200 for business use on a boring (and old) diesel estate. Clearly "in their demographic". On (auto) renewal, quote is £380 first year (well known company A), so I go with well known company B, who is offering around the £200 mark.
Again, fairly clearly within their wanted demographic although, as mid 40s, with a boring car, a low risk job, and a 30 year clean driving history that's not all that surprising - I'm the sort of customer they're very unlikely to make a loss on.
On second (auto) renewalfrom company B, quote is £450. So this time I go with budget insurer C who's willing to offer the same cover for £172.
Neither of those "introductory" quotes were "loss leaders" for them, because I made no claim - they made a profit, not a loss.
I'd be quite happy to remain loyal and give them another profit this year if they didn't choose to use the option you didn't mentions - to cynically bump the quote in the hope I'd just let the auto renewal go through.
Variomatic said:
LoonR1 said:
Great snippet and complete BS.
Why do you think your own personal claim record matters as an absolute with no other factors coming into play?
For example, premiums may be rising across the board, the cost of parts, paint, labour may have increased a lot, the insurer may have experienced a surge in either frequency or severity of claims across their book, or maybe just your demographic (car, age, area, job etc), or maybe you're no longer part of their target market and as a result they've decided to quote you a silly price so that you can choose to go elsewhere, rather than being absolutely forced to by not offering renewal terms.
Of course, there's also the possibility that the insurer offered a daft low loss leading quote to entice you in initially and are now asking for nearer the correct technical price.
So which of your explanations covers this (which has happened on my last two renewals):Why do you think your own personal claim record matters as an absolute with no other factors coming into play?
For example, premiums may be rising across the board, the cost of parts, paint, labour may have increased a lot, the insurer may have experienced a surge in either frequency or severity of claims across their book, or maybe just your demographic (car, age, area, job etc), or maybe you're no longer part of their target market and as a result they've decided to quote you a silly price so that you can choose to go elsewhere, rather than being absolutely forced to by not offering renewal terms.
Of course, there's also the possibility that the insurer offered a daft low loss leading quote to entice you in initially and are now asking for nearer the correct technical price.
Quote for first year, around £200 for business use on a boring (and old) diesel estate. Clearly "in their demographic". On (auto) renewal, quote is £380 first year (well known company A), so I go with well known company B, who is offering around the £200 mark.
Again, fairly clearly within their wanted demographic although, as mid 40s, with a boring car, a low risk job, and a 30 year clean driving history that's not all that surprising - I'm the sort of customer they're very unlikely to make a loss on.
On second (auto) renewalfrom company B, quote is £450. So this time I go with budget insurer C who's willing to offer the same cover for £172.
Neither of those "introductory" quotes were "loss leaders" for them, because I made no claim - they made a profit, not a loss.
I'd be quite happy to remain loyal and give them another profit this year if they didn't choose to use the option you didn't mentions - to cynically bump the quote in the hope I'd just let the auto renewal go through.
Which bit of "Why do you think your own personal claim record matters as an absolute with no other factors coming into play?" which was the opening part of my post, has passed you by?
Secondly "Of course, there's also the possibility that the insurer offered a daft low loss leading quote to entice you in initially and are now asking for nearer the correct technical price".
Combine the two amd here's what you get
A loss leading price, which many won't claim on, but those that do make it loss leading overall. You really don't get the concept of insurance do you? It's a pooled risk where the premiums of the many pay for the claims of the few. If the premiums of the many don't cover the claims of the few then it's loss leading.
Don't worry, I totally get the principle of insurance. I also get the principle of consumer inertia, which is one of the oldest marketing practices going. I guess you're now going to tell me that insurers don't use such things. Which would be complete BS.
The thing is, you seem to think that I'm attacking your industry in some way - I'm not. They have a captive market and it's entirely up to them how they exploit it.
However, when you make comments about lack of "customer loyalty" to justify failings by the insurers, you'd do well to consider how little the industry does to encourage such loyalty. If they don't earn it, they can't justify their actions on the lack of it. Apart from anything else such circular reasoning is an insult to logic.
The thing is, you seem to think that I'm attacking your industry in some way - I'm not. They have a captive market and it's entirely up to them how they exploit it.
However, when you make comments about lack of "customer loyalty" to justify failings by the insurers, you'd do well to consider how little the industry does to encourage such loyalty. If they don't earn it, they can't justify their actions on the lack of it. Apart from anything else such circular reasoning is an insult to logic.
Variomatic said:
Don't worry, I totally get the principle of insurance. I also get the principle of consumer inertia, which is one of the oldest marketing practices going. I guess you're now going to tell me that insurers don't use such things. Which would be complete BS.
The thing is, you seem to think that I'm attacking your industry in some way - I'm not. They have a captive market and it's entirely up to them how they exploit it.
However, when you make comments about lack of "customer loyalty" to justify failings by the insurers, you'd do well to consider how little the industry does to encourage such loyalty. If they don't earn it, they can't justify their actions on the lack of it. Apart from anything else such circular reasoning is an insult to logic.
There's loads of ways of looking at it, although your suggestion of "not attacking it" quickly followed by the "have a captive market" comment does point to there being an axe to grind. The thing is, you seem to think that I'm attacking your industry in some way - I'm not. They have a captive market and it's entirely up to them how they exploit it.
However, when you make comments about lack of "customer loyalty" to justify failings by the insurers, you'd do well to consider how little the industry does to encourage such loyalty. If they don't earn it, they can't justify their actions on the lack of it. Apart from anything else such circular reasoning is an insult to logic.
I'm not justifying failings by the insurers. I specifically said that insurers started a lot of this current mess with their obsession with selling on price. That price obsession has now become engrained in UK culture amd that's why insurers don't invest significant sums on things that may, or may not pay off. It's simply too risky to take that kind of punt.
However, the idea that they are not earning loyalty is a double edged sword. They offer silly low prices to start with, which are (in the main) unsustainable. Just as banks offer a headline grabbing first year interest rate on savings accounts, or mortgages. Just like Supermarkets entice you in with an offer. Just like the sales that are always on at furniture stores. Just like the telecoms companies offer a reduced first year or months. And so on ad infinitum.
This first year premium is simply a marketing gimmick amd you're right they hope for inertia to recoup some of that lost money. It doesn't work. They continue to make underwriting losses year after year and hope that they can cross steel, or sell enough add on products to at least make some money.
Whether it works or not doesn't matter at the moment. People would do well to stop complaining too though, as they're getting a product at well below its actual value / cost each year. If there was a cartel in place, as many suggest, then they'd all club together and remove the discounting approach and leave us with the technically priced product which is around the year 2 price.
Have a look back up the thread though and some are saying that their rates aren't increasing. That's because the insurer didn't get silly claims frequency / severity that year so can maintain the marketing price for another year, or maybe they sold nearer the true technical price and not the discounted marketing price.
I fully expect you to come back with some more opinions, that will be at best partially founded in reality and this discussion could go on and on and on endlessly with no change to your opinion. That will be as set in stone as the expectation of a low price for insurance each year. Irrespective of where the truth, or issues lie. That'll be on both sides by the way.
Terminator X said:
Or if you don't like third parties prying?
TX.
Just say no. It is voluntary to allow data access to IIADD. Then of course they can ask you to self declare. Which you are legally obliged to do to the best of your abilities. TX.
I have noticed one very large Insurer still talking about paper counterparts. But the same can be said for hire car companies. ERAC seemed largely unaware of the changes.
Just of note...if this was business insurance then they may well be right, as an employer has a legal obligation to ensure employees have the requisite licence.
IIADD access will roll out quickly (insurers don't like to to first to anything !) as will the Lexis Nexis NCD sharing database. Have just been drawing up some plans for a new insurer's data access requirements. Tin Foil Hat types would blow their foo-foo valve at the number
Mandalore said:
Red Devil said:
Mandalore said:
Rick101 said:
Mandalore said:
This is just a silly case of the company being a bit late in training their call centre staff on the changes
Have to say this lack of training really riles me. Have suffered it on both sides and in most cases its the management just absolutely not giving a st about offering a decent service. Just cheapest operating cost.In such systems, all the logical thinking is built in an IT (the system) asks for the call centre guy to upload the paper copy as one of the 'steps'.
The idea is to reduce user error, by dumbing down the humans contribution.
They DONT work like you said.....
Perhaps if I simplify an explanation for you?
Think of it as a sequential checklist of items that you have to complete (or manually override, with a set reason).
One of those items is POTENTIALLY a paper copy, so companies who uses workflow systems will probably ask for it. And they will probably still ask for it - until such time as they fix said workflow system (which could potentially be packaged up as part of an annual software upgrade), or they introduce a workaround, as the new DVLA process starts to sink in.
I'm guessing you are now asking why they don't fix these things up front - knowing that something like a driving licence change is happenning?
Well, they probably would IF they knew about it in advance, sadly government departments are generally s
te at giving people advance notice, (apart from HMRC). Are you having a giraffe? The abolition date was known 12 months in advance - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/driving-licence... (look at the publication date) - so asking for/insisting on a photocopy of said document after 8th June 2015 betrays a woeful lack of professionalism on the part of any business stakeholder (e.g. insurers/car rental companies). Even if many members of the public remained in blissful ignorance (or did know but chose to bury their heads in the sand), those whose systems/processes need the information which the counterpart contained had no such excuse for not knowing exactly when it would come into effect.There was plenty of further information out there to be had including this - http://dvla.dft.gov.uk/160215/Briefing-Pack-Online...
Red Devil said:
Mandalore said:
Red Devil said:
Mandalore said:
Rick101 said:
Mandalore said:
This is just a silly case of the company being a bit late in training their call centre staff on the changes
Have to say this lack of training really riles me. Have suffered it on both sides and in most cases its the management just absolutely not giving a st about offering a decent service. Just cheapest operating cost.In such systems, all the logical thinking is built in an IT (the system) asks for the call centre guy to upload the paper copy as one of the 'steps'.
The idea is to reduce user error, by dumbing down the humans contribution.
They DONT work like you said.....
Perhaps if I simplify an explanation for you?
Think of it as a sequential checklist of items that you have to complete (or manually override, with a set reason).
One of those items is POTENTIALLY a paper copy, so companies who uses workflow systems will probably ask for it. And they will probably still ask for it - until such time as they fix said workflow system (which could potentially be packaged up as part of an annual software upgrade), or they introduce a workaround, as the new DVLA process starts to sink in.
I'm guessing you are now asking why they don't fix these things up front - knowing that something like a driving licence change is happenning?
Well, they probably would IF they knew about it in advance, sadly government departments are generally s
te at giving people advance notice, (apart from HMRC). Are you having a giraffe? The abolition date was known 12 months in advance - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/driving-licence... (look at the publication date) - so asking for/insisting on a photocopy of said document after 8th June 2015 betrays a woeful lack of professionalism on the part of any business stakeholder (e.g. insurers/car rental companies). Even if many members of the public remained in blissful ignorance (or did know but chose to bury their heads in the sand), those whose systems/processes need the information which the counterpart contained had no such excuse for not knowing exactly when it would come into effect.There was plenty of further information out there to be had including this - http://dvla.dft.gov.uk/160215/Briefing-Pack-Online...
Did you Understand the bit where I explained how workflow systems work and how they might have annual updates (or did you just gloss over that bit - as it was an inconvenient point).
Consider this:
The fact that so many organisations have not introduce it yet, would lead to two conclusions.
1. The direct communication to business that rely on DL was s
te. 2. That the Insurance companies were clearly informed and either could not be 'bothered' or do not have to legally swap over.
Question for the legal eagles on here.
Is the fact that DVLA have the online system no legally binding on insurers?
Red Devil said:
IF?! Are you having a giraffe? The abolition date was known 12 months in advance - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/driving-licence... (look at the publication date) - so asking for/insisting on a photocopy of said document after 8th June 2015 betrays a woeful lack of professionalism on the part of any business stakeholder (e.g. insurers/car rental companies). Even if many members of the public remained in blissful ignorance (or did know but chose to bury their heads in the sand), those whose systems/processes need the information which the counterpart contained had no such excuse for not knowing exactly when it would come into effect.
There was plenty of further information out there to be had including this - http://dvla.dft.gov.uk/160215/Briefing-Pack-Online...
Actually the abolition date was changed a couple of times. Also most stakeholders have been working with the DVLA on alternative tools - and some of them still aren't available - even the ones that are have a cost, and those costs were given very late in the day. Are you having a giraffe? The abolition date was known 12 months in advance - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/driving-licence... (look at the publication date) - so asking for/insisting on a photocopy of said document after 8th June 2015 betrays a woeful lack of professionalism on the part of any business stakeholder (e.g. insurers/car rental companies). Even if many members of the public remained in blissful ignorance (or did know but chose to bury their heads in the sand), those whose systems/processes need the information which the counterpart contained had no such excuse for not knowing exactly when it would come into effect.There was plenty of further information out there to be had including this - http://dvla.dft.gov.uk/160215/Briefing-Pack-Online...
Back to the original post - don't forget that an insurance policy is a contract, and your contract probably says you have to provide certain documents - so how about contract law? Or how about you just give them the info they need?! OK its not criminal law - but the call center operative maybe wasn't the sharpest tool!
Since when did the world forget reasonableness - ok the paper licence was abolished, but why not just send it to them if that's what they want - rather than 'computer says no'.
Make life easy for yourself!!
Mandalore said:
Did you Understand the bit where I explained how workflow systems work and how they might have annual updates (or did you just gloss over that bit - as it was an inconvenient point).
So just tell us a bit more about that annual update process? Who has one of those and why?Bert
bradjsmith88 said:
Red Devil said:
IF?! Are you having a giraffe? The abolition date was known 12 months in advance - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/driving-licence... (look at the publication date) - so asking for/insisting on a photocopy of said document after 8th June 2015 betrays a woeful lack of professionalism on the part of any business stakeholder (e.g. insurers/car rental companies). Even if many members of the public remained in blissful ignorance (or did know but chose to bury their heads in the sand), those whose systems/processes need the information which the counterpart contained had no such excuse for not knowing exactly when it would come into effect.
There was plenty of further information out there to be had including this - http://dvla.dft.gov.uk/160215/Briefing-Pack-Online...
Actually the abolition date was changed a couple of times. Also most stakeholders have been working with the DVLA on alternative tools - and some of them still aren't available - even the ones that are have a cost, and those costs were given very late in the day. Are you having a giraffe? The abolition date was known 12 months in advance - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/driving-licence... (look at the publication date) - so asking for/insisting on a photocopy of said document after 8th June 2015 betrays a woeful lack of professionalism on the part of any business stakeholder (e.g. insurers/car rental companies). Even if many members of the public remained in blissful ignorance (or did know but chose to bury their heads in the sand), those whose systems/processes need the information which the counterpart contained had no such excuse for not knowing exactly when it would come into effect.There was plenty of further information out there to be had including this - http://dvla.dft.gov.uk/160215/Briefing-Pack-Online...
Back to the original post - don't forget that an insurance policy is a contract, and your contract probably says you have to provide certain documents - so how about contract law? Or how about you just give them the info they need?! OK its not criminal law - but the call center operative maybe wasn't the sharpest tool!
Since when did the world forget reasonableness - ok the paper licence was abolished, but why not just send it to them if that's what they want - rather than 'computer says no'.
Make life easy for yourself!!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff