Can insurers make you let them see your e-license?
Discussion
dacouch said:
Did you declare the other convictions on your driving licence or did you not disclose them as they don't currently show on your driving licence because of the ban?
What's the conviction code on your licence for the ban?
We asked a few of those questions before and got some answers that didn't stack up. Hopefully he'll come back amd tell us the full story, although I think he'll be (unjustifiably) more nervous about the Anti-Fraud Dept tracking him downWhat's the conviction code on your licence for the ban?
GC8 said:
If I was asked about my current licence then Id look at its inception and not the issue date of 'Issue 10'. My 'current' licence was issued on the 11th of this month, but that cannot be the information that they're looking for, surely?
That's where I got confused. They are after the date you passed the test. For some reason subsequent tests do not overwrite the old one on your license. I've looked for any documents. And I can't find anything. However I do know that I had to redo both the theory and the driving test. It's not showing on the online website - so I can only presume that it doesn't stay on for more than 3/4/5 years. I'm not sure why I'd lie about being banned - if I was banned for something more serious like drink driving, or dangerous driving I'd assume it stays on for longer. Anyway - this whole thread and topic was caused by me not being able to read properly.
agtlaw said:
Did you do a retest, or an extended retest?
The extended one because I had to redo the theory as well. Edit - I've just googled this. And it looks like everyone has to do the theory again. I distinctly remember the magistrates making a point that I'd have to retake the theory AND the driving test. Which I thought meant it was an extended test. But after some googling it looks like an extended test it just a longer driving test.
Edited by photosnob on Thursday 24th September 19:18
Re licence start date confusion.. I believe that people have only one full driving licence that starts when they pass a vehicle test and runs for a fifty year period. The plastic card is nothing more than a representation of that licence and not the licence in its self. I don't believe that in this day & age there is any such thing as a "current" licence so the question, how long have you held your current licence is a moot question because people only have the one licence whether that licence has been suspended or if in fact like the op when another test has been taken. The start date of a person's licence is always the date the person took their first test.
In 1999 I was stupid enough to find myself in the position of having to take a retest. When my plastic card arrived it was missing all my grandfather rights such as 7.5 tonne etc & also my pass date was x-x-99 instead of x-x-83 so I phoned DVLA to find out why. Long story short because I'd taken a retest, fair enough I couldn't argue so excepted the situation for what it was.
Roll on fourteen years to 2013 when I took my first CBT. I received a letter from the DVLA stating they had made a mistake regarding my licence, they also stated that they recognised that I was in no way implicated in any wrong doing concerning their mistake & a new plastic card was on it's way. New card arrived with all grandfather rights restored with the correct start date from 1983.
I don't believe the op was in error to enter the start date of his licence for the particular question he was asked. His ban & retest would be covered in the section about prior convictions.
In 1999 I was stupid enough to find myself in the position of having to take a retest. When my plastic card arrived it was missing all my grandfather rights such as 7.5 tonne etc & also my pass date was x-x-99 instead of x-x-83 so I phoned DVLA to find out why. Long story short because I'd taken a retest, fair enough I couldn't argue so excepted the situation for what it was.
Roll on fourteen years to 2013 when I took my first CBT. I received a letter from the DVLA stating they had made a mistake regarding my licence, they also stated that they recognised that I was in no way implicated in any wrong doing concerning their mistake & a new plastic card was on it's way. New card arrived with all grandfather rights restored with the correct start date from 1983.
I don't believe the op was in error to enter the start date of his licence for the particular question he was asked. His ban & retest would be covered in the section about prior convictions.
Edited by mygoldfishbowl on Friday 25th September 10:27
Well it doesn't look like my license is the problem. I've just got off the phone from the insurance people. A more scamming group of people I've never had the misfortune to deal with. I just want to say - that my anger is directed on behalf of the vulnerable people who will fall for their tricks and scams.
1) Call and say "our engineer has values your car at £3k" - what most decent folk would assume was a fair value
2) When asked why suddenly in goes up to £3.4k
3) Then going to over £4.4k eventually. So basically £1.5k. Or 1/3rd more than they originally offered me...
4) When asked what their trade guys say I was informed "no one in the office is senior enough to release that" which would be great - but the some great people on here had given me the trade guide values... I'm not surprised they wouldn't tell me what they say.
The values in the guides are over the "maximum possible value we can give you" even without the optional extras like xenon, and reverse parking sensors.
Some other gems...
Your car was involved in an accident earlier this year which would decrease it's value. Great - apart from the fact that you repaired it... How did you put me back in the position pre accident if my car was worst less after? I was put on hold until they side stepped that one.
We don't value cars over 3 years old at retail value. Okay - except the financial ombudsman says you should. Again put on hold while they ignore that one.
It ended up with me being told they need to get someone from their "indemnity team" to check something. Apparently about the date I brought the vehicle. Clearly annoyed that their scam didn't work. Which would be all great and good - if the date I got the vehicle didn't coincide with the date on my insurance documents (both say 2013).
I'm genuinely fuming - how can they justify trying to rip people off like that? I'm tempted to make a complaint to the financial ombudsman about this out of principle. Loon - I know you are going to reply saying I'm a scammer and other stuff. But how would you feel if your mother/father or anyone who took things at face values was ripped off to the tune of thousands? Disgusting.
1) Call and say "our engineer has values your car at £3k" - what most decent folk would assume was a fair value
2) When asked why suddenly in goes up to £3.4k
3) Then going to over £4.4k eventually. So basically £1.5k. Or 1/3rd more than they originally offered me...
4) When asked what their trade guys say I was informed "no one in the office is senior enough to release that" which would be great - but the some great people on here had given me the trade guide values... I'm not surprised they wouldn't tell me what they say.
The values in the guides are over the "maximum possible value we can give you" even without the optional extras like xenon, and reverse parking sensors.
Some other gems...
Your car was involved in an accident earlier this year which would decrease it's value. Great - apart from the fact that you repaired it... How did you put me back in the position pre accident if my car was worst less after? I was put on hold until they side stepped that one.
We don't value cars over 3 years old at retail value. Okay - except the financial ombudsman says you should. Again put on hold while they ignore that one.
It ended up with me being told they need to get someone from their "indemnity team" to check something. Apparently about the date I brought the vehicle. Clearly annoyed that their scam didn't work. Which would be all great and good - if the date I got the vehicle didn't coincide with the date on my insurance documents (both say 2013).
I'm genuinely fuming - how can they justify trying to rip people off like that? I'm tempted to make a complaint to the financial ombudsman about this out of principle. Loon - I know you are going to reply saying I'm a scammer and other stuff. But how would you feel if your mother/father or anyone who took things at face values was ripped off to the tune of thousands? Disgusting.
At no point have I said you're a scammer, I've said you are hitting fraud triggers there is a world of difference as they need to dig deeper when you hit those triggers to check you're not a scammer
Given the rest of your rant, I can't be arsed answering in any great detail, as it will just fall on deaf ears. If there's any truth in what you're saying then you've got a valid complaint so go to the FOS. And the father / mother heartstrings comment is pathetic btw.
Given the rest of your rant, I can't be arsed answering in any great detail, as it will just fall on deaf ears. If there's any truth in what you're saying then you've got a valid complaint so go to the FOS. And the father / mother heartstrings comment is pathetic btw.
LoonR1 said:
At no point have I said you're a scammer, I've said you are hitting fraud triggers there is a world of difference as they need to dig deeper when you hit those triggers to check you're not a scammer
Given the rest of your rant, I can't be arsed answering in any great detail, as it will just fall on deaf ears. If there's any truth in what you're saying then you've got a valid complaint so go to the FOS. And the father / mother heartstrings comment is pathetic btw.
Fair point Loon - I apologise for putting words into your mouth. However I've never once ignored your responses. I've actually gone off on tangents to try and reply to your points. If I give the impression that I ignore what you have to say then I apologise again. Given the rest of your rant, I can't be arsed answering in any great detail, as it will just fall on deaf ears. If there's any truth in what you're saying then you've got a valid complaint so go to the FOS. And the father / mother heartstrings comment is pathetic btw.
It wasn't a rant (actually maybe it was). It was a statement of displeasure. I am bad apple from a family of good people. My mother would accept the offer thinking it was genuine. As would many people - who would take an insurance company at face value. I think I'm allowed to be annoyed that any company should be able to attempt to coerce people into losing a lot of money using dishonest practises. The "our engineer has valued your car at £3k" only to then say that the average of the engineers report was a third more than that is wrong.
I'm sure you have better things to do on a Friday evening. But I don't think anyone would expect a financial institution to attempt to break the industry guidelines. Nor would they think it acceptable for the company to refuse to say how they came to that conclusion.
I've not even gone into how bad the insurance company have been. This morning I spoke to them and was told they couldn't deal with it until next week because the engineer couldn't give a mileage. But they made the mistake of telling me what the company who did the report was. So I called them... Guess what - they had given the mileage. I was then put through to my insurers who said it would be sorted today. He said he couldn't comment on why his colleague had lied to me.
How many times do you think they have contacted me? Once - today after me chasing them up over a dozen times. Only for them to try and con me. They have also attempted to have my car scrapped. And I had to inform them this was not acceptable until the claim has been finalised.
I think all of this indicates a culture of dishonesty in this company. I'm not tarnishing the whole industry with that brush. And I can back up and prove every point I've made if you want. Because I learnt to record phone conversations with big companies.
photosnob said:
LoonR1 said:
If there's any truth in what you're saying then you've got a valid complaint so go to the FOS.
However I've never once ignored your responses. I've actually gone off on tangents to try and reply to your points. If I give the impression that I ignore what you have to say then I apologise again.photosnob said:
Fair point Loon - I apologise for putting words into your mouth. However I've never once ignored your responses. I've actually gone off on tangents to try and reply to your points. If I give the impression that I ignore what you have to say then I apologise again.
It wasn't a rant (actually maybe it was). It was a statement of displeasure. I am bad apple from a family of good people. My mother would accept the offer thinking it was genuine. As would many people - who would take an insurance company at face value. I think I'm allowed to be annoyed that any company should be able to attempt to coerce people into losing a lot of money using dishonest practises. The "our engineer has valued your car at £3k" only to then say that the average of the engineers report was a third more than that is wrong.
I'm sure you have better things to do on a Friday evening. But I don't think anyone would expect a financial institution to attempt to break the industry guidelines. Nor would they think it acceptable for the company to refuse to say how they came to that conclusion.
I've not even gone into how bad the insurance company have been. This morning I spoke to them and was told they couldn't deal with it until next week because the engineer couldn't give a mileage. But they made the mistake of telling me what the company who did the report was. So I called them... Guess what - they had given the mileage. I was then put through to my insurers who said it would be sorted today. He said he couldn't comment on why his colleague had lied to me.
How many times do you think they have contacted me? Once - today after me chasing them up over a dozen times. Only for them to try and con me. They have also attempted to have my car scrapped. And I had to inform them this was not acceptable until the claim has been finalised.
I think all of this indicates a culture of dishonesty in this company. I'm not tarnishing the whole industry with that brush. And I can back up and prove every point I've made if you want. Because I learnt to record phone conversations with big companies.
The insurers are idiots and you've got a valid complaint. The FOS guidelines are there for all tonsure and every insurer should be following them. It wasn't a rant (actually maybe it was). It was a statement of displeasure. I am bad apple from a family of good people. My mother would accept the offer thinking it was genuine. As would many people - who would take an insurance company at face value. I think I'm allowed to be annoyed that any company should be able to attempt to coerce people into losing a lot of money using dishonest practises. The "our engineer has valued your car at £3k" only to then say that the average of the engineers report was a third more than that is wrong.
I'm sure you have better things to do on a Friday evening. But I don't think anyone would expect a financial institution to attempt to break the industry guidelines. Nor would they think it acceptable for the company to refuse to say how they came to that conclusion.
I've not even gone into how bad the insurance company have been. This morning I spoke to them and was told they couldn't deal with it until next week because the engineer couldn't give a mileage. But they made the mistake of telling me what the company who did the report was. So I called them... Guess what - they had given the mileage. I was then put through to my insurers who said it would be sorted today. He said he couldn't comment on why his colleague had lied to me.
How many times do you think they have contacted me? Once - today after me chasing them up over a dozen times. Only for them to try and con me. They have also attempted to have my car scrapped. And I had to inform them this was not acceptable until the claim has been finalised.
I think all of this indicates a culture of dishonesty in this company. I'm not tarnishing the whole industry with that brush. And I can back up and prove every point I've made if you want. Because I learnt to record phone conversations with big companies.
Who's the insurer? At least give us a simple clue.
LoonR1 said:
The insurers are idiots and you've got a valid complaint. The FOS guidelines are there for all tonsure and every insurer should be following them.
Who's the insurer? At least give us a simple clue.
Starts with the final part of something - and "ends" with a common name of a bloke. Who's the insurer? At least give us a simple clue.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff