Car Insurance - Proof on NCB & a surprise!

[wrigaj1]

An underwriter is well within their rights to request any information to make a valid assessement of the risk they are presented with. If they feel it is necessary to view a proposers driving licence they are within their rights to request this.

[Trojan1401]

wrigaj1,

 

That's what we brokers/underwriters are saying.

[Pagan98]

An underwriter is well within their rights to request any information to make a valid assessement of the risk they are presented with. If they feel it is necessary to view a proposers driving licence they are within their rights to request this.

 

This would be a valid statement if the underwriter had requested the information prior to placing the policy on risk or advised at that time that they may need to confirm some of the information provided to allow the insurance premium quote to be made expeditiously. In the absence of a catch all clause in the T&Cs re. requests for documentation, I would say the OP is within his rights to tell them to get stuffed.

[wrigaj1]

No one knows what the terms and conditions of the Insure & Go policy are. I for one are not familiar with it. It is more than likely that it is in the small print and/or in their terms and conditions.

[buzby]

This is true - however I've now conducted a poll of 100 business colleagues - none of whom have company insurance policies - and all state the only evidence required was of proof of no claims.

 

At the time of writing, they have not re-requested the photocopied licence. However, since insurers now have access TO THIS VERY INFORMATION via the DVLA, the requirement for a 'photocopy' remains suspect.

[xrchris]

Why do you say this request is suspect?

[buzby]

Because the insurance and car hire industry already has direct access to DVLA data to prove licence validity and penalty points. Requesting needless 'busy work' to supply photocopies that can be misused or even fraudulently manipulated by primary, secondary or even third parties makes the whole exercise laughable and unprofessional.

[Trojan1401]

Insurers do not have automatic access to the DVLA for either licence or vehicle checks. Only the police have this access right. Although Insurers do have access to the MID which only proves a vehicle is insured and by whom.

 

Accepted there are very few insurers who automatically request a copy licence however, I request copies especially where there is a driver referral and may be outside the age warranty stipulated on the policy even though the person may have declared already that they have no convictions. This is in my capacity as a broker acting as the agent of the Insurer in this particular instance.

 

I still cannot understand your fears or worries over this so we will just have to agree to disagree.

[buzby]

I think you should refer to the DVLA who advise the open access their system provides to motor-related data access, I do hope you will be surprised. Car Hire firms also have the right and both Avis, Hertz and Enterprise can pull up the data given by the hirer in much the same way as you and I can get an address from a postcode.

 

As to you not understanding my stance - perhaps when your identity is stolen you will take a more pragmatic view. To be asked for your DoB for anything as mundane as buying a pair of shoes from a mail order supplier (for cash) is a case in point. Your personal data is yours, and not to be dispensed with, without great care. An insurer may need to know your age to assess risk, but the month and day of birth? I doubt it.

[wrigaj1]

If this is such an issue, why not move to another insurer?!!

 

The market is so soft at the moment you should have no difficulty in moving to another market at a price and terms acceptable to you.

 

Insurers do have access to various databases. However, there is a clear audit trail and individual users can be prosecuted under the DPA for misuse. I for one have access to the MID however it is audited by Experian to ensure there is no misuse.

 

Insurers will check MIAFTR following a theft claim and can in certain circumstances undertake licence checks. This is not routine.

 

Underwriters do require your date of birth to rate a risk. This gives an accurate assessement of your age.

 

Car hire companies can check licence details. Is this not a good thing? At least they can ensure an individual has a valid and current driving licence prior to hiring a vehicle. One way of keeping unlicenced drivers away from vehicles!

 

What is the Insurer Hunter database exactly?!

[buzby]

Since they have my money in advance for 12 months cover, moving is not an option unless they terminate cover, should they voluntarily provide a refund, then this will not be a problem. As I noted earlier, they've not sent a 3rd request so things have not required to be escalated.

 

A clear audit trail is not an issue, if their requirement to check is just, then knowing an employee is doing it is hardly an issue - their inquiry gives irrefutable proof a licence exists and the insureds statement both correct and accurate. It is the nonsensical request that a paper copy of the licence is forwarded to substantiate that a licence is held when there is no need to. If they want it, it can be checked with the DVLA, if they are prepared to take the insureds statement as correct (as in years gone by) there's no problem.

 

Car hire firms make checks on the DVLA database routinely, the fact that an insurer does not hardly invalidates my assertion that the data is there to be accessed should they require it.

 

Underwriters use a persons age to determine the risk, an exact DoB will give little to the % of risk, unless you suggest that in the days before (or after) an insureds birthday the risk levels change appreciably. In any event, quotations invariably are based on 'age next birthday' and do not change when the DoB is provided. Hence my assertion that the need for this (a defined DoB) is largely immaterial to the process of insuring someone.

 

I believe on-line checks of validity of documentation are excellent - and the new MoT system is a case in point. My annoyance is that the insurance company appear incapable of using this and expect me to find a photocopier and send this information by post with all the attendant risks. If they cannot accept my word that my statements are correct, it is their job to prove me wrong, not me to support my own statements are correct.

 

Insurance Hunter was established by a group of insurers and is run by Equifax, it is essentially the same as a Credit File, but designed for the needs of the insurance industry. All records pertaining to cover and claims are lodged with the service, so anyone switching providers does not start with a 'clean sheet', but earlier claims can be reviewed by underwriters to assess the ongoing risk. As far as I am aware, this data is held in perpetuity, there is no 6 year limit as with CRAs.

[wrigaj1]

You are incorrect in your assumption that the insurance is rated on the policyholders next birthday. If there is a couple of weeks in it, then yes it will be rated that way. If however you are 60 for instance and your 61st birthday is not for another 10 months, it will be rated on a 60 year old.

 

The hunter database you are referring to was not put together by the insurance industry. It is a database owned and managed by Equifax and Insurers and Financial institutions can have access. It is primarily designed to check for abnormalities in application processes. I have not come across any insurance company which uses this.

[xrchris]

 

Insurance Hunter was established by a group of insurers and is run by Equifax, it is essentially the same as a Credit File, but designed for the needs of the insurance industry. All records pertaining to cover and claims are lodged with the service, so anyone switching providers does not start with a 'clean sheet', but earlier claims can be reviewed by underwriters to assess the ongoing risk. As far as I am aware, this data is held in perpetuity, there is no 6 year limit as with CRAs.

 

The National Hunter Database and Insurance Hunter Database are administered by MCL Software Ltd. and (since they were bought in 2002) are part of Experian.

[ScarletPimpernel]

So a SAR to Experian should produce details of what they hold on Insurance Hunter?

[demon_x_slash]

You got my vote, Buzz...

[buzby]

You are incorrect in your assumption that the insurance is rated on the policyholders next birthday. If there is a couple of weeks in it, then yes it will be rated that way. If however you are 60 for instance and your 61st birthday is not for another 10 months, it will be rated on a 60 year old.

 

I'm surprised you say this, as I clearly explained that when seeking quotations for cover, many firms only require an age next birthday and not a full DoB disclosure to calculate the cost of cover, therefore my statement is one of fact and not an assumption, neither is it incorrect.

 

The hunter database you are referring to was not put together by the insurance industry. It is a database owned and managed by Equifax and Insurers and Financial institutions can have access. It is primarily designed to check for abnormalities in application processes. I have not come across any insurance company which uses this.

 

Firstly, I'm unaware of any 'financial institutions' having a right of access to IH data. 'Checking for abnormalities' is as good a term as 'filing all consumer data'. The database provides additional data to the Insurance company and the insured has little if any choice in opting out or requiring his data not be used. Since this can similarly be viewed in tandem with Equifaxes credit products, the amount of personal information users are unwittingly providing is quite alarming.

 

The fact you have not come across any company using IH does make me wonder if your experience in the industry is as comprehensive as you think. In my limited experience as a consumer, I'm aware of at least 28 branded insurers, including Churchill, Sheila's Wheels, Direct Line, Admiral and Elephant amongst others. I do not think any of these could be described as 'small', therefore the disclosure of my details to IH by an Admiral company despite my not giving permission for it to do so (or being a client of theirs) resulted in a complaint to the ICO and my details removed under protest.

[wrigaj1]

I have not said how comprehensive my experience is! I merely said I have not come across a company which uses it! I worked for the largest general insurer and at that time we did not use this database. Nor do we use it at my current employers!

[lisa030266]

My son was asked for the same info when insuring his bike, driving licence, proof of CBT and proof of NCB.

 

He sent photocopies of all the above then to get a letter stating his insurance has been cancelled. When calling to ask why they said they never received the documents.

 

How right is it for an insurance company to cancel someones policy on this basis and then have the audacity to charge them a cancellation fee. My son is only 18 and finding it difficult enough as it is to make ends meet without having to shell out a £55 cancellation fee after he paid a £50 deposit on his insurance.

 

Is this right?

[vusys1]

i wish more companys would ask for driving licences on application as it would cut down the claims we have to pay out to TP`s after they have been hit by non licence,banned,expired,international (more than 12 months etc),licence holders who drive illegaly then rack up the costs to insurers & you & me when the insurers have to settle TP claims under article 75 of the rta.

 

the amount of claims i have seen paid out is horrendous,it sometimes takes 2 or 3 as we will only ask for a licence following a total loss,but as we have already settle previous claims theres not a lot we can do.

[buzby]

No - of course it isn't right. What they forget is that the cancellation fee is to cover their inconvenience when the CUSTOMER seeks a variance to the policy, NOT when they decide to cancel it on a whim.

 

But this is not the main problem. They will have advised the IH database (Insurance Hunter) of all his details ad that they cancelled his policy. Ths means that should he apply for another policy, he will have to disclose that he had a policy refused, which adds a red flag to his dealings. If he does not disclose, they can use this as a reason for a subsequent cancellation.

 

To resolve this, you need to WRITE - setting down the situation from your PoV. If you enclose copies of the documents once again to prove they exist, explain that all they had to do was ask if they had not received them and you would have supplied replacements, so you do not feel the withholding of funds for THIR cancellation is reasonable or fair.

 

Add that if they intend ending his cover with prejudice, you will have to protect your interests by raising a court action for the return of the money owed, and a declaration that the policy was revoked without prejudice to the policyholder.