STOLEN GSA1250 PUTNEY HL19 CFP

[Andy B]

I have ringing in my ears that unforgettable expression when I was doing an A Level in Law at night school; ‘a contract of utmost good faith’! I’ve never heard it in any other legal context other than insurance. Reinterpreted; if you are economical with the truth you maybe found out.

I hate the insurance industry. It is one of the last true parasitic industries where huge amounts of our premiums go to feather the nests of exploitive brokers. However much I think that a 40% discount on the payout for a (relatively) new bike because of an undeclared SP50 is utterly unfair - one party to the contract was “forgetful’ at best. Burn the bastards, but be careful what you insure for! Online comparison sites make it too easy for the customer to stretch the truth. Just double-check the details before you press the ‘buy’ button!

 

[Delboy777]

I have ringing in my ears that unforgettable expression when I was doing an A Level in Law at night school; ‘a contract of utmost good faith’! I’ve never heard it in any other legal context other than insurance. Reinterpreted; if you are economical with the truth you maybe found out.

I hate the insurance industry. It is one of the last true parasitic industries where huge amounts of our premiums go to feather the nests of exploitive brokers. However much I think that a 40% discount on the payout for a (relatively) new bike because of an undeclared SP50 is utterly unfair - one party to the contract was “forgetful’ at best. Burn the bastards, but be careful what you insure for! Online comparison sites make it too easy for the customer to stretch the truth. Just double-check the details before you press the ‘buy’ button!

I have an SP10 on record. Even although it will be five years this July, and there is nothing on my licence, and hasnt been since last July, i still have to declare it because they ask for 5 years, fuck knows why. I think they just use it as an excuse to load your premium up a bit. I agree they are at best parasites, who feed on our pocket books at every opportunity. They ask for clarity when we fill in the quote questionaire maybe its about time they were forced to come clean with their efforts to try and back out of liability.

 

[Steptoe]

They ask for clarity when we fill in the quote questionaire maybe its about time they were forced to come clean with their efforts to try and back out of liability.

How about filling in the questioner in such a way so they can't back out of their liability. i.e. truthfully.

Why do people never take responsibility for their actions when they're caught out.

 

[Andy B]

How about filling in the questioner in such a way so they can't back out of their liability. i.e. truthfully.

Why do people never take responsibility for their actions when they're caught out.

They still get it wrong. I have had a number of instances over the years when renewing for another year they have quoted back to me what they have on record. The last time it happened it was that I had told them my bike was kept on a drive. I have never kept my bike on a drive - ever! They have always been garaged so I know it wasn't my mis-information that had led to the mistake. In that particular instance it benefitted me going forward but would they agree to a credit for the mistake the previous year(s)? Not on your nelly!

 

[Delboy777]

How about filling in the questioner in such a way so they can't back out of their liability. i.e. truthfully.

Why do people never take responsibility for their actions when they're caught out.

Yes i agree 100% thats why I declared the SP10 even though its almost expired. My licence is clean, its only the bloody insurance that want a five year period when your conviction has been disregarded by DVLA after 3 years although its on for four.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Santa-2512]

How about filling in the questioner in such a way so they can't back out of their liability. i.e. truthfully.

Why do people never take responsibility for their actions when they're caught out.

Totally agree, but in some respects how they sold it to us, has created the problem we see now.

They ask you to declare anything that ""may "" be relevant, so people do, as they are not sure what is or is not relevant. They then find that lo and

behold the premium has suddenly increased based on what you told them, even though it has absolutely no bearing or relevance to your policy.

So people selectively forget, or say nothing !

They demand transparency and honesty from us, but then hide behind smoke, mirrors, algorithms. when the focus is on them??

 

[Mr Bean]

They ask you to declare anything that ""may "" be relevant, so people do, as they are not sure what is or is not relevant.

With me they ask have you had any claims or convictions - it's then I get the lube out...

 

[Neil W]

Tell me about it,

When my bike got stolen, they caught the fucker, after he did a run for it

Sorry i should say the dog caught the fucker,

I was unfortunatly stopped from twatting the c*nt with my AGV , on the grounds of, Yes I & several of the assembled persons there would feel a great deal of satisfaction.

However they would have to arrest me also, and as the c*nt was technically in custody, it wouldnt look good all round.

I had to be thankfull Rover, had given him an indelible reminder of what being a caught c*nt was

However the bloody Mags rolled over when he turned up in court, span a sob story and got a suspened sentence.

So that was two of us who were out of pocket to our local twocer.

I hope he suffered ill health for the rest of his days

Always said that the Courts and Judiciary Sytems don't mete out justice but instead carry out the enforcement of the written law and statutes.

On the other hand a police dog is blind to the law and the pleading of the defendant and metes out natural justice and usually leaves the miscreant with a lasting reminder

 

[Deleted account 251212001]

Totally agree, but in some respects how they sold it to us, has created the problem we see now.

They ask you to declare anything that ""may "" be relevant, so people do, as they are not sure what is or is not relevant. They then find that lo and

behold the premium has suddenly increased based on what you told them, even though it has absolutely no bearing or relevance to your policy.

So people selectively forget, or say nothing !

They demand transparency and honesty from us, but then hide behind smoke, mirrors, algorithms. when the focus is on them??

Not sure I follow, it is an explicit question, ‘have u had’. Where does ‘May’ figure?

It’s all risk based decision , so it has a bearing and relevance.

Insurance companies will even load premiums the nearer you are to inception date, based on you being a less organised person.

If you forget to disclose something on an insurance proposal it’s fair game to expect a penalty in return, the insurance company may have decided not to insure you in the first place.

 

[Hairyweasel]

How about filling in the questioner in such a way so they can't back out of their liability. i.e. truthfully.

Why do people never take responsibility for their actions when they're caught out.

If only it were so simple, it's a few years back now but my mates bike was stolen, the insurance was giving him the run around and he asked me to deal with them because he was lost.
Their reason for rejecting his claim, he was deaf in one ear. First of all I questioned why partial deafness made a difference, apparently it would have reduced his chance of hearing the theft and besides you can't have motorbike insurance if you are deaf in one ear.
Yes they actually stated that to me.

The best part was when I asked them how they knew he was deaf in one ear, they admitted they knew because he put it on his proposal form.
I pointed out that they sold him insurance knowing he was part deaf but it fell on deaf ears.

A call to the ombudsman and they paid up.

Parasitic bastards.

 

[Deleted account 251212001]

If only it were so simple, it's a few years back now but my mates bike was stolen, the insurance was giving him the run around and he asked me to deal with them because he was lost.
Their reason for rejecting his claim, he was deaf in one ear. First of all I questioned why partial deafness made a difference, apparently it would have reduced his chance of hearing the theft and besides you can't have motorbike insurance if you are deaf in one ear.
Yes they actually stated that to me.

The best part was when I asked them how they knew he was deaf in one ear, they admitted they knew because he put it on his proposal form.
I pointed out that they sold him insurance knowing he was part deaf but it fell on deaf ears.

A call to the ombudsman and they paid up.

Parasitic bastards.

That sounds a bit far fetched to me sorry, good pub story tho.

 

[Hairyweasel]

Choose to believe or not, I know its true.
It is rather incredulous, that's why I chose to share it.

 

[ProdigalGS]

I have been deaf in one ear for over 30 years. I have always disclosed this when taking out car and bike insurance and never had a problem. Technically you don't even need to tell the DVLA if you are completely deaf for a car or motorcycle licence but you must tell them for a bus, coach or lorry licence. The statement that "you can't have motorcycle insurance if you are deaf in one ear" is nonsense. I am just posting this in case your inaccurate statement has caused some other forum member unnecessary anxiety.

 

[RallyeGS]

That sounds a bit far fetched to me sorry, good pub story tho.

Must be true, its written on a motorbike forum.

 

[Bobbyf]

As someone who has a slight bit of inside knowledge with insurance companies they will not generally check your licence status until a claim is made but they will then try & reduce any liability they may have. If you have knowingly withheld relevant information at inception they may use this to reduce or refuse any personal claim but would still cover any 3rd party. This could include points, previous claims, the fact the bike is kept on the street when you said it was garaged etc etc

This definitely the case. I too have quite a bit of experience dealing with insurance companies and claims. They have huge departments which will examine and investigate everything you told them when you purchased your policy from them. It's only when you make a claim they will ask for proof of what you told them, licence details, where the bike was stored, security, modifications etc. They will also examine police reports of any claim you have made and compare these against their records. As soon as they find discrepancies they will use this to reduce your pay out or in worst cases void your insurance all together.
Undeclared claims, modifications, speeding offences etc will all land you in hot water. I remember the days when I had to send photocopies of my licence, mot, proof of security etc before the insurance company gave a quote. It seems to me now that they're more than happy for people to be economical with the truth because it's a win win situation for them. They get your premium but they don't have to pay out when you claim.
It's not worth telling fibs to save a few quid when it bites you in the ar*e if you need to make a claim.

 

[Deleted account 251212001]

This definitely the case. I too have quite a bit of experience dealing with insurance companies and claims. They have huge departments which will examine and investigate everything you told them when you purchased your policy from them. It's only when you make a claim they will ask for proof of what you told them, licence details, where the bike was stored, security, modifications etc. They will also examine police reports of any claim you have made and compare these against their records. As soon as they find discrepancies they will use this to reduce your pay out or in worst cases void your insurance all together.
Undeclared claims, modifications, speeding offences etc will all land you in hot water. I remember the days when I had to send photocopies of my licence, mot, proof of security etc before the insurance company gave a quote. It seems to me now that they're more than happy for people to be economical with the truth because it's a win win situation for them. They get your premium but they don't have to pay out when you claim.
It's not worth telling fibs to save a few quid when it bites you in the ar*e if you need to make a claim.

Wise words, I am Ultra careful with the insurance quote data I input after having had to claim for theft. A Retired copper working for the insurance company came to my house following the claim and checked everything in detail, took licence photocopies. It was very comprehensive, Ageas were the underwriter. I was crapping myself as I had used a aggregator website (confused.com etc) and it had translated the data for overnight location (I think I had put shared parking) through to the policy as ‘driveway’, but at the time I was in a flat with an allocated parking space. So this insurance geezer was here, at my home, looking where the car was, and I’m thinking hmmm....it’s not a driveway. These claims are not just a paper exercise. I thought they were going to shaft me on a technicality around where it was parked.

I got paid up in full, but this experience has made me ultra careful on what info is held on the policy. My premiums are affected on every vehicle I own or drive still, and this happened a few years back.

 

[Hairyweasel]

I have been deaf in one ear for over 30 years. I have always disclosed this when taking out car and bike insurance and never had a problem. Technically you don't even need to tell the DVLA if you are completely deaf for a car or motorcycle licence but you must tell them for a bus, coach or lorry licence. The statement that "you can't have motorcycle insurance if you are deaf in one ear" is nonsense. I am just posting this in case your inaccurate statement has caused some other forum member unnecessary anxiety.

Could you clarify what part of my statement was inaccurate please.

I did not state you can't have motorbike insurance if you are deaf, I stated that the insurance tried to use that as an excuse for not paying and that the ombudsman told them to pay up.

Exactly what part of that statement is not accurate?