That's just it, no you don't "usually have two options", it varies greatly from site to site. LV and Direct Line just list SD&P, and both include commuting. I'm assuming that if an insurer doesn't include it then they will have it clearly spelled out in the drop down (i.e. the two distinct options you refer to), but I wouldn't want to bet they all do, when they know they can use customers assumptions against them. And what if you didn't go through the insurers own website, do all the comparison sites correctly match up the various options. I very much doubt there aren't errors/mis-matches, or simply not enough options on a comparision site to match up to particularly peculiar insurers.
And that's my point, in the past SD&P alwasy included commuting. Now it doesn't and we're expected to know a)that it's changed for some insurers, b)which insurers it has changed for, and c)even if the web form says SD&P and doesn't mention commuting, it may or may not include commuting.
It really should be in there as a seperate questions; "Do you intend to use the vehicle for commuting to a single permanent place of work", then there can be no possible confusion, but insurers like confusion.
I wrote insurance software/websites for 2 years, and many of the questions seemed deliberately unclear to me, and that's because if when you make a claim they can say you answered a question incorrectly, then the policy become null and void and they don't have to pay out.
Surely you've answered your own question there. The two insurers you mention don't included SD&P and commuting as an option but cover commuting under SD&P, that seems logical to me, if an option isn't there how can you select it?
You have managed to select two insurers out of many who don't so I still believe my statement that usually you do get the option of SD&P and SD&P including commuting
Ok, lets say loads offer the option. Its in a drop down list, the first option (the only one you can see) is SD&P, which historically includes commuting. Why would you click on the drop down to see further options, historically you have the one you need selected already. What the options should really be called is "SD&P excluding commuting" and "SD&P including commuting". I'm sure some insurers do do this, and are to be applauded, anything else is just using confusion of what was once a standard term to catch out the unwary. Yes you should always read all the details before any agreement, but people don't and more and more companies are relying on people skimming increasingly dense and lengthy T&Cs, and missing key points amongst all the inconsequential "noise" that the plain english campaign would have a fit at.
Surely you've answered your own question there. The two insurers you mention don't included SD&P and commuting as an option but cover commuting under SD&P, that seems logical to me, if an option isn't there how can you select it?
You have managed to select two insurers out of many who don't so I still believe my statement that usually you do get the option of SD&P and SD&P including commuting
Not everybody renews their insurance online.
If it's done by phone and an incompetent or mendacious telephone operative does not point out changes how is an ordinary customer to know?
I know from my experience that it is easier to obtain hens teeth than a hard copy of a policy document clearly setting out exactly what you have (and have not) bought.
I generally don't believe in government intervention and regulation since it often ends up oppressing the consumer rather than improving his or her lot. However standard definitions across the board for insurance terms like "social domestic and pleasure" are long overdue as this thread illustrates.
Surely you've answered your own question there. The two insurers you mention don't included SD&P and commuting as an option but cover commuting under SD&P, that seems logical to me, if an option isn't there how can you select it?
You have managed to select two insurers out of many who don't so I still believe my statement that usually you do get the option of SD&P and SD&P including commuting
Not everybody renews their insurance online.
If it's done by phone and an incompetent or mendacious telephone operative does not point out changes how is an ordinary customer to know?
I know from my experience that it is easier to obtain hens teeth than a hard copy of a policy document clearly setting out exactly what you have (and have not) bought.
I generally don't believe in government intervention and regulation since it often ends up oppressing the consumer rather than improving his or her lot. However standard definitions across the board for insurance terms like "social domestic and pleasure" are long overdue as this thread illustrates.
But the thing is if the company fail to tell you that terms have changed then it is their fault so I can't really see your argument here.
Essentially it boils down to this, yes policy wordings and t&c's can be quite long, car insurance as it goes is relatively short when compared to other insurance. However, if you don't bother to read you policy book which outlines what your policy covers or excludes then you can only blame one person.
Surely you've answered your own question there. The two insurers you mention don't included SD&P and commuting as an option but cover commuting under SD&P, that seems logical to me, if an option isn't there how can you select it?
You have managed to select two insurers out of many who don't so I still believe my statement that usually you do get the option of SD&P and SD&P including commuting
Not everybody renews their insurance online.
If it's done by phone and an incompetent or mendacious telephone operative does not point out changes how is an ordinary customer to know?
I know from my experience that it is easier to obtain hens teeth than a hard copy of a policy document clearly setting out exactly what you have (and have not) bought.
I generally don't believe in government intervention and regulation since it often ends up oppressing the consumer rather than improving his or her lot. However standard definitions across the board for insurance terms like "social domestic and pleasure" are long overdue as this thread illustrates.
But the thing is if the company fail to tell you that terms have changed then it is their fault so I can't really see your argument here.
Essentially it boils down to this, yes policy wordings and t&c's can be quite long, car insurance as it goes is relatively short when compared to other insurance. However, if you don't bother to read you policy book which outlines what your policy covers or excludes then you can only blame one person.
As I said above where are the policy books?!
I sure as hell cannot lay a hand on them anymore!
Companies are also loath to admit to their mistakes and/ or omissions too. "Recorded calls" only ever seem to work one way.
One of my daughters recorded a conversation and threw it back at them when she was told that "unfortunately" hers was not one of the sample calls recorded. Reason? They owed her money which she eventually got largely because she recorded the calls. They didn't like it but reluctantly paid up.
Surely you've answered your own question there. The two insurers you mention don't included SD&P and commuting as an option but cover commuting under SD&P, that seems logical to me, if an option isn't there how can you select it?
You have managed to select two insurers out of many who don't so I still believe my statement that usually you do get the option of SD&P and SD&P including commuting
Not everybody renews their insurance online.
If it's done by phone and an incompetent or mendacious telephone operative does not point out changes how is an ordinary customer to know?
I know from my experience that it is easier to obtain hens teeth than a hard copy of a policy document clearly setting out exactly what you have (and have not) bought.
I generally don't believe in government intervention and regulation since it often ends up oppressing the consumer rather than improving his or her lot. However standard definitions across the board for insurance terms like "social domestic and pleasure" are long overdue as this thread illustrates.
But the thing is if the company fail to tell you that terms have changed then it is their fault so I can't really see your argument here.
Essentially it boils down to this, yes policy wordings and t&c's can be quite long, car insurance as it goes is relatively short when compared to other insurance. However, if you don't bother to read you policy book which outlines what your policy covers or excludes then you can only blame one person.
As I said above where are the policy books?!
I sure as hell cannot lay a hand on them anymore!
Personally I've never had a problem with any type of insurance I have purchased with getting a policy book, whether it is through post or what a lot do now is keep your policy documents online (which I prefer). Not much of an expert on this part by I'm sure there are certain guidelines where they have to send you a copy if you request it or at least tell you where it is kept if its online or whatever.
Surely you've answered your own question there. The two insurers you mention don't included SD&P and commuting as an option but cover commuting under SD&P, that seems logical to me, if an option isn't there how can you select it?
You have managed to select two insurers out of many who don't so I still believe my statement that usually you do get the option of SD&P and SD&P including commuting
Not everybody renews their insurance online.
If it's done by phone and an incompetent or mendacious telephone operative does not point out changes how is an ordinary customer to know?
I know from my experience that it is easier to obtain hens teeth than a hard copy of a policy document clearly setting out exactly what you have (and have not) bought.
I generally don't believe in government intervention and regulation since it often ends up oppressing the consumer rather than improving his or her lot. However standard definitions across the board for insurance terms like "social domestic and pleasure" are long overdue as this thread illustrates.
But the thing is if the company fail to tell you that terms have changed then it is their fault so I can't really see your argument here.
Essentially it boils down to this, yes policy wordings and t&c's can be quite long, car insurance as it goes is relatively short when compared to other insurance. However, if you don't bother to read you policy book which outlines what your policy covers or excludes then you can only blame one person.
As I said above where are the policy books?!
I sure as hell cannot lay a hand on them anymore!
Personally I've never had a problem with any type of insurance I have purchased with getting a policy book, whether it is through post or what a lot do now is keep your policy documents online (which I prefer). Not much of an expert on this part by I'm sure there are certain guidelines where they have to send you a copy if you request it or at least tell you where it is kept if its online or whatever.
The certificate of insurance always clearly indicates the use of the policyholder it would also indicate exclusions like excluding driving other cars, my certificate clearly says Social Domestic and Pleasure only and adds underneath what uses are excluded and it does exclude commuting but when I took out the policy I said I did not need to use the car for that purpose and got a discount for it.
Interestingly, the only time I recall having trouble getting a copy of the policy booklet was when we once insured through a very well known national broker and despite regular reminders that they were in breach of FSA rules by not providing it, a copy never arrived. For the most part, they are sent out with the renewal docs or are readily available as a .pdf from the insurer's website. In any event, there should always be a short "Key Facts" document and your certificate. These are not difficult documents to understand. If you check these when they come through the post and you see you have not bought what you thought, then change the details or cancel the policy, you have a right to do this. Now back to SDP, sure it once included commuting as a matter of course. But there's a cost to this isn't there? More miles travelled in peak hours means more possibility of an accident. Why should people who don't use a vehicle to commute subsidise those that do? That's why insurers do the commute/no commute option. To give customers more choice. You wouldn't like it if you wanted to buy a larder fridge but couldn't get one without a freezer attached thereby increasing the cost. Why should insurance be any different? It merely enables insurers to provide a product people need without having to pay for unwanted extras.
It's always worth reading the small print in contracts - a popular clause in many motor insurance contracts makes the owner of a vehicle liable if it is stolen while the keys are left in the ignition/in the car. So always lock up and take the keys with you when you go and pay after filling up at a petrol station. Rumour has it that young Kevin Lisbie had his car stolen this way and then couldn't claim on the insurance.
It's always worth reading the small print in contracts - a popular clause in many motor insurance contracts makes the owner of a vehicle liable if it is stolen while the keys are left in the ignition/in the car. So always lock up and take the keys with you when you go and pay after filling up at a petrol station. Rumour has it that young Kevin Lisbie had his car stolen this way and then couldn't claim on the insurance.
Yes, another is not leaving the vehicle unattended (whether locked and keys removed or not) with the roof down (soft-tops only of course!). My policy is also clear that they won't pay out if I was drunk while driving and had an accident.
It's always worth reading the small print in contracts - a popular clause in many motor insurance contracts makes the owner of a vehicle liable if it is stolen while the keys are left in the ignition/in the car. So always lock up and take the keys with you when you go and pay after filling up at a petrol station. Rumour has it that young Kevin Lisbie had his car stolen this way and then couldn't claim on the insurance.
Yes, another is not leaving the vehicle unattended (whether locked and keys removed or not) with the roof down (soft-tops only of course!). My policy is also clear that they won't pay out if I was drunk while driving and had an accident.
Teenagers are being asked for £2000 a year insurance premiums, but only being fined £75 by the courts for no insurance - you can see the maths.
So they should charge them £74? Despite the fact they are a company trying to make a profit?
If the teenagers go uninsured it's they are the one at fault, not the insurance company - those teenagers have got a choice between paying the high premium, or not having a (usually unnecessary for work etc at that age) car. opinion.
guessing you dont have to pay incredibly high premiums then? Insurance companies are the worst, anything to squeeze every little penny out of you. I have been driving for six years no issues but my car still cost a lot to insure because of my age. I can see why people drive around without insurance and to be honest if I didn't have any moral beliefs I would drive without any road tax or insurance because in all honesty what is the worst they do, slap on the wrist and a twenty pound fine.
I can see why people drive around without insurance and to be honest if I didn't have any moral beliefs I would drive without any road tax or insurance because in all honesty what is the worst they do, slap on the wrist and a twenty pound fine.
Obviously if you were caught again and again in the end you'd be sent to prison.
I suspect that he punishments are more than a small fine, but we will all have head about someone that got little more. However if you have nothing they can't, realistically, give you a large fine.
I was under the impression that driving without insurance meant a six point penalty. Two if those and you lose your license. Another one and prison probably awaits.
There is a section of society that believe they can do what they like with no regard to their fellow man. Anyone that, genuinely, respects or aspires to that has, in my view, bigger issues than car insurance.
If caught driving with no insurance, your car is taken by the Police and regardless of its value is not returned until proof of current insurance is provided. If after a given period this is not forthcoming the car is disposed of.
If caught driving with no insurance, your car is taken by the Police and regardless of its value is not returned until proof of current insurance is provided. If after a given period this is not forthcoming the car is disposed of.
These uninsured drivers are using vehicles at the bottom end of the market obviously.
It is still not a deterrent.
As for going to prison for motoring offences - it would have to be very serious before a custodial sentence was given. We don't have the room in prison anyway.
If caught driving with no insurance, your car is taken by the Police and regardless of its value is not returned until proof of current insurance is provided. If after a given period this is not forthcoming the car is disposed of.
These uninsured drivers are using vehicles at the bottom end of the market obviously.
It is still not a deterrent.
As for going to prison for motoring offences - it would have to be very serious before a custodial sentence was given. We don't have the room in prison anyway.
In my case the driver didn't own the car, so all he got was the derisory fine and the points. Do you think these people are concerned about how many points they have on their licence if they're driving about uninsured?
They are crooks.Only time Ive been involved in claiming was when someone tried to overtake whilst the good lady was turning right,I was in the car and she did it all right indicating etc.Because the car struck our front offside wing they wouldn't pay! If he had gone in to the back of us no problem.After much arguing and threats of legal action (which I could not have afforded) they paid up but it cost me my no claims.The company was Highway and I would advise anyone to give them a wide berth even though they look reasonable.
Yes I had a fault claim registered against me but I have a protected bonus so that was OK
Your NCD might be protected, but their new trick is just to hike the initial premium because of the "increased risk" arising from your accident record, so you save nothing in the end.
If caught driving with no insurance, your car is taken by the Police and regardless of its value is not returned until proof of current insurance is provided. If after a given period this is not forthcoming the car is disposed of.
These uninsured drivers are using vehicles at the bottom end of the market obviously.
It is still not a deterrent.
As for going to prison for motoring offences - it would have to be very serious before a custodial sentence was given. We don't have the room in prison anyway.
In my case the driver didn't own the car, so all he got was the derisory fine and the points. Do you think these people are concerned about how many points they have on their licence if they're driving about uninsured?
If the police can't prove you were driving they can't charge you, problem is you always have to have someone in the car with you!
Insurance really annoys me. I'm with jack straw on spreading costs over regions rather than post code. I pay about a grand a year and my mate who lives a couple of miles away pays 350. He has a nice BMW Z4 and I've got a Honda Civic. Neither of us have ever claimed (in over 8 years).
If caught driving with no insurance, your car is taken by the Police and regardless of its value is not returned until proof of current insurance is provided. If after a given period this is not forthcoming the car is disposed of.
These uninsured drivers are using vehicles at the bottom end of the market obviously.
It is still not a deterrent.
As for going to prison for motoring offences - it would have to be very serious before a custodial sentence was given. We don't have the room in prison anyway.
In my case the driver didn't own the car, so all he got was the derisory fine and the points. Do you think these people are concerned about how many points they have on their licence if they're driving about uninsured?
If the police can't prove you were driving they can't charge you, problem is you always have to have someone in the car with you!
Yes I had a fault claim registered against me but I have a protected bonus so that was OK
Your NCD might be protected, but their new trick is just to hike the initial premium because of the "increased risk" arising from your accident record, so you save nothing in the end.
Yes I know that but you can ameliorate some of the affects of the claim with a protected bonus by shopping around.
Comments
And that's my point, in the past SD&P alwasy included commuting. Now it doesn't and we're expected to know a)that it's changed for some insurers, b)which insurers it has changed for, and c)even if the web form says SD&P and doesn't mention commuting, it may or may not include commuting.
It really should be in there as a seperate questions; "Do you intend to use the vehicle for commuting to a single permanent place of work", then there can be no possible confusion, but insurers like confusion.
I wrote insurance software/websites for 2 years, and many of the questions seemed deliberately unclear to me, and that's because if when you make a claim they can say you answered a question incorrectly, then the policy become null and void and they don't have to pay out.
You have managed to select two insurers out of many who don't so I still believe my statement that usually you do get the option of SD&P and SD&P including commuting
If it's done by phone and an incompetent or mendacious telephone operative does not point out changes how is an ordinary customer to know?
I know from my experience that it is easier to obtain hens teeth than a hard copy of a policy document clearly setting out exactly what you have (and have not) bought.
I generally don't believe in government intervention and regulation since it often ends up oppressing the consumer rather than improving his or her lot. However standard definitions across the board for insurance terms like "social domestic and pleasure" are long overdue as this thread illustrates.
Essentially it boils down to this, yes policy wordings and t&c's can be quite long, car insurance as it goes is relatively short when compared to other insurance. However, if you don't bother to read you policy book which outlines what your policy covers or excludes then you can only blame one person.
I sure as hell cannot lay a hand on them anymore!
Companies are also loath to admit to their mistakes and/ or omissions too. "Recorded calls" only ever seem to work one way.
One of my daughters recorded a conversation and threw it back at them when she was told that "unfortunately" hers was not one of the sample calls recorded. Reason? They owed her money which she eventually got largely because she recorded the calls. They didn't like it but reluctantly paid up.
Licensed thieves.
Now back to SDP, sure it once included commuting as a matter of course. But there's a cost to this isn't there? More miles travelled in peak hours means more possibility of an accident. Why should people who don't use a vehicle to commute subsidise those that do? That's why insurers do the commute/no commute option. To give customers more choice. You wouldn't like it if you wanted to buy a larder fridge but couldn't get one without a freezer attached thereby increasing the cost. Why should insurance be any different? It merely enables insurers to provide a product people need without having to pay for unwanted extras.
The car is one thing what about your house???
I suspect that he punishments are more than a small fine, but we will all have head about someone that got little more. However if you have nothing they can't, realistically, give you a large fine.
I was under the impression that driving without insurance meant a six point penalty. Two if those and you lose your license. Another one and prison probably awaits.
There is a section of society that believe they can do what they like with no regard to their fellow man. Anyone that, genuinely, respects or aspires to that has, in my view, bigger issues than car insurance.
It is still not a deterrent.
As for going to prison for motoring offences - it would have to
be very serious before a custodial sentence was given. We don't have the room in prison anyway.