Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Right.    The law says that when you are asked to provide the driver's details you have to use "reasonable diligence" to find out who it was. The diligence you are required to use only begins once the request is made (this is covered in the case of Atkinson vs DPP). So it cannot be held against you if you did not obtain his details before you allowed him to drive the car.    I take it you provided the police simply with his name and address? If you are to defend this successfully you must convince the court that you did everything that was reasonably practical to identify him. But it seems you already know who it was. It just happens he seems to have disappeared.    You can understand the concern of the police. If it was so simple to just name somebody as the driver and you know that person, even if he was genuine, could not be traced, then everybody would do something similar. You have a simple choice to make: you can defend the charge against you on the basis that you have provided the details required, or you can plead guilty for failing to do so. It should not be in dispute that you provided the details; the matter for the court will be whether they believe they were genuine or not. If they do they should acquit you. It is not your responsibility to trace people who are accused of offences but who have since disappeared.   Personally I don't rate your chances of success too highly. You only know him as a "friend of a friend". At the very least you should have checked that he was insured to drive your car. That is something a car owner definitely must do before allowing another person to drive their car. If you had done that (say, by seeing a certificate of insurance to prove the cover) you may have been able to take other details which would help you convince a court hat the person was genuine. As an aside, if the driver was traced and it turned out he was not insured you could be prosecuted for permitting  him to drive your car uninsured (an offence which carries six points).   The outcome if you are found guilty at trial will be a fine of a week and a half's net income, a victim surcharge of 10% of the fine, six penalty points but, most significantly, prosecution costs which will be in the region of £600. If you plead guilty to the offence the fine will be reduced to just one week's net income and the costs will be £85, but six points will still be imposed.   The speeding matter is a dead duck. You were not driving, you have told them you were not, they obviously have no proof that you were so you cannot be convicted of that offence.
    • @defender90 welcome to the forum and it's very interesting news that new say that you have evidence. Any chance that you might start your own thread and tell your story there. We may be able to offer you help – but more importantly, the more threads there are with the name and the business name et cetera in the title, the more likely that Google is going to pick it up and that may attract others. Would like very much to know what the evidence is that you have 
    • Bum deal on Covid tests   https://www.euroweeklynews.com/2021/01/27/bum-deal-chinese-health-authorities-begin-anal-covid-swabs/
    • Hi guys.   Ok - so since I was last here I have set up a new basic bank account, which my salary and priority dd's will come out of from March.   Just wanted an opinion on a couple of thoughts I've had -   1) I have just agreed with my mortgage provider a 3 month covid payment holiday, which will help for the short term - however, I have an overdraft is with this bank. Am I causing a problem if I contact them now about my financial situation, or should I leave it until the holiday ends?   2) My salary has recently come down, which is a contributing factor to my plight - However, my income over the last few months will not reflect this. On my budget sheet, I have put in the new ongoing i and e.  Is my bank likely to turn down my request of freezing interest etc. on this basis? They can see what has been coming in and going out. I'm concerned they'll think I've been creative with my income sheet?! Or can I simply refer to this new situation in the pro-rata letters?   Thanks again.   A  
    • Hello Taxhelper   Thanks again . Your so kind and Im very grateful.   I am about to submit the form in the next few hours. Before clicking the submit button there is a calculation page that has been generated by the site based on the info I provided ( income from PAYe and income from self employment etc...with all expenses deducted). their calcs are correct.   The figures are correct and I do owe them a sum as well as 1st payment on account for 20-21. I just am not sure I can pay the lot by 31/1/2021 because I did not anticipate that the hospital may not be able to pay me on time ( my jan pay). Thats because I did submit my 'timesheet' to the HR on time but they delayed processing it in time for it to be paid by the end of this month. They have said they have asked for an exceptional CHAPS payment to be made but I remain uncertain whether they will pay it into my account by then or not. thats why i wasnt sure if its best to call HMRC and give them the heads up or not.  
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies

Norwich Union and confused.com

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 5152 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Can anyone help please with the following scenario ?


With four claim free years of fully comprehensive insurance with CIS behind him, my 21 year old son decided to change insurers for financial reasons.He had the benefit of the option to be covered driving other vehicles providing the owner gave permission.In February 2006, he moved to Norwich Union having searched the internet using the Cheap UK Car insurance and home insurance quotes comparison from Confused.com. database. This found many options, but Norwich Union suited him on price, as well as having all the benefits he previously enjoyed with CIS, including the option to be covered driving other vehicles providing the owner gave permission. The confused.com screen prompt clearly asked whether he wanted to be covered to drive other vehicles third party, he answered "yes". Everything was accepted and he proceeded with payment. Job done, new insurance cover, same as before but cheaper. The paperwork arrived a few days later and he, like many of us, filed it all away without reading.In October, he was pulled up by the police one night. There was a rear light failure on the car, which was owned and insured by me, his father, but driven by him. Sitting in the back of the police car, they access their records and notify him he is not insured. It seems his insurance only allows him to drive his own car full stop, whereas my insurance does not name him as a driver, of which I was aware. I was surprised as I thought any driver over the age of 21 was allowed to drive other vehicles etc, but apparently this has now changed to age 25. So, a summons will be on its way for driving without insurance. He contacted Norwich Union who did not want to know, keeping him on hold for 40 minutes, failing to return calls etc. They took the money without accepting responsibility. This would not be so bad if was not for the fact that, in July, he had been stopped and had to produce documents later. This he, stupidly, failed to do. Summons arrives for this July offence, conviction yesterday of £340 fine and 6 points. Yes, if he had produced, the current problem would have been cleared with just this fine, however, he is now looking at a further 6 points and ban for the October offence.My question to you is, how can we tackle the confused.com issue of providing wrong information ?How many others may be caught out by this ?Do you/we read our policy when it arrives to make sure ?I genuinely feel sorry for my son as this is an innocent mistake, punished as a criminal. Yes he is at fault for not producing, but never went out to drive without insurance. Is there anything we can do ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Confused.com are there simply as a cost comparison site - your son has no contract with them, he obtained the insurance from Norwich Union. It is your son's responsibility to check the policy wording and all exclusions before taking out the insurance, not after when it's too late.


In any case, being insured to drive any car is unusual for anybody under 25 so really he should have been looking specifically for somewhere that did this rather than comparing prices if he needed this sort of cover.


Also, I just found this as soon as I logged onto confused.com - it is there in black and white and certainly not hidden:


Confused.com is not a broker - we are an Insurance Search Engine to find out whether you can save money on insurance or other financial services products...


In order to accept the price our technology found for you, you must contact the insurance/financial service provider direct. We will give you a direct link to their web site...


Before you buy, it is really important that you check all the information they hold about you is correct. It is your responsibility to ensure all your details are correct, and failure to do so could result in invalidating your product, and in the case of insurance, you not having any insurance cover. ...


Our technology is very sophisticated and we hope that mistakes are never made! However, we stress that it is your responsibility to check that your details are correct on the underlying providers website.

Our technology is very sophisticated and we hope that mistakes are never made! However, we stress that it is your responsibility to check that your details are correct on the underlying providers website.


I think this is a non-starter. At least your son wasn't involved in an accident, which could have left him being liable for any third party damage (and this could be an unlimited liability).

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Barracad.


I must admit, our first thoughts were thankful that a serious accident was not involved.


I had not read the confused.com terms, but we are all more aware to check the small (and large) print.


Regarding the age 25 limit, most people I have spoken to around my parental age, 50, also thought the restriction was to age 21.


As I stress, this was a genuine mistake. There was never any intent to drive without insurance, if there had been, then no policy would have been taken out.


It is something he has taken on his chin and, whilst being very frustrated, is learning from.


Thanks for your clarification of this matter.





Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the age 25 limit, most people I have spoken to around my parental age, 50, also thought the restriction was to age 21.



Its a shock to say but how many people know Insurance inside & out? It's like saying to an electrician "can you wire in this light, it will only take you 10 minutes" - if your not an electrician how do you know it would only take 10 minutes?

Insurance is a trade which has many in's & outs which the public would not know all of them.


Regarding Driving Other Cars (DOC), Norwich Union made the press in 2005 that they would be removing this cover in the future. They havent yet but did restrict it to Comprehensive policies for over 25 yrs only. This is because many people were using the DOC for driving other cars regularly, having accidents and making claims in them for what is mainly a car of higher performance than they are insured for.


In all cases of driving another persons car, it is always best to be named on that persons insurance. The DOC was always provided for emergency situations only, hence it is 3rd party cover only.

In Insurance, thinking "It wont happen to me" could mean you dont have the cover you want at a time when you want it! - Dont always reject a Courtesy Car or Legal because you find the cost too much! Whats more valuable? YOU or the Policy Premium?


Please add to my reputation if my reply was informative to you. (click the scales);) Replies offered by me are not linked to anyone, and is from my own personal experience.:grin:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

I really do feel for your son. I work for norwich union and I am really sorry that they had to keep you on hold for so long. Unfortunately it is your son's responsibility to check that the documents are correct. Yes, not many do, but ultimately the onus is on your son.


He could try and argue the case in court. Provide details from confused but other than sympathy the judge will probably order 6 points and the resulting ban.


If it is any consolation, Norwich Union are the only company that do not load polices for an IN20 (driving without insurance). I know because I also had 2 IN20s. Most companies will but Norwich Union look at it that he was banned for not having insurance, as long as he now pays for it, then there is no need for the situation to happen again, unlike drink driving.


Also, they now do pay as you drive insurance, which might be cheaper for your son. Best of luck with his court case.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...