Got pulled for no insurance - Help!!

[R1 Loon]

saaby93 said:

I think thats the problem. In worrying too much about trying to remove people who are abusing the system, it's catching out normal people who believe they've correctly taken out their insurance.
Is it the old argument about how many guilty people do we want to go free to ensure that no-one who's innocent is locked up?

Any ideas to help out when it happens?

The problem is that new systems and ideas get exploited by fraudsters too readily. It's made worse when the normally law-abiding citizen sees insurance fraud as socially acceptable, so happily use "white lies" themselves. When this happens the majority become technically fraudsters, so new procedures only inconvenience the minority, which could still be 49 in every 100 cauught unfortunately.

Until there is a shift in approach from Joe Public, then insurers will always be painted as the bad guys but are only doing what they do to protect themselves, shareholder (all of us via our pension pots) and policyholders (keeping premiums as low as possible).

The other challenge is computersation, this has driven a binary world of either Yes or No and again this has been driven by everyone chasing the cheapest (not best value for money) premium.

It's a vicious cycle.

Even if I chose to do something about it (and I often did via the Fraud Team that was in my team until ceding it recently) I cant spend my days looking for the exceptions.

In any event, I only deal with commercial policies across all classes of business and have ceded the direct Motor brand, so not my remit anymore.

[LikesBikes]

R1 Loon said:

Lots of good stuff, but in particular this..

In this case the failure to provide the NCD within the required timescales (I know that is in dispute, but the right exists). It allows the insurer to trest the policy as null & void, but they must return all premiums paid.

And what if all premiums paid have not been returned, as is the case here?

[R1 Loon]

LikesBikes said:

R1 Loon said:

Lots of good stuff, but in particular this..

In this case the failure to provide the NCD within the required timescales (I know that is in dispute, but the right exists). It allows the insurer to trest the policy as null & void, but they must return all premiums paid.

And what if all premiums paid have not been returned, as is the case here?

Eh, this one of your posts earlier in the thread?

LikesBikes said:

Paid in full at the time of taking out the policy. Was hoping that the refund hadn't happened, however it had. It was 20 days after the policy was cancelled and well over a month after the request for the proof of NCD.

Unfortunately I failed to notice this at the time.

Edited by LikesBikes on Wednesday 14th April 21:55

[LikesBikes]

R1 Loon said:

LikesBikes said:

R1 Loon said:

Lots of good stuff, but in particular this..

In this case the failure to provide the NCD within the required timescales (I know that is in dispute, but the right exists). It allows the insurer to trest the policy as null & void, but they must return all premiums paid.

And what if all premiums paid have not been returned, as is the case here?

Eh, this one of your posts earlier in the thread?

LikesBikes said:

Paid in full at the time of taking out the policy. Was hoping that the refund hadn't happened, however it had. It was 20 days after the policy was cancelled and well over a month after the request for the proof of NCD.

Unfortunately I failed to notice this at the time.

Edited by LikesBikes on Wednesday 14th April 21:55

Yes but without going through it all, sure I went on to somewhere say that I hadn't been refunded in full

[saaby93]

Page 8 was where he said they didnt refund the whole premium

LikesBikes said:

I find it strange that an insurance company, after getting no response from letters that I think most normal people would find frightening, would rather refund my £301 premium (minus charges of course) instead of making one telephone call and leaving a message if there was no answer. After all, these people are not normally keen on giving people money are they.

Page4 he discoverd that had received it after all

LikesBikes said:

As it happens I've just spoken to the insurer and it would seem they did receive my declaration, although last night they said they hadn't. Also when was the postal strike? would that have been the end of Jan/beginning of Feb?

They claim that my previous insurer said they did not recognise my name, car or address. However in front of me I have the certificate for that year with my correct name, registration, address, d.o.b. and occupation. However when they couldn't get the details they cancelled the policy rather than try and contact me via the 4 methods of contact I ticked on the original agreement.

The girl on the phone said that I was the victim of a mistake and she's very sorry about that. All these details are now passedonto the ombudsman who is very interested indeed thank you stitch.

[R1 Loon]

As said before I can only talk hypotetically and none of this will help with the legal proceedings.

Insurance is an annual contract between you & the underwriter. However, unlike other contracts that you'll enter into on a frequent basis (water, gas, electric, mobile phone etc) you have the ability to opt out of it fairly easily, due to your circumstances changing.

The other party to the contract also has the ability to suspend their service at any point if you fail to comply with the terms of the policy eg non-payment, fail to provide info.

It seems here that the insurer has decided that the contratc was valid until the point they cancelled it and refunded the balance. However, there is also a possibility that they refunded the premium in full from inception less admin charges as per the policy booklet T&Cs, or at a pro-rated amount again as per the T&Cs.

I don't work for Hastings, so can't claim to understand their policy conditions, so the above is general info only. Each uderwriter will have different procedures based on their interpetation of law and what they see as fair.

I know the issue is over Hastings alleged poor administration, but don't confuse that with the legal obligations on both sides in this.

You still need to take legal advice, all this thread is doing is blurring the issue, whilst failing to deal with the case you will have to defend. Courts see through blurring very easily and will accept very little of what has been discussed on here.

[saaby93]

Aside from it would be easiest if Hastings just threw their hands up and said our mistake reissued the docs so he could take it to the CPS, Derek posted this in another thread

Derek Smith said:

Road Traffic Act, 1988, as amended

S.143.

(a)a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road or other public place unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act,

_________
blah blah Derek blah blah

But: the same act and sections provides:

3) A person . . . shall not be convicted if he proves—
(a)that the vehicle did not belong to him and was not in his possession under a contract of hiring or of loan,
(b)that he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment, and
(c)that he neither knew nor had reason to believe that there was not in force in relation to the vehicle such a policy of insurance or security as is mentioned in subsection (1) above.

I'm not sure is this applies in this case but it might be a sueful second string to your bow. 'Prove' is generally regarded as balance of probabilities.

[LikesBikes]

I think you need to satisfy all three of those criteria to use it as a defence though.

Cheers anyway

[Noger]

You do.

[LikesBikes]

Well have an appointment with a solicitor on Wednesday. Obviously I outlined the sequence of events on the phone and they asked (without me mentioning it) if Hastings had agreed to reinstate the policy once the discrepancy had been resolved. Seemed surprised that they hadn't?

[LikesBikes]

Edited by LikesBikes on Thursday 30th September 23:45

[LikesBikes]

To update you all, having had a previous special reasons hearing cancelled I finally got my day in court on Friday, a fortnight short of a year from the time of being stopped by the police. 

With the help of an outstanding solicitor and reams of paperwork/letters along with hearsay evidence from the internet (which the prosecutor allowed in unchallenged) the court were satisfied that I had no knowledge of the cancellation and concluded that I had been unfairly misled by Hastings Direct. 

The outcome of the whole event was that although technically convicted by having previously pleaded guilty to the "absolute offence" of driving without insurance I have been given an absolute discharge with no fine and no endorsement or even mention of the conviction on my license. Also, given the nature of the circumstances, the prosecutor declined to apply for any court costs to be paid by me. The best result I could get.  

Sincere thanks to all who helped, advised and supported me throughout this thread, in particular Saaby amongst others who I should really go through the thread and find the names of, you know who you are. Without your input I would have rolled over and died in the face of it all long ago. 

And to the few who doubted and suggested I was lying? Hmm, well....


Sincere thanks all, genuinely appreciate everything. 

Darren. 

Edited by LikesBikes on Sunday 3rd April 10:56

[LikesBikes]

Edited by LikesBikes on Sunday 3rd April 11:00

[sinizter]

Great news.

[mel]

Well done and great news, now the next battle come renewal time when you obviously have to declare the conviction but will have to argue with the insurers that they are legally not allowed to take it into account when calculating your premium.

[Deva Link]

LikesBikes said:

The outcome of the whole event was that although technically convicted by having previously pleaded guilty to the "absolute offence" of driving without insurance I have been given an absolute discharge with no fine and no endorsement or even mention of the conviction on my license.

Well done for seeing it through.

Edited by Deva Link on Sunday 3rd April 11:37

[Deva Link]

mel said:

Well done and great news, now the next battle come renewal time when you obviously have to declare the conviction but will have to argue with the insurers that they are legally not allowed to take it into account when calculating your premium.

If there's no conviction code insurers can't do anything about it - they have no ability to take it it into account.

[LikesBikes]

Obviously there is that and also having to state that I have had a policy cancelled, don't know how badly that will affect the premiums?
The main thing is I have a clean license for my work and the way things are in the industry I'm over the moon about that

[mel]

Deva Link said:

mel said:

Well done and great news, now the next battle come renewal time when you obviously have to declare the conviction but will have to argue with the insurers that they are legally not allowed to take it into account when calculating your premium.

If there's no conviction code insurers can't do anything about it - they have no ability to take it it into account.

Deva, Please believe what I say on this subject, as I went to great lengths to show earlier in the thread the op had very similar circumstances to myself when I went through it and the final outcome that you argued against has been exactly the same as mine, your opinions are opinions only and appear based on your view of how things should work, my comments are however not simply opinions but statements of fact about the reality of what happened to me in very similar circumstances.

Come renewal time insurers ask questions such as "do you have any convictions or pending cases in the last five years?" to which the answer is yes, not yes but no offence code, or yes but no but, simply yes. They then ask a specific question about points,fine and length of disqualification etc at that point you can say no punishment imposed absolute discharge, if the Policy is loaded because of this you then have to argue siting the act I posted earlier in the thread. The contract of insurance is one based on utmost good faith, you have to answer truthfully but then argue as you no longer fit into a normal tick box scenario.

[Y282]

good result mate, nice to hear common sense winning out!