Today I'm angry about.....

[Worthy4England]

So to sum up, apart from being obliged to get road insurance. we should just feck you sharks off then.
BTW change of circumstance is not concrete and many insurance companies have come unstuck, eventually, by this.

Money lenders, insurance companies, whose the biggest sharks?

I just knew you worked for one of them

I think there's some good advice there, I generally don't report minor stuff like hitting motorcyclists. They generally don't make too much of a dint.

The problem is, the other guy might report it, then you look like you've got something to hide...

[thebish]

It is called non-disclosure or misrepresentation. You must disclose all relevant information to the risk for which they are seeking cover. If you have have a couple of bumps in your car (both your fault) in the last year but each time you have agreed to not go through the insurance companies, then the insurer are not being given all the information for the policy.

yes, but this is absolutely NOT what is beibng talked about. Why can't Worthy choose NOT to tell you about a bump that he doesn't want to claim for that ISN'T ebven in the slightest bit his fault?

[Worthy4England]

It is called non-disclosure or misrepresentation. You must disclose all relevant information to the risk for which they are seeking cover. If you have have a couple of bumps in your car (both your fault) in the last year but each time you have agreed to not go through the insurance companies, then the insurer are not being given all the information for the policy.

yes, but this is absolutely NOT what is beibng talked about. Why can't Worthy choose NOT to tell you about a bump that he doesn't want to claim for that ISN'T ebven in the slightest bit his fault?

Indeed. No Claims should be about whether or not you've claimed, NOT whether or not you were at fault. Opportunistic w@nkers.

[clapton is god]

It is called non-disclosure or misrepresentation. You must disclose all relevant information to the risk for which they are seeking cover. If you have have a couple of bumps in your car (both your fault) in the last year but each time you have agreed to not go through the insurance companies, then the insurer are not being given all the information for the policy.

yes, but this is absolutely NOT what is beibng talked about. Why can't Worthy choose NOT to tell you about a bump that he doesn't want to claim for that ISN'T ebven in the slightest bit his fault?

Indeed. No Claims should be about whether or not you've claimed, NOT whether or not you were at fault. Opportunistic w@nkers.

Because then the other side can approach his insurers with his claim and his insurers will then approach your insurers who will get very upset when they find out via another source that their client has not disclosed something that is now costing them money to investigate. People make false claims in vast numbers and you should never expect the other side in an incident to play fair.

[malcd1]

It is called non-disclosure or misrepresentation. You must disclose all relevant information to the risk for which they are seeking cover. If you have have a couple of bumps in your car (both your fault) in the last year but each time you have agreed to not go through the insurance companies, then the insurer are not being given all the information for the policy.

yes, but this is absolutely NOT what is beibng talked about. Why can't Worthy choose NOT to tell you about a bump that he doesn't want to claim for that ISN'T ebven in the slightest bit his fault?

Indeed. No Claims should be about whether or not you've claimed, NOT whether or not you were at fault. Opportunistic w@nkers.

Of course he can tell no one and get it repaired himself. Loads of people do it. The example I gave above tried to we explain why insurance companies need to know these things.

All I am saying is he has a duty to tell his insurance company. It will probably be in the small print of the terms and conditions of the policy. If you don't tell then you run the risk of the policy being cancelled if there is a claim. No insurance company wants to insure a very high risk individual (I'm not saying Worthy is by the way).

[bobo the clown]

Then it shouldn't be called "no claims".

The man on the Clapham Omnibus (who wouldn't be bothered as he uses public transport) would have every right to presume it was a claim that mattered not incidents. If it's hidden away on page 22 of a document they know no-one reads it'd be interesting to see a court challenge of it being misleading.

[Lord Kangana]

I've argued small print with a credit card company a while back - page 15, paragraph 12, point b subsection ii said that if I didn't use my CC for a period of 2 years they could charge me an annual fee of £50. The guy on the phone even repeated it to me. I said I wasn't arguing whether it was there or not, but that such a redonculous clause should have been in big red writing on page one, paragraph one, subsection one of the terms and doubly underlined for good measure , and therefore they should waive it. They did.

[BWFC_Insane]

It is called non-disclosure or misrepresentation. You must disclose all relevant information to the risk for which they are seeking cover. If you have have a couple of bumps in your car (both your fault) in the last year but each time you have agreed to not go through the insurance companies, then the insurer are not being given all the information for the policy.

yes, but this is absolutely NOT what is beibng talked about. Why can't Worthy choose NOT to tell you about a bump that he doesn't want to claim for that ISN'T ebven in the slightest bit his fault?

Because were the insurance company to find out, they wouldn't know who was responsible or not. And there would be no proof. Just that W4E had his car repaired after an accident. So for all they know he's done something stupid and therefore is a reckless driver increasing their risk. I can see the argument.

Pretty much any insurance policy runs along full disclosure.

They are total shits though. Like travel insurance if you forget to disclose some health issue that was resolved but affects the policy and they find out about it they can and will reject all claims even if not related. Morally that cannot be right but they get out of it through their t&c's....

[Bruce Rioja]

A mate of mine has just been informed that his insurers won't renew his policy because of what he does for a living - which doesn't involve any driving at all. WTF?

[BWFC_Insane]

A mate of mine has just been informed that his insurers won't renew his policy because of what he does for a living - which doesn't involve any driving at all. WTF?

Professional drunk?

[Lord Kangana]

It is called non-disclosure or misrepresentation. You must disclose all relevant information to the risk for which they are seeking cover. If you have have a couple of bumps in your car (both your fault) in the last year but each time you have agreed to not go through the insurance companies, then the insurer are not being given all the information for the policy.

yes, but this is absolutely NOT what is beibng talked about. Why can't Worthy choose NOT to tell you about a bump that he doesn't want to claim for that ISN'T ebven in the slightest bit his fault?

Because were the insurance company to find out, they wouldn't know who was responsible or not. And there would be no proof. Just that W4E had his car repaired after an accident. So for all they know he's done something stupid and therefore is a reckless driver increasing their risk. I can see the argument.

Pretty much any insurance policy runs along full disclosure.

They are total shits though. Like travel insurance if you forget to disclose some health issue that was resolved but affects the policy and they find out about it they can and will reject all claims even if not related. Morally that cannot be right but they get out of it through their t&c's....

Actually I think this is now incorrect and the law has changed. Not only can you claim unfair contract terms (which you always have been able to) the onus is now on the provider not the consumer - as long as you have disclosed everything that is deemed, on balance, to be relevant at the time. They can't rely on the get-out-of-jail-free-card they once had.

I certainly think Worthy' would make an interesting test case were he ever minded to pursue it.

[bobo the clown]

A mate of mine has just been informed that his insurers won't renew his policy because of what he does for a living - which doesn't involve any driving at all. WTF?

Professional drunk?

Henchman ?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Can you all stop faffing about - get yourselves insurance with a no-claims bonus guaranteed for life. If I can do it (and I've averaged just under three points per year for the last twenty years) then anyone can.

[Lord Kangana]

Go on then.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Much prefer the system here. You pay in the region of 4-5% of the cars value. The car is insured for any driver (with residency in UAE). Sure, it can work out more expensive for some people, but it's fairly transparent and is seems to be based on what it would cost to fix/replace. Given the level of lunacy on the roads here, the insurance companies don't seem to lose out and need to rip some folk off at the benefit of others.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

A mate of mine has just been informed that his insurers won't renew his policy because of what he does for a living - which doesn't involve any driving at all. WTF?

Professional drunk?

Henchman ?

Trapeze Artist
Car Crush Operator
Banker
Roman Abramovich
Guide Dog
Owen Coyle
UKIP Councillor

[Bruce Rioja]

A mate of mine has just been informed that his insurers won't renew his policy because of what he does for a living - which doesn't involve any driving at all. WTF?

Professional drunk?

Henchman ?

Trapeze Artist
Car Crush Operator
Banker
Roman Abramovich
Guide Dog
Owen Coyle
UKIP Councillor

Professional drunk sounds like a cracking gig. Where/when do I start?

No, he's actually a Broadcaster.

[LeverEnd]

Is it Stuart Hall?

[bobo the clown]

Is it Stuart Hall?

Actual LoL then !!

[Harry Genshaw]

This is feckin' scandalous if true

http://www.michaelmeacher.info/weblog/2 ... efit-paid/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Or how to turn people to crime!

IDS really is a tool.

I'm angry that you're all talking about car insurance when there's more important stuff going on like this. You know something's wrong when even Hoboh is enraged about such a right wing idea