Car Insurance - undislosed premiums

[Guymundo]

I recently disclosed an old SP60 endorsement to my insurance company. I am aware that unless i did this, I could invalidate my insurance. The company updated my insurance - but the backdated my premiums to take account of this disclosure - this amounted to over £750 for 6 policies (3 of my own and 3 of my wifes) for the proceeding 3 years. Can they do this?

[hc4361]

Yes. You have been paying a lower premium because the company didn't know about the SP60.

[dothawkes31]

whay made you decide to disclose it so late ? have you had an accident? How come they didn;t get a copy of your second part license before?

[fredpuli47]

Can't see why not.Try another insurer,if you can. What's more interesting is SP60. Where was the speeding (built-up area with a fixed speed limit of 20,30, 40, 50 ? Motorway? ) and how fast were you going ? The government removed SP60 (unspecified speeding offence) from possible endorsements in December 2005, according to the Daily Telegraph then. It's not currently shown in the list of endorsements, either. The Telegraph reported that it was being wrongly applied to fixed penalty offences and others where another endorsement code was appropriate, and some insurers were treating it as serious enough to increase premiums, which they would not otherwise have done. It might be worth pointing that out to the insurer or taking it up with the sentencing court (admittedly the latter might not produce a result)

[jno]

well, I'm not sure. They're saying in effect that they've been undercharging you. But in fact they've been getting a bargain, because if you'd made a claim in that time they wouldn't have had to pay out, despite taking your money. Sounds like it's been you, not them, who's been ripped off, paying for an insurance policy that, if claimed on, would have been worthless. I'd tell them to take a hike and find a new insurer.

[hc4361]

jno, the insurance company would have been legally obliged to pay out to any third party claimants even though the insured gave false information.
They could have tried to recover this money from the insured but that is not often successful.
Had he had no insurance he could have been prosecuted.

[jno]

ah, right, thanks hc4361. As it never happened, I wonder why the insurers are spending time on this.

[hc4361]

Because Guymundo got a financial advantage by failing to disclose information he was legally obliged to. Fraud.

[fredpuli47]

Be fair, hc, it's only fraud if he knowingly and dishonestly makes a false declaration !.Mistake or forgetfulness would be an answer. However he, and we, are always in danger of the dreaded ' uberrimae fidei ' rule in insurance, whereby you're bound to disclose absolutely everything which might affect the risk, whether asked a question about it or not.It's not an answer to that that,in common with most people, you didn't think the undisclosed information would be material, or that you'd forgotten it or even,sometimes, that you hadn't made enquiries to discover whether there was such a fact.

[woozer]

Hi - I am astonished that the insurer took such a hard line with you. They are entitled to do this but usually only take the extra premium for the current year - although I suppose if you break it down to 6 policies over three years the charge per policy is not huge (sorry I know its not me who has to pay it !) - would you mind telling us who the insurer is - was it al with the same company?
We have recently had flyers from a couple of commercial insurers who have said that due to the state of the market they will no longer be allowing return premiums on policies cancelled by the insured mid term - they are contractually allowed to do this but up until now have usually allowed some sort of return on cancellation - monies tight and attitudes are hardening !