Can insurers make you let them see your e-license?
Discussion
LoonR1 said:
You don't declare spent convictions, that's fine and accepted practice.
I don't know whether you've done anything wrong, only you know that. However, if you don't think you have then why the nervousness around this? Just let them see your licence.
Your argument around questions and process is poor. Firstly the questions on a comparison website are often even more precise than the insurers, as they have to ask it in such a way to satisfy the strictest insurer. Secondly, you don't buy directly after selecting a quote, you go through several more levels including T&Cs.
You are choosing to read the FOS website how you want to. I could argue deliberate or reckless with ease based on your comments on this thread alone if I wanted to.
I wouldn't call it nervousness. I asked if I had to give information. I explained honestly why I might not want to give that information, rather than hiding behind 'friends' or anything else. I then decided it was silly and sent them the code before this got to post 4. I then just answered questions asked. I am somewhat nervous after reading what you have said. But I can't change that so won't worry about it too much. I don't know whether you've done anything wrong, only you know that. However, if you don't think you have then why the nervousness around this? Just let them see your licence.
Your argument around questions and process is poor. Firstly the questions on a comparison website are often even more precise than the insurers, as they have to ask it in such a way to satisfy the strictest insurer. Secondly, you don't buy directly after selecting a quote, you go through several more levels including T&Cs.
You are choosing to read the FOS website how you want to. I could argue deliberate or reckless with ease based on your comments on this thread alone if I wanted to.
With regards to the process - I've posted the questions Loon. The exact wording. I've even offered to provide a screenshot. I was merely saying that I can only see it being an issue if I missed something directly with the insurers. You are probably correct about T&C etc... I don't know. I've never read them. I find the box saying I accept and click next. You probably are different but I'm more lazy than most. Respectfully loon I don't see what you are fighting with me about - I've quoted the exact wording. So again I'll ask - what would you answer given this? Would you expect members of the public to ignore this and put something else?
If you have time and can be bothered then please do tell me how you would argue that. I'd provide screenshots showing the questions asked. And explain how I'd answered it as asked. I would admit freely that I expected that my premium would be cheaper. But I thought that was because I had more driving experience than someone who passed for the first time at that date. How answering the questions as asked is fraudulent or reckless is not something I can comprehend. However as I've said we shall see. You may be correct. I'll know in a couple of days.
LoonR1 said:
This is getting murkier. You can not be banned for speeding, it's a 3-6 point penalty range as I understand it (could be wrong). What were you found guilty of?
You don't get points and a ban either.
You can. I was found guilty of speeding. It was SP30 and a ban. I didn't get points as well. You don't get points and a ban either.
As part of my admiral claim this month both myself and her indoors (named driver)had to do conference calls with the Admiral/DVLA to confirm what endorsements if any were shown prior to them even discussing payout figures.
I had incorrectly listed my sp30 as a sp50 but nothing was said as date and fine and points etc all as disclosed.
Its only what is available digitally but admiral don't use it apparently.
I expect they only question it if a) another insusers info on you doesn't match what your saying or b) when a claim is made.
I had incorrectly listed my sp30 as a sp50 but nothing was said as date and fine and points etc all as disclosed.
Its only what is available digitally but admiral don't use it apparently.
I expect they only question it if a) another insusers info on you doesn't match what your saying or b) when a claim is made.
Edited by jbsportstech on Wednesday 23 September 11:58
The question clearly states what date you obtained your current licence. You gave them the date you passed your test. It's not the same.
Reason why they are probably asking for your licence is because they have identified your Ban was after you obtained your licence, which doesn't match up.
Long & short of it is, they don't HAVE to insure you & you can dodge around as much as you like - but you should just tell them the truth.
Reason why they are probably asking for your licence is because they have identified your Ban was after you obtained your licence, which doesn't match up.
Long & short of it is, they don't HAVE to insure you & you can dodge around as much as you like - but you should just tell them the truth.
photosnob said:
You can. I was found guilty of speeding. It was SP30 and a ban. I didn't get points as well.
A ban AND an extended test for an SP30? Wow. That has to be at the very, very furthest possible range.How on earth did you manage that? 150 through a 30, plead not guilty, then take a dump on the magistrate's paperwork in front of the entire court?
Definitely no TT99 involved? You said about "other points" - which nobody asked about - which does make a totting up ban the more likely explanation, but you've said the ban was an SP30, so you can surely only mean no TT99 on your licence.
Either way - that's irrelevant. If you've told them about the ban and extended retest, then you have a plausible and accurate explanation for any questions that arise from date discrepancies. End of worries. Just give them the damn code, since you have nothing to hide from them.
Edited by TooMany2cvs on Wednesday 23 September 12:01
Rtype said:
The question clearly states what date you obtained your current licence. You gave them the date you passed your test. It's not the same.
Reason why they are probably asking for your licence is because they have identified your Ban was after you obtained your licence, which doesn't match up.
Long & short of it is, they don't HAVE to insure you & you can dodge around as much as you like - but you should just tell them the truth.
As I've asked Loon. If you are asked for the date on the back of your licence - what date do you give? This isn't me being pedantic. I answered the question as asked. I always assumed telling the truth meant you answered the question which is asked. Not deciding what question they really want answering... Reason why they are probably asking for your licence is because they have identified your Ban was after you obtained your licence, which doesn't match up.
Long & short of it is, they don't HAVE to insure you & you can dodge around as much as you like - but you should just tell them the truth.
Remember - they specifically asked for the date on the back of card. I've quoted the wording twice. I've even offered to screen shot it. Have a look on money supermarket yourself if you want. I'm not looking for obscure small print. It's the highlighted question mark next to the question.
So again - would you answer the question as asked? Or would you determine they were asking the wrong question and give them the answer to the question you think they should ask?
photosnob said:
I wouldn't call it nervousness. I asked if I had to give information. I explained honestly why I might not want to give that information, rather than hiding behind 'friends' or anything else. I then decided it was silly and sent them the code before this got to post 4. I then just answered questions asked. I am somewhat nervous after reading what you have said. But I can't change that so won't worry about it too much.
With regards to the process - I've posted the questions Loon. The exact wording. I've even offered to provide a screenshot. I was merely saying that I can only see it being an issue if I missed something directly with the insurers. You are probably correct about T&C etc... I don't know. I've never read them. I find the box saying I accept and click next. You probably are different but I'm more lazy than most. Respectfully loon I don't see what you are fighting with me about - I've quoted the exact wording. So again I'll ask - what would you answer given this? Would you expect members of the public to ignore this and put something else?
If you have time and can be bothered then please do tell me how you would argue that. I'd provide screenshots showing the questions asked. And explain how I'd answered it as asked. I would admit freely that I expected that my premium would be cheaper. But I thought that was because I had more driving experience than someone who passed for the first time at that date. How answering the questions as asked is fraudulent or reckless is not something I can comprehend. However as I've said we shall see. You may be correct. I'll know in a couple of days.
I'm not "fighting with you", I said right at the start that you won't like what I'm going to post. I flagged fraud issues on this back on your other thread and that prediction is coming true. I'm not saying you're committing fraud, I'm saying that an insurer will want to know more. However, the more you tell me, the more it warrants further investigation. With regards to the process - I've posted the questions Loon. The exact wording. I've even offered to provide a screenshot. I was merely saying that I can only see it being an issue if I missed something directly with the insurers. You are probably correct about T&C etc... I don't know. I've never read them. I find the box saying I accept and click next. You probably are different but I'm more lazy than most. Respectfully loon I don't see what you are fighting with me about - I've quoted the exact wording. So again I'll ask - what would you answer given this? Would you expect members of the public to ignore this and put something else?
If you have time and can be bothered then please do tell me how you would argue that. I'd provide screenshots showing the questions asked. And explain how I'd answered it as asked. I would admit freely that I expected that my premium would be cheaper. But I thought that was because I had more driving experience than someone who passed for the first time at that date. How answering the questions as asked is fraudulent or reckless is not something I can comprehend. However as I've said we shall see. You may be correct. I'll know in a couple of days.
I've already answered the point around the licence question. You have selected a date that best suits your situation, you haven't the answered the question that was asked. Not reading the T&Cs is nobody's problem, but yours. There are way too many threads in SP&L on all sorts of topics by people who haven't read the contract that they entered into, but have confirmed that they have.
Deliberate: you chose to put the date that you passed your test, not the date you got your current licence, which was the date that you passed your retest. That was a deliberate choice.
Reckless: you admit to not reading the T&Cs and just clicking the button. That is effectively the same as signing a blank form.
photosnob said:
I wouldn't call it nervousness. I asked if I had to give information. I explained honestly why I might not want to give that information
But why would you not want to give them that information? Either it is ultimately of no consequence, or it is. In either case you've not lost anything - you'll either have valid insurance or you won't.LoonR1 said:
I'm not "fighting with you", I said right at the start that you won't like what I'm going to post. I flagged fraud issues on this back on your other thread and that prediction is coming true. I'm not saying you're committing fraud, I'm saying that an insurer will want to know more. However, the more you tell me, the more it warrants further investigation.
I've already answered the point around the licence question. You have selected a date that best suits your situation, you haven't the answered the question that was asked. Not reading the T&Cs is nobody's problem, but yours. There are way too many threads in SP&L on all sorts of topics by people who haven't read the contract that they entered into, but have confirmed that they have.
Deliberate: you chose to put the date that you passed your test, not the date you got your current licence, which was the date that you passed your retest. That was a deliberate choice.
Reckless: you admit to not reading the T&Cs and just clicking the button. That is effectively the same as signing a blank form.
I have answered the question which was asked though havn't I loon. I've already answered the point around the licence question. You have selected a date that best suits your situation, you haven't the answered the question that was asked. Not reading the T&Cs is nobody's problem, but yours. There are way too many threads in SP&L on all sorts of topics by people who haven't read the contract that they entered into, but have confirmed that they have.
Deliberate: you chose to put the date that you passed your test, not the date you got your current licence, which was the date that you passed your retest. That was a deliberate choice.
Reckless: you admit to not reading the T&Cs and just clicking the button. That is effectively the same as signing a blank form.
Again. How would you answer: "Tell us how long you've held your current driving licence. Check on the back of the licence for the 'from' date"? No bs. I don't take objection to anything you have said apart from this. How would you answer that?
You are correct that I did answer the question as asked deliberately. If I had answered in any other way would I be being honest? I don't think so.
I've accepted that if there is something in the T&C, I'm wrong. I will actually go through and check. However even if there was nothing in the T&C if there is I'm wrong and it's my own fault. The FOS actually has a section covering this very wrong. They say percentage payout and claiming the rest from the comparison site. Are the wrong too?
photosnob said:
Rtype said:
The question clearly states what date you obtained your current licence. You gave them the date you passed your test. It's not the same.
Reason why they are probably asking for your licence is because they have identified your Ban was after you obtained your licence, which doesn't match up.
Long & short of it is, they don't HAVE to insure you & you can dodge around as much as you like - but you should just tell them the truth.
As I've asked Loon. If you are asked for the date on the back of your licence - what date do you give? This isn't me being pedantic. I answered the question as asked. I always assumed telling the truth meant you answered the question which is asked. Not deciding what question they really want answering... Reason why they are probably asking for your licence is because they have identified your Ban was after you obtained your licence, which doesn't match up.
Long & short of it is, they don't HAVE to insure you & you can dodge around as much as you like - but you should just tell them the truth.
Remember - they specifically asked for the date on the back of card. I've quoted the wording twice. I've even offered to screen shot it. Have a look on money supermarket yourself if you want. I'm not looking for obscure small print. It's the highlighted question mark next to the question.
So again - would you answer the question as asked? Or would you determine they were asking the wrong question and give them the answer to the question you think they should ask?
The simple answer to this solution is you tell them everything that is relevant. Why is telling them you have been banned a problem if you want to clarify a situation or are you trying to "Get one over"?
The simple conversation to have is: My licence says "2007" which is when I passed my test. But holding my "Current" licence, I have held since 2012 because I was banned. Which date would you like? would clarify any situation.
For lack of a better description / word it appears fraudulent / deliberately evasive & I would walk away and just cancel your insurance.
Does your relationship with your insurer sound like something borne out of utmost good faith?
No offence intended but it seems clear that you're going to decide what version of the truth suits your agenda. I'd venture that if there is doubt over semantics then it's something that should be divulged, or at least clarified. There's no loss in any event, only the potential for reassurance.
Whether or not you actually care if you're insured or not, or whether you just appear to be insured on MID, is a matter for your own conscience really, but in the very best case it sounds like there would be questions asked of you if you came to claim, worst case the policy could be void from inception.
It seems strange to me that people would pay what are often not trivial sums of money for what ultimately will turn out to be worthless pieces of paper, but maybe I'm a bit weird. I want insurance to give me peace of mind, not tick a box on ANPR.
No offence intended but it seems clear that you're going to decide what version of the truth suits your agenda. I'd venture that if there is doubt over semantics then it's something that should be divulged, or at least clarified. There's no loss in any event, only the potential for reassurance.
Whether or not you actually care if you're insured or not, or whether you just appear to be insured on MID, is a matter for your own conscience really, but in the very best case it sounds like there would be questions asked of you if you came to claim, worst case the policy could be void from inception.
It seems strange to me that people would pay what are often not trivial sums of money for what ultimately will turn out to be worthless pieces of paper, but maybe I'm a bit weird. I want insurance to give me peace of mind, not tick a box on ANPR.
Edited by Durzel on Wednesday 23 September 12:21
photosnob said:
LoonR1 said:
I'm not "fighting with you", I said right at the start that you won't like what I'm going to post. I flagged fraud issues on this back on your other thread and that prediction is coming true. I'm not saying you're committing fraud, I'm saying that an insurer will want to know more. However, the more you tell me, the more it warrants further investigation.
I've already answered the point around the licence question. You have selected a date that best suits your situation, you haven't the answered the question that was asked. Not reading the T&Cs is nobody's problem, but yours. There are way too many threads in SP&L on all sorts of topics by people who haven't read the contract that they entered into, but have confirmed that they have.
Deliberate: you chose to put the date that you passed your test, not the date you got your current licence, which was the date that you passed your retest. That was a deliberate choice.
Reckless: you admit to not reading the T&Cs and just clicking the button. That is effectively the same as signing a blank form.
I have answered the question which was asked though havn't I loon. I've already answered the point around the licence question. You have selected a date that best suits your situation, you haven't the answered the question that was asked. Not reading the T&Cs is nobody's problem, but yours. There are way too many threads in SP&L on all sorts of topics by people who haven't read the contract that they entered into, but have confirmed that they have.
Deliberate: you chose to put the date that you passed your test, not the date you got your current licence, which was the date that you passed your retest. That was a deliberate choice.
Reckless: you admit to not reading the T&Cs and just clicking the button. That is effectively the same as signing a blank form.
Again. How would you answer: "Tell us how long you've held your current driving licence. Check on the back of the licence for the 'from' date"? No bs. I don't take objection to anything you have said apart from this. How would you answer that?
You are correct that I did answer the question as asked deliberately. If I had answered in any other way would I be being honest? I don't think so.
I've accepted that if there is something in the T&C, I'm wrong. I will actually go through and check. However even if there was nothing in the T&C if there is I'm wrong and it's my own fault. The FOS actually has a section covering this very wrong. They say percentage payout and claiming the rest from the comparison site. Are the wrong too?
Show me the FOS link to the section you reference. I'm really interested in the comment about claiming the rest from the price comparison website.
LoonR1 said:
I'm starting to get confused now. What does your plastic card say? That's your licence.
Show me the FOS link to the section you reference. I'm really interested in the comment about claiming the rest from the price comparison website.
Card has the date of first test. This is the current one. Same issue number as the online thing. The back of the card gives the date I gave. Show me the FOS link to the section you reference. I'm really interested in the comment about claiming the rest from the price comparison website.
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications...
photosnob said:
LoonR1 said:
This is getting murkier. You can not be banned for speeding, it's a 3-6 point penalty range as I understand it (could be wrong). What were you found guilty of?
You don't get points and a ban either.
You can. I was found guilty of speeding. It was SP30 and a ban. I didn't get points as well. You don't get points and a ban either.
How did you get banned for an SP30? It's not possible, other than it being a totting up ban, but they couldn't order a retest for that. You couldn't be in the first two years of your licence (even if you were a kid) either, as you say that you passed your first test in 2007 and this happened in 2012.
You're not telling the truth here. Why should we believe the rest of your story?
I can't get a clear answer on the web on SP30 and bans, but most point to a 6 point maximum in practice. I'm sure if a ban was being sought, then they'd have prosecuted for something more in keeping with whatever speed you were doing eg DWDCA or Dangerous Driving.
Edited by LoonR1 on Wednesday 23 September 12:31
LoonR1 said:
I flagged fraud issues on this back on your other thread and that prediction is coming true. I'm not saying you're committing fraud, I'm saying that an insurer will want to know more. However, the more you tell me, the more it warrants further investigation.
I knew the name rang a bell... This is the guy who rolled his Mini into a river, then worried about his g/f's phone, isn't it?Riiight. That explains why they're now looking more closely at his licence.
<wince> Bend over, photosnob, this is gonna hurt unless you really WERE absolutely 100% truthful in your disclosures. And, going by your defensiveness and selective answering here and in the other thread, I'd be frankly surprised if you were.
Durzel said:
Does your relationship with your insurer sound like something borne out of utmost good faith?
No offence intended but it seems clear that you're going to decide what version of the truth suits your agenda. I'd venture that if there is doubt over semantics then it's something that should be divulged, or at least clarified. There's no loss in any event, only the potential for reassurance.
Whether or not you actually care if you're insured or not, or whether you just appear to be insured on MID, is a matter for your own conscience really, but in the very best case it sounds like there would be questions asked of you if you came to claim, worst case the policy could be void from inception.
It seems strange to me that people would pay what are often not trivial sums of money for what ultimately will turn out to be worthless pieces of paper, but maybe I'm a bit weird. I want insurance to give me peace of mind, not tick a box on ANPR.
For the sake of pedantic. Utmost good faith is no longer relevant. No offence intended but it seems clear that you're going to decide what version of the truth suits your agenda. I'd venture that if there is doubt over semantics then it's something that should be divulged, or at least clarified. There's no loss in any event, only the potential for reassurance.
Whether or not you actually care if you're insured or not, or whether you just appear to be insured on MID, is a matter for your own conscience really, but in the very best case it sounds like there would be questions asked of you if you came to claim, worst case the policy could be void from inception.
It seems strange to me that people would pay what are often not trivial sums of money for what ultimately will turn out to be worthless pieces of paper, but maybe I'm a bit weird. I want insurance to give me peace of mind, not tick a box on ANPR.
Edited by Durzel on Wednesday 23 September 12:21
"On 6 April 2013, the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012 (referred to as "the Act" in this note) came into force. The Act says that the consumer's duty is to "take reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation" - replacing the previous duty to disclose all necessary information."
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications...
Either way I feel I was acting in utmost good faith. I answered the questions asked. I didn't read any small print. Which was my fault. That could maybe come back to haunt me. I'll see.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff