Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
I've been insuring my various vehicles for years, and the only thing I've ever been asked to supply is proof of my NCB. Having left esure and switched to 'Insure & Go' I received a request to supply not only my proof of NCD, but they want a copy of my driving licence, including paper counterpart etc etc.
Now, as a sensitive codger - I've got nothing to hide, my licence is clean and all disclosures on the policy were honest and truthful, however I see no reason why I should even be asked to provide this additional 'evidence' of my existance - never mind provide them with a phontocopy of it and the possible misuse this information can be put to, either by this firm, or if the copies don't even make it safely through the postal system.
I'm plannig to deny their request, stating that I see no reason why I should provide them with Photo ID especially as they already have my money and have issued the policy.
Have YOU had a similar request from your motor insurer, and is this a new ploy to obtain more (and needless) data for their files?
It used to be standard practice for most insurers to ask for a copy of your driving licence. Direct insurers started the trend of not requesting it until a claim occurred so that they could save on administration costs.
Insurers do not request this item as proof of who you are, it is often requested as proof that you have no endorsements and that you have a full licence.
That may seem to be the reason at first glance, but just as Helth insurers don't ask you to supply a photocopy of the medical records held by your doctor, the insurer is then happy to reject your claim(s) if you did not disclose a pre-existing condition.
Moving this to the car insurance arena, if I have made a misleading declaration then the company is entitled to load my claim or even cancel the insurance. Asking for a copy of my licence (to my mind) is none of their concerm, as it provides them with far more information than they require, and with the latest Insurance equivalent of a CRA credit file, they are ramping up 'Insurance Huinter' as a new database to hold client details in a centralised for for use by ANY insurance company. Their reason for creating 'to identify and control fraud'! Fine - now I'm guilty and providing data without having done anything wrong!
Insurance contracts are contracts of Utmost Good Faith. This means that the onus is on the proposer to disclose all information which is relevant for the insurer to assess the risk and decide whether or not to accept the proposal, and if so on what terms.
If there has been a non-disclosure of information, then insurer may void your policy or apply an additional premium (load), depending on whether they would not have accepted the policy in the first place had they been aware of the non-disclosure of whether they would have accepted it but at a higher premium.
Most insurers check the information you provided only when you make a claim. However, they are within their rights to check whenever it is deemed necessary, such as when the policy is taken out. It is a condition of the policy that you provide any information requested by the insurer, so long as the information requested is relevant to the insurer.
It is my understanding therefore that they are within their rights to request a copy of your licence at this stage. Although I'm surprised they have asked for your photo-card. Any motoring convictions or fixed penalties are shown on your counterpart and there is no reason for them to see the photo-card too.
"Although I'm surprised they have asked for your photo-card. Any motoring convictions or fixed penalties are shown on your counterpart and there is no reason for them to see the photo-card too."
Its easier to forge a counterpart than a photocard...
Abbey - owed £3260 - Paid up.
Barclays owed £2500 - Paid up.
Halifax, Mint & Egg - next on the hit list
Dont click on the scales - I'm quite proud of my little red dot! - As the little red dot has gone - click away!!!!
My issue is that they are entitled to all the information required to assess the risk - all of which I have provided. They are wanting copies of the physical evidence of this, and it is this I object to, for the reasons outlined earlier. I don;t plan to be an unwilling participant in adding data to the Insurance Hunter database, when all I reequire is a policy. No claim or related action is involved at this stage. I think I'll require them to disclose that they intend doing with the documents I provide, and see what the response is. I dislike copies of official documents being stored by unconnected third parties.
If it is a condition of the policy that a copy licence is supplied that you must do so. The insurer will be within their right to cancel the policy or refuse to pay any damage claim.
This is a safeguard on their behalf to ensure that you have a valid UK licence. It is a fair request in view of the significant number of people driving without a valid licence never mind without insurance.
Such risk management helps to reduce premiums and not for any "big brother" purpose.
There is no need for you to be concerned. They will no doubt scan the copy then destroy it as I suspect all data will be held electronically.
The request for the copy licence only came through after they accepted my proof of NCD. If they want to cancel the policy due to non compliance, that's their concern.
As for it being a 'safeguard' that I have a licence? You'll need to explain that to me slowly. The indistry practice is that the police require the licence after an accident, and the insurance company are advised of any problems with your documentation. For example, a condition requires that in addition to a licence, my vehicle also needs to have a current MoT and Tax Disc. Why don't they want a copy of that? Wait! They have access to the DVLA via the Motor Insurers computer system.... and this will link me to all policies I have and claims made. As for scanning the info, this increases my concens even more. What system will this be stored on? Who can access it and for what purposes? I could provide the data on deep red paper meaning it could be scanned at all....
At the moment I'm trying to discover whether my company is starting the trend, and it appears to be - hence my lack of enthusiasm to disclose details that are not relevant. There is little point claiming to have a licence when you don't, as no cover attaches if you don't have a licence. Hence their reason to have sight of the documentation still eludes me.
I can appreciate your concerns and hopefully I cam allay your fears.
Firstly, the fact that the police may request a copy of your licence is nothing to do with the insurance policy. They have the right to request all relevent documentation i.e. the producer to ensure that you are legally entitled to drive in the UK and that you have the necessary insurance cover. Once that's done, that is generally the end of their interest - unless injury or an illegal act has occurred. Whether the vehicle is taxed or MOT'd is not an issue to the insurer unless a claim occurs and they may not pay the full amount that may be due to you. They are obliged however to deal with the Third Party under RTA rules & regs.
The databases insurers have access to are the MID ( every insured vehicle registered and Insured in the UK is logged on this - or should be ) which is a safeguard against uninsured drivers. The police also have access to this. However the insurers will not have direct access to the DVLA database nor to a claims database. ( Can a personal lines UW advise me different ? ).
Regarding scanning - Most organisations no longer retain paper files whether it be Insurance, banking or any other company as "files" are now stored electronically and access will be restricted to employees or authorised users only.
Finally, your insurer is not starting a trend rather reinforcing past requirements. When I worked in personal lines insurance many moons ago, this was the norm for a lot of insurers - especially Lloyds Underwriters. If a company accepts you and you don't have a licence then yes they will repudiate your claim however should a third party be involved, they are obliged under the RTA to deal with this.
As I said earlier, the request is fair and helps the insurer to keep costs down by targeting a specific audience i.e. those who the know have got claen and full UK licences. You'd be amazed how many drivers are on the roads with foreign invalid licences etc.
And now my whinge - in general, most people complain about the cost of insuring vehicles and anything which helps reduce the cost gets my vote. Ultimately, that is what this company is doing - minimising their exposure.
I hope that this goes someway to answering your concerns and I 'm sure some of the other respondents will endorse what I've said.
I have worked in motor insurance claims for 6 years. I've worked in policyholder claims, fraud and now third party claims.
I can verify everything Trojan1401 says.
The insurer cannot disclose information to third party's without your permission. Besides, they already have all the information they would need anyway if they intended to pass it to a third party; they wouldn't need you licence to do that.
Hate to correct you - but I've already taken Admiral Plc to the Information Commissioner for doing just that, and disclosing data without permission to the Insurance Hunter database.
As you point out, they have all the information they require already, so the request for photocopies of the licence is needless busywork and further evidence of the consumer having to disclose more personal details than they need to know.
As you point out, they have all the information they require already, so the request for photocopies of the licence is needless busywork and further evidence of the consumer having to disclose more personal details than they need to know.
As i previously said - 'It used to be standard practice for most insurers to ask for a copy of your driving licence at inception. Direct insurers started the trend of not requesting it until a claim occurred so that they could save on administration costs'. You would be surprised at how many times this has shown convictions on a licence that the owner had conveniently forgotten they had and didnt bother to disclose.
I am not saying you shouldn't question the information you are requested to provide, after all i do the same on behalf of my clients sometimes, but this just appears to be a spiralling rant now going who knows where rather than a sensible discussion.
Buzby, I don't understand what you have said about Admiral? You are informed when taking out the policy that they will share information you provide with other insurers via various databases. Every insurer does it. I don't see what Admiral did wrong?
By providing your licence you are not giving the insurer 'more information than they need to know'. You have already given them the information yourself. By providing them a copy you are just verifying it.
The insurer has a right to see your licence, either now or after you make a claim. You are being unecessarily awkward.
I wasn't a customer of Admiral at all THAT'S what they did wrong. THey wrote to me concering a third part claim and told me that my data would be used for a string of purposes I did neither agree or permit them to.
I'm afraid you take a rather myopic view of what the insurers can do with customer data. For example, the Insurer has no idea of your licence entitlements and classifications to drive, all of which is revealed if a photocopy is provided.
Can you point to any part of a contract with an insurer that legally requires me to show or provide a copy of my licence under law? The isn't some hastily thought out 'money laundering' rule that allows financial institutions to take copies of your passport and driving licence for their own protection (not yours). As for being 'awkward' it is only by challenging their imagined 'right' to official documents thatI object to. If consumers do not object, then it will become established as the 'norm', so I see no reason to comply.
If consumers do not object, then it will become established as the 'norm', so I see no reason to comply.
As i have said twice before - it was the norm to request this but many/most insurers dropped this request at inception and chose to request it when a claim arose instead.
As i previously said - 'It used to be standard practice for most insurers to ask for a copy of your driving licence at inception.
I am not saying you shouldn't question the information you are requested to provide, after all i do the same on behalf of my clients sometimes, but this just appears to be a spiralling rant now going who knows where rather than a sensible discussion.
It may be 'standard practice' where you operate, however I have been paying for motor insurance for almonst 40 years now, with a wide rande of companies, and it is only last week I've been asked to provide this additional 'proof'. It is this I am querying - and it appears (as I have expected) to be an arbitrary exercise, employed by some firms and not others. Therefore its usefulness is questionable.
'Spiralling rant'? You must be reading a differentr thread to me. This debate has properly expanded to reveal the nature of the beast, and its implausability, along with the insurance industry's need to populate the Insurance Hunter database with as much information as they possibly can. You may have no issues with the misuse of data, however if you have had your identity stolen you take these matters VERY seriously. I'm sorry if you don't appreciate this, but when it happens to you and you realise you actually don't have any personal information that is 'private', do remember this thread.
It may be 'standard practice' where you operate, however I have been paying for motor insurance for almonst 40 years now, with a wide rande of companies, and it is only last week I've been asked to provide this additional 'proof'. It is this I am querying - and it appears (as I have expected) to be an arbitrary exercise, employed by some firms and not others. Therefore its usefulness is questionable.
Where and how i operate is irrelevant as i have been an insurance broker with varying brokers since the late 80's therefore i have a wide knowledge of what has or hasnt been requested by many different insurers for a considerable time.
When i first started out it was normal practice to request a copy of a drivers licence for every motor policy incepted/sold. This, with the advent of direct insurers desire to cut costs, has been dropped by many/most insurers over time but is very often still requested should a claim arise.
Which does nothing to disprove my experiences. As to your view of relevance, I regret I have no interest in how or where you operate, this cleary is not a national policy, and as you go on to note 'has been dropped by many' - supports my contention that it is neither necessary or cumpulsory. Thanks for that.
Funnily enough - I would, because we've now got to the stage that the DVLA are disclosing their database to just about anyone that can come up with a half-decent excuse! But in answer to your question, I have no difficulty in showing (or 'exhibiting' in legal parlance) my licence to anyone who may reasonably request to SEE it, which would include any representative of my insurers.
However I would only be prepared to show/exhibit the document, not provide them a facsimile or copy of it, ans I cannot see what reason they would have to retain it after their inspector or agent had established that it was genuine.
Car Insurance - Proof on NCB & a surprise!
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by buzby
