Speed awareness courses could invalidate your insurance

Speed awareness courses could invalidate your insurance

Author
Discussion

The original Nick the Greek

366 posts

99 months

Friday 15th January 2016
quotequote all
T0M said:
How are we supposed to determine what our insurance provider deems or does not deem to be an increase in risk? My tyres are nearing the wear bars - this means my braking distance is longer than if I had new tyres fitted, would they deem me to be a higher risk too? There should be a regulated set of standards that apply to motor policies which everyone can agree to in advance, not after the fact and not with wildly varying loading to policy's. What a joke this industry is.
Incorrect.

There is a clearly defined legal minimum for tyres. If you run your tyres down to anywhere near the legal limit, you are an idiot. But that's another thread.

If you are in doubt about 'if you should tell your insurer', do it. Then you lose just the cost of a call whether they want to know or not.

Funkycoldribena

7,379 posts

153 months

Friday 15th January 2016
quotequote all
How would they ever find out anyway?

T0M

707 posts

176 months

Saturday 16th January 2016
quotequote all
The original Nick the Greek said:
T0M said:
How are we supposed to determine what our insurance provider deems or does not deem to be an increase in risk? My tyres are nearing the wear bars - this means my braking distance is longer than if I had new tyres fitted, would they deem me to be a higher risk too? There should be a regulated set of standards that apply to motor policies which everyone can agree to in advance, not after the fact and not with wildly varying loading to policy's. What a joke this industry is.
Incorrect.

There is a clearly defined legal minimum for tyres. If you run your tyres down to anywhere near the legal limit, you are an idiot. But that's another thread.

If you are in doubt about 'if you should tell your insurer', do it. Then you lose just the cost of a call whether they want to know or not.
I was using a hypothetical situation to demonstrate how there are an inordinate number of factors/areas which could very well be construde as increased risk which are within the 'law', and the fact different insurers apply different attitudes and rules to many factors makes it very difficult and confusing for motorists, and the unregulated (in this regard) insurers are profiting from it and are also able to wriggle out of claims as a result. Why not set a standard set of factors which insurers are allowed to load premiums? Points, fault accidents, related convictions yes. Speed awareness, non fault accidents, option extra or after market Cd player, No.

The original Nick the Greek

366 posts

99 months

Saturday 16th January 2016
quotequote all
T0M said:
I was using a hypothetical situation to demonstrate how there are an inordinate number of factors/areas which could very well be construde as increased risk which are within the 'law', and the fact different insurers apply different attitudes and rules to many factors makes it very difficult and confusing for motorists, and the unregulated (in this regard) insurers are profiting from it and are also able to wriggle out of claims as a result. Why not set a standard set of factors which insurers are allowed to load premiums? Points, fault accidents, related convictions yes. Speed awareness, non fault accidents, option extra or after market Cd player, No.
No you didn't.

Your tyres are legal. That's fine.

If they are not legal. You have a problem.

If you are unsure.

Ring them.

End of.


Kyodo

727 posts

123 months

Monday 18th January 2016
quotequote all
The original Nick the Greek said:
Then they are wrong. End of.

A contract of insurance is one of "good faith". You are required to tell your insurer anything that changes the risk you pose to them.

If you have attended a speed awareness course, you have done this as a result of being caught speeding, in lieu of taking the points.

If you don't tell your insurer, and you claim, they are totally within their right to decline your claim.
Not true. I've recently been dealing with this issue due to my wife having been on a speed awareness course. I've spoken directly with two insurers and it appears to be Admiral who ASK the question. If they ask then you should be honest because it forms part of their risk assessment. On the whole, insurers do not ask so there is no requirement to inform them, unlike if you've received an endorsement.

When dealing with Admiral I told them I couldn't remember the date my wife attended the course as it was a while ago and it's obviously not recorded on her license. I asked if they as the insurer could check for me (so to keep it all watertight) and was informed that an insurer had no way of checking.

So, if they ask you will be obliged to tell them or change your insurance company. If they don't ask, you have no legal obligation to tell them as far as I could make out.


Edited by Kyodo on Monday 18th January 12:19

AH33

2,066 posts

134 months

Monday 18th January 2016
quotequote all
So basically, take the points and you'll end up with the same insurance as if you'd went on the course, as well as avoiding a lecture on how 31mph will immediately kill everyone?

LeoSayer

7,299 posts

243 months

Monday 18th January 2016
quotequote all
The original Nick the Greek said:
A contract of insurance is one of "good faith". You are required to tell your insurer anything that changes the risk you pose to them.

If you have attended a speed awareness course, you have done this as a result of being caught speeding, in lieu of taking the points.

If you don't tell your insurer, and you claim, they are totally within their right to decline your claim.
The insurer is required to ask the customer clear questions, see here.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications...



xjay1337

15,966 posts

117 months

Monday 18th January 2016
quotequote all
The original Nick the Greek said:
Incorrect.

If you are offered a speed awareness course, it is in lieu of taking points. Ergo, you are a higher risk.

Your chances of successfully contesting a speeding offence in court are little more than zero.

Your chances of coming away with more points and a larger fine are quite real.
Surely you could argue the speed awareness class is viewed as "further training" so you'd come out a lower risk....?

bilobubbly

3 posts

98 months

Tuesday 19th January 2016
quotequote all
nitrodave said:
how are you meant to tell them online when they only ask about claims and convictions? there isn't even an opportunity to disclose that.

Nonsense story
yeah thats true..

dmitsi

3,583 posts

219 months

Tuesday 19th January 2016
quotequote all
Last year I took out a policy with admiral, I'd done quotes online with girlfriend as named driver with no courses or points. Realised after quotes that she had been on speed awareness course. Called up admiral and it made no difference to the quote. The course was about four years ago though.

The original Nick the Greek

366 posts

99 months

Tuesday 19th January 2016
quotequote all
Kyodo said:
Not true. I've recently been dealing with this issue due to my wife having been on a speed awareness course. I've spoken directly with two insurers and it appears to be Admiral who ASK the question. If they ask then you should be honest because it forms part of their risk assessment. On the whole, insurers do not ask so there is no requirement to inform them, unlike if you've received an endorsement.

When dealing with Admiral I told them I couldn't remember the date my wife attended the course as it was a while ago and it's obviously not recorded on her license. I asked if they as the insurer could check for me (so to keep it all watertight) and was informed that an insurer had no way of checking.

So, if they ask you will be obliged to tell them or change your insurance company. If they don't ask, you have no legal obligation to tell them as far as I could make out.


Edited by Kyodo on Monday 18th January 12:19
Incorrect.

As I noted above the contract is one of good faith. Without going into the legalities, a contract of good faith is essentially when one party (you) holds all the relevant information. The other party (the insurer) relys on your good faith to tell them all the relevant facts.

Some insurance companies may well tell you they didn't need to know. Others will want to know. Either way, you cannot alter the basic legal principle, as above.

Frankly, I can't see the problem! If in doubt, on any issue concerning your insurance. Phone them, then you can't sleep easy!!

Kyodo

727 posts

123 months

Wednesday 20th January 2016
quotequote all
With the greatest of respect, we'll have to agree to disagree. I think this has shown that people will need to do more homework on the subject. However, note that I am speaking of direct experience with these issues and my correspondence with the largest insurer that takes these courses into account. You have to inform of motoring convictions of course, which the course is not. Because Admiral take it into account to calculate their 'risk', that's why they HAVE to ask the question.

Edited by Kyodo on Wednesday 20th January 09:19

MarkwG

4,812 posts

188 months

Wednesday 20th January 2016
quotequote all
My understanding is there is no single English definition of "good faith" anyway. Also, starting every post with "incorrect" doesn't automatically make the following content correct, either...

The original Nick the Greek

366 posts

99 months

Wednesday 20th January 2016
quotequote all
MarkwG said:
My understanding is there is no single English definition of "good faith" anyway. Also, starting every post with "incorrect" doesn't automatically make the following content correct, either...
Indeed. You may or may not wish to take advice from a lawyer.

I translated the Latin for you. Uberrima fides - of the utmost good faith.

This principle was originally established in Carter vs Boehm and is specific to insurance (and assurance) law.

drdel

422 posts

127 months

Wednesday 20th January 2016
quotequote all
A contract between two parties based upon "utmost good faith" binds both.

The supplier in the contract makes an offer after determining what they require as material facts. A potential buyer/party must respond honestly to questions asked, it is not possible to imagine answers the unasked question.

The original Nick the Greek

366 posts

99 months

Wednesday 20th January 2016
quotequote all
drdel said:
A contract between two parties based upon "utmost good faith" binds both.

The supplier in the contract makes an offer after determining what they require as material facts. A potential buyer/party must respond honestly to questions asked, it is not possible to imagine answers the unasked question.
In law.

Incorrect.

LeoSayer

7,299 posts

243 months

Thursday 21st January 2016
quotequote all
The Financial Ombudsman said:
Taking account of the law and good industry practice, we approach non-disclosure/misrepresentation cases in three stages. We summarise these three stages below, before describing each one in a little more detail.

1. When the customer sought insurance, did the insurer ask a clear question about the matter which is now under dispute-

2. Did the answer to that clear question induce the insurer; that is, did it influence the insurer’s decision to enter into the contract at all, or to do so under terms and conditions that it otherwise would not have accepted-

3. Only if the answers to both (1) and (2) are "yes", do we go on to consider whether the customer’s misrepresentation was an honest mistake, a dishonest attempt to mislead or due to some degree of negligence.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications...
My approach on notifying insurers is based on the above.

If the insurance company ask me a question then I'll answer it honestly.

If the answer to a question changes during the life of my policy, I will tell them.

The original Nick the Greek

366 posts

99 months

Thursday 21st January 2016
quotequote all
LeoSayer said:
My approach on notifying insurers is based on the above.

If the insurance company ask me a question then I'll answer it honestly.

If the answer to a question changes during the life of my policy, I will tell them.
Very reasonable approach

smile

Kyodo

727 posts

123 months

Friday 22nd January 2016
quotequote all
The original Nick the Greek said:
Very reasonable approach

smile
I agree although funnily enough this contradicts what you've been saying above lol wink

The original Nick the Greek

366 posts

99 months

Friday 22nd January 2016
quotequote all
Kyodo said:
I agree although funnily enough this contradicts what you've been saying above lol wink
Perhaps I didn't articulate my point well then.

frown