Insurance question |
Insurance question |
Sat, 1 Jun 2019 - 13:13
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 11 Joined: 11 May 2019 Member No.: 103,819 |
Stopped for alleged 90 in 70 on motorway 3 weeks ago by undercover cops. Given verbal NIP. Heard nothing since. Insurance renewal has come up. Question: do I declare to the insurance company that I’ve been stopped given I don’t yet know what the outcome of that will be? I can’t provide a factually correct statement of whether I will end up with 3 points, court summons, or speed awareness course until I officially receive that information from the police? My insurer is Admiral.
This post has been edited by K3bab: Sat, 1 Jun 2019 - 13:14 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Sat, 1 Jun 2019 - 13:13
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sat, 1 Jun 2019 - 13:24
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
Have you considered asking Admiral?
-------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Sat, 1 Jun 2019 - 13:31
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 11 Joined: 11 May 2019 Member No.: 103,819 |
I have. On the other hand I’ve read plenty of articles about the pitfall of over-informing insurance companies resulting in higher premiums. Is it a question of what I am required to communicate by law, or is it down to each insurers T&Cs.
|
|
|
Sat, 1 Jun 2019 - 13:37
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 951 Joined: 17 Aug 2010 Member No.: 39,849 |
I have. On the other hand I’ve read plenty of articles about the pitfall of over-informing insurance companies resulting in higher premiums. Is it a question of what I am required to communicate by law, or is it down to each insurers T&Cs. So read the policy and do what they ask you to do? |
|
|
Sat, 1 Jun 2019 - 14:28
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
At the moment it isn't even a pending conviction, just a stop by police and a possibility (fairly high?) that something may come of it.
Check your T&Cs on what you must declare. It varies with insurer, only common ground is if you don't declare what you must, you risk all sorts of pain. Convictions almost certainly and deffo when renewing. Pending convictions.... ie you've had the S172 or a summons, possibly required but I cannot remember ever seeing it. Some are asking for courses to be declared now. |
|
|
Sat, 1 Jun 2019 - 15:58
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 11 Joined: 11 May 2019 Member No.: 103,819 |
I have. On the other hand I’ve read plenty of articles about the pitfall of over-informing insurance companies resulting in higher premiums. Is it a question of what I am required to communicate by law, or is it down to each insurers T&Cs. So read the policy and do what they ask you to do? The only thing I can find is this (attached) To me it’s not really clear if I should be declaring or not This post has been edited by K3bab: Sat, 1 Jun 2019 - 15:59 |
|
|
Sat, 1 Jun 2019 - 16:09
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
No, the list of ‘involved in’s are all final action, none of those are ‘received a warning you may be prosecuted’.
-------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Sat, 1 Jun 2019 - 16:11
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,300 Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Member No.: 47,602 |
I have. On the other hand I’ve read plenty of articles about the pitfall of over-informing insurance companies resulting in higher premiums. Is it a question of what I am required to communicate by law, or is it down to each insurers T&Cs. So read the policy and do what they ask you to do? The only thing I can find is this (attached) To me it’s not really clear if I should be declaring or not The phrase "been involved in" seems all-embracing, and definitely means you should declare. WHether you do it now or when renewing will depend on the policy wording. When you're shopping around for better quotes, you need to consider the exact questions carefully. |
|
|
Sat, 1 Jun 2019 - 16:29
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 11 Joined: 11 May 2019 Member No.: 103,819 |
|
|
|
Sat, 1 Jun 2019 - 16:54
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
You will note that Admiral wants to know about Speed Awareness courses, removing the entire purpose of doing one
They say that they regard drivers that have done a course as higher risk Tells you all you need to know about the courses' contribution to road safety |
|
|
Sat, 1 Jun 2019 - 18:05
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
No, the list of ‘involved in’s are all final action, none of those are ‘received a warning you may be prosecuted’. Would the term “pending prosecution” not cover the situation I am in? To me, no it wouldn't. The cops told you that you are possibly/likely/will be prosecuted. That's a bit like my mum telling me to wait till my father got home. Could mean that I would get a smack round the earhole or a talking to or nothing. End of the day, cops need to progress it a little further (IMO) before it becomes pending. It may disappear, could end up on a speed awareness course, could be a Fixed Penalty and three points, could be into court. To me, until you have a piece of paper from the Old Bill saying we intend to prosecute, a conditional offer or a summons, it is simply a chat with some cops and a potentially poor outcome. |
|
|
Sat, 1 Jun 2019 - 19:04
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 11 Joined: 11 May 2019 Member No.: 103,819 |
I’m basically worried that interpreting their terms and conditions may give them an easy way to deny a claim later on if they disagree with my interpretation. I can’t believe that this isn’t a common situation and that there isn’t some general guidance on what one has to do in terms of declaring to insurance co
|
|
|
Sat, 1 Jun 2019 - 19:51
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
So ask Admiral...
-------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Sat, 1 Jun 2019 - 20:25
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
So ask Admiral... They will be the only people to give you a definitive answer. You may not like it but they will give an answer. I assume that you are shopping around and not just relying on Admiral ? What they say (or their interpretation) could be totally academic. |
|
|
Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 14:53
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,356 Joined: 30 Jun 2008 From: Landan Member No.: 20,731 |
Ultimately, the "correct" interpretation of the requirement would only be determined at a later date by a court or by the Financial Ombudsman, should you choose not to disclose it upon renewal and "something bad" happens later.
Arguably, the words "involved in any motoring offences" is very broad, and would include your current situation. No doubt that is how Admiral would see it, if you were to ask them. However, prior to any conviction, a more accurate description of your situation might be that the driver had been involved in an accusation relating to an alleged motoring offence--one which had not yet been legally established as a "motoring offence". This interpretation is supported by their inclusion of the words, "or have any pending prosecution", the inclusion of which obviously would have been superfluous if the "involved in any motoring offences" language already included any "pending prosecution", and it is hard to see why it logically would not. After all, in order to have a "pending prosecution" for one, the driver must already have had some "involvement" in a motoring offence. --Churchmouse |
|
|
Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 15:22
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 11 Joined: 11 May 2019 Member No.: 103,819 |
Ultimately, the "correct" interpretation of the requirement would only be determined at a later date by a court or by the Financial Ombudsman, should you choose not to disclose it upon renewal and "something bad" happens later. Arguably, the words "involved in any motoring offences" is very broad, and would include your current situation. No doubt that is how Admiral would see it, if you were to ask them. However, prior to any conviction, a more accurate description of your situation might be that the driver had been involved in an accusation relating to an alleged motoring offence--one which had not yet been legally established as a "motoring offence". This interpretation is supported by their inclusion of the words, "or have any pending prosecution", the inclusion of which obviously would have been superfluous if the "involved in any motoring offences" language already included any "pending prosecution", and it is hard to see why it logically would not. After all, in order to have a "pending prosecution" for one, the driver must already have had some "involvement" in a motoring offence. --Churchmouse It is all down to the technicalities. I may or may not have pending prosecution as the outcome may be a fixed penalty or a driving awareness course. Anyway as per the recommendation on this thread I clarified with Admiral and they advised that since a verbal NIP is not a definitive pending prosecution, I do not need to worry about it at this stage and only declare it once I hear again from the police. |
|
|
Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 16:27
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,300 Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Member No.: 47,602 |
Ultimately, the "correct" interpretation of the requirement would only be determined at a later date by a court or by the Financial Ombudsman, should you choose not to disclose it upon renewal and "something bad" happens later. Arguably, the words "involved in any motoring offences" is very broad, and would include your current situation. No doubt that is how Admiral would see it, if you were to ask them. However, prior to any conviction, a more accurate description of your situation might be that the driver had been involved in an accusation relating to an alleged motoring offence--one which had not yet been legally established as a "motoring offence". This interpretation is supported by their inclusion of the words, "or have any pending prosecution", the inclusion of which obviously would have been superfluous if the "involved in any motoring offences" language already included any "pending prosecution", and it is hard to see why it logically would not. After all, in order to have a "pending prosecution" for one, the driver must already have had some "involvement" in a motoring offence. --Churchmouse It is all down to the technicalities. I may or may not have pending prosecution as the outcome may be a fixed penalty or a driving awareness course. Anyway as per the recommendation on this thread I clarified with Admiral and they advised that since a verbal NIP is not a definitive pending prosecution, I do not need to worry about it at this stage and only declare it once I hear again from the police. Surely a "verbal" (oral) NIP is no more or less definitive than a written one? |
|
|
Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 19:51
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
............Surely a "verbal" (oral) NIP is no more or less definitive than a written one? I believe there is a difference. To me, a cop on the roadside who says "I am reporting this for further action" is not cementing anything into the system. Only warning the driver that they may receive a notice of further action. While a written notice is saying, we are taking action. I would not even take an S172 request as a notice of pending prosecution, it is a precursor at the worst. |
|
|
Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 20:00
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
I’m with 666.
-------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Tue, 4 Jun 2019 - 09:57
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
............Surely a "verbal" (oral) NIP is no more or less definitive than a written one? I believe there is a difference. To me, a cop on the roadside who says "I am reporting this for further action" is not cementing anything into the system. Only warning the driver that they may receive a notice of further action. While a written notice is saying, we are taking action. I would not even take an S172 request as a notice of pending prosecution, it is a precursor at the worst. So you're saying that if someone is stopped for, say, doing 99 mph on the motorway, old bill says "I'm reporting you for the offence" and a few months later he gets a summons / SJPN, the driver can claim a defence that he didn't receive a NIP within 14 days? Sorry DancindDad but that's clearly absurd, see section 1(a) here https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/53/section/1 -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 01:59 |