Problems after a collision with a Hungarian driver

[mikesmotor]

My wife's car was reversed into by a Hungarian truck (Warberers) when it reversed down the off slip of the M1. We got the car repaired and the third party admitted their fault. However issues arose between us and our insurance company one of which was that they breached the data protection act. One thing lead to another and now they having cancelled the policy citing 'moral hazard'. We are still owed the excess of £150.00 but has anybody had any experience of this 'moral hazard' and what it might mean. I've checked on Google and there seems to be some financial implications. I'd be grateful for any input on this.

[unclebulgaria67]

My wife's car was reversed into by a Hungarian truck (Warberers) when it reversed down the off slip of the M1. We got the car repaired and the third party admitted their fault. However issues arose between us and our insurance company one of which was that they breached the data protection act. One thing lead to another and now they having cancelled the policy citing 'moral hazard'. We are still owed the excess of £150.00 but has anybody had any experience of this 'moral hazard' and what it might mean. I've checked on Google and there seems to be some financial implications. I'd be grateful for any input on this.

 

Suggest a Data Subject Access Request to your Insurers to see what they have on file. Ask for all underwriting and claims records.

 

Moral hazard suggests that someone at the Insurers believes there is an issue about the information provided by you or about you. They may be totally wrong and the cancellation will be in error. Find out what they have on file. Won't be the first time insurers have cancelled based on wrong information.

 

This type of cancellation has severe consequences, as you would have to declare for all insurances, making it very expensive. They probably would not offer insurance without knowing what the issue was that led to the cancellation.

 

Not worth speculating what the moral issue is, as i would not wish to insult you, when the insurers have got it totally wrong.

[mikesmotor]

It would appear that my wife has a two year old SP50 speeding fine which I forgot to disclose. The insurers did charge extra premiums which we paid but I believe it was they way they discovered this SP50 which breached the data protection act.

[unclebulgaria67]

It would appear that my wife has a two year old SP50 speeding fine which I forgot to disclose. The insurers did charge extra premiums which we paid but I believe it was they way they discovered this SP50 which breached the data protection act.

 

I would suggest that cancellation stating moral hazard due to an inadvertant non disclosure is unfair. Make a complaint and involve the FOS. Visit the FOS site and search for non disclosure, which will detail the FOS stance.

 

Most insurers will accept one speeding fine, so i think your data protection complaint has annoyed someone.

[Mwynci]

It would appear that my wife has a two year old SP50 speeding fine which I forgot to disclose. The insurers did charge extra premiums which we paid but I believe it was they way they discovered this SP50 which breached the data protection act.

 

A DPA breach complaint should be given against the organisation who gave the info away, not who recieved it. If your insurer approached another party for this information, it is the other party (DVLA i'm assuming) you need to be complainting to for giving it away.

 

I'm with Uncle Bulgaria about the rest of it.

[mikesmotor]

I would certainly agree that it is the data protection issue that has caused the insurance company (CIS) to cancel the policy but, because they've made such a mess overt handling the claim I am glad to be rid of them.

[mikesmotor]

The insurance company have tried to claim that they have the right to access the DVLA data base. The DVLA have agreed that they don't and have investigated the matter. I would suggest that the insurers had a way of hacking into the data base and have been found out hence their actions.

[honeybee13]

Hello there.

 

I've started a new thread for you so that markplaxton can continue to receive advice on his own thread.

 

Please continue to post on this one.

 

HB

[Mwynci]

The insurance company have tried to claim that they have the right to access the DVLA data base. The DVLA have agreed that they don't and have investigated the matter. I would suggest that the insurers had a way of hacking into the data base and have been found out hence their actions.

 

I'm not sure you've been told the truth by the DVLA. Insurers can access driver info.

[unclebulgaria67]

I'm not sure you've been told the truth by the DVLA. Insurers can access driver info.

 

If this is the case, why do some ask for driving licences to be sent to them still. Edit some insurers have access and some don't. There is an ongoing project for Insurers to be able to access driver information (IIADD) Before this project they had to apply to DVLA and some insurers were stopped from doing so, as there were some issues