undisclosed speeding conviction

[firemanmitch]

My insurance company want �200 in back-pay for my wifes speeding offence dated 2006.
Can they do this? Is there any legal right for them, or legal obligation from me?

Thanks Mitch.

[sn�gged]

Legally you are required to inform your ins. company of any changes. If you didn't tell them of the speeding conviction, you possibly paid a cheaper premium for that year's insurance cover than you should have. I guess this is what they are now claiming back? Also, if you had needed to make a claim, you may have found you weren't actually covered.

[Ethel]

You are not being very clear.

Your wife is a named driver on your policy and had a conviction for speeding in 2006.

Did you inform your insurance company at the time of the conviction and at the subsequent renewal dates?

Did they quote less because you told them there were no convictions for either of you?

[chrisrob]

I concur. If you had had an accident and hadn't disclosed the speeding offence, you probably would not have been covered.
If you had informed them at the time they might have even been lenient. When I had an SP30 (5 years ago), my insurance company said most people seem to get one nowadays but decided not to charge me higher premium. (It would have been different with a second one, I guess - and not all companies are as sympathetic to thye motorist as RAC - and it may be different now.)

[sn�gged]

I disclosed an SP30 and there was no change to my premium either. They just wanted to be told.

[firemanmitch]

ALL - Thanks for the input so far.
To clarify: we've had the policy since 2000. Policy is in my name and wife is anmed driver to keep cost down. When we took out tghe policy there were no convictions. In 06 wife got speeeding fine and 3 points.
I realise that it should have been disclosed at the time, but the wife drives the car and me a bike. She renews the policy and asks me for some cash towards cost. To get cost down, i went through policy with Co, and then we found that wife had not mentioned fine etc.
Our premiums were based on that info, and i agree we got it cheaper. Now though they are asking for money on expired policies, ie 2006, 07 and 08.
I know what should have been done, and i know what hasn't. What i need from you guys is: do they have legal rights to claim on expired policies? Where do you draw the line? I mean if they want back payment for something in 1999 can they back date it to an expired policy?
I know if i wanted to make a claim i may not have been covered but that is not the case. I just need to know the lagalities of it all. Is it legal what they want? Where can i get this info from to clarify. We are talking about EXPIRED policies guys.
Also, it was only from 2005 that the Co wanted this info on the policy, and the wife just renewed because she was happy with the price.

Thanks again. M.

[Ethel]

Yes they do. You could be done for 'obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception' so be grateful they are simply asking for more money.
They could refuse to insure you again, and then you could have problems getting insurance elsewhere.

By the way, if you don't drive the car you are committing another criminal offence, fraud, commonly called 'fronting'. You are telling the insurance company that you are the main driver to get the costs down, when in fact your wife is the main driver and the insurance should be in her name.

[Ethel]

Doc.Spock:


"where you are a named driver on a policy, you would not be driving the car very often. If you are driving the car all the time, it could be tantamount to fraud."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1507176 /Insurance-company-takes-named-drivers-history -into-account.html

[firemanmitch]

Thanks Ethel though i do want to clarify, no deception was done intentionally, the Co changed the format of the policy in 05 and the wife just renewed, and i do drive the car.
I've just read that if the policy was invalid then i am legally entitled to a full refund. I'm not bothered about refunds etc. I want to know where it says they can do this.

[kempie]

"...pecuniary advantage by deception" is no longer on the statute books.

It was replaced by the Fraud Act 2006 whereby intent to "make a gain" or "cause a loss" through false representation, failing to disclose information, or abuse of position are all fraud offences.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2006/ukpga_200 60035_en_1

[Ethel]

You are not entitled to any refund because you was insured - they never invalidated it.

Try that route and you'll have been driving without insurance for 3 years.

To summarise:

You should have told them of the speeding conviction; they fact that you didn't intend to deceive is totally irrelevant.
As you failed to do so you have had cheaper insurance.
You have to pay,

If they take you to court, it won't be simply to sue you for the money owed, it will be a prosecution for fraud and they will win. Ignorance is no defence.

[Ethel]

Same thing though, Kempie.

[firemanmitch]

I don't want to get into a slagging match here but i still haven't had a definative answer, only peoples opinions (which i thank you all for).
The following is from motorinsurance.co.uk :
If there are serious discrepancies between the basis on which your policy is based and your real vehicle details, then a policy could be voided.

This means that your insurance policy will be declared void meaning that effectively no cover was ever in force and a full refund will be issued.

I don't think that failing to mention a SP30 after the Co changed the policy format is a serious discrepancy. I was just shooting the s**t that if they say we weren't insured because the policy was invalid, then i am entitled to a refund. I know they haven't said either yet.
Again guys, where does it say the have A LEGAL RIGHT to claim for expired policies?
Thanks for your replies again. M.

[firemanmitch]

I agree Doc. We have cancelled the policy and actually got a new on for �90 cheaper after including the SP30. I can't see them taking me to court for �200.
I just want to be able to say to them 'actually you have no legal right to claim on expired policies etc'.