Insurance Companies to get access to Penalty Point/Driving Offence Details

_Kaiser_

From Breaking News

The details of driving offences are to be given out to insurance companies under a new law expected today.

Previously, a driver's file only let insurers see the number of points a driver had. The new measure would mean insurers could see whether a driver had committed a serious offence.

The Irish Times reports that the law will be implemented over the coming months.

Expect higher premiums (again) so I guess. There'll be no more non-declaring points etc presumably either (no issue with that part though myself).

oldyouth

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

From Breaking News



Expect higher premiums (again) so I guess. There'll be no more non-declaring points etc presumably either (no issue with that part though myself).

I would have thought that it will reduce premiums for the vast majority and allow insurers load the premium for the offending drivers

Zirconia

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Expect higher premiums (again) so I guess. There'll be no more non-declaring points etc presumably either (no issue with that part though myself).

Exactly - People with no points will get charged the same high rates and those with points will get hiked. How about dropping the premiums for those with no points? Yea that'll never happen!

AltAccount

Good, far too many people not declaring points and "getting away with it".

_Kaiser_

oldyouth wrote: »

I would have thought that it will reduce premiums for the vast majority and allow insurers load the premium for the offending drivers

You don't really think insurers will drop their prices do you? At best those without points will pay what they do now (which is already expensive).
It's just another excuse to charge other people more than they already do.

oldyouth

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

You don't really think insurers will drop their prices do you? At best those without points will pay what they do now (which is already expensive).
It's just another excuse to charge other people more than they already do.

So it's as you were for the good drivers then? No story here

_Kaiser_

oldyouth wrote: »

So it's as you were for the good drivers then? No story here

On the contrary - just as gender equalisation hasn't led to any reduction in premiums (they merely charge women more), I think this latest money grabbing effort is well worth reporting.

I agree that IF they did manage it as you suggested (that "good" drivers pay less) this would be to welcomed, but unfortunately experience would tend to suggest this won't be the case.. everyone will just pay more.

Henry Ford III

Can't see any harm in it. Insurers already had access to the number of penalty points, and now they'll be able find out why these were imposed.

ted1

There's plenty of points which have nothing to do with driving safely. So much for our data protection laws. What next publicans getting acces to criminal records to prevent scum from entering

Anan1

ted1 wrote: »

There's plenty of points which have nothing to do with driving safely. So much for our data protection laws. What next publicans getting acces to criminal records to prevent scum from entering

Do you have a problem with the current requirement to disclose points when applying for motor insurance, or just with the fact that they're making it harder to get away with lying?

djimi

Why would there be an increase in premiums?

If this means that those who had not been declaring points now cannot get away with it then they will see an increase in premiums, but why would someone who has not been hiding anything have any reason to expect the same?

Its a good system and it is long overdue.

kippy

djimi wrote: »

Why would there be an increase in premiums?

If this means that those who had not been declaring points now cannot get away with it then they will see an increase in premiums, but why would someone who has not been hiding anything have any reason to expect the same?

Its a good system and it is long overdue.

The insurers have had access to the penalty points database for a while now (not sure exactly for how long) so you couldn't "get away" with lying.
This is just access to the details about what those points were for.

There has been no indication from insurers that this will be a good thing for people with low points. If anything it's just remain status quo for them.
Those with more points for offences deemed to be serious by the insurer will get an extra premium.
I've no problem with the system or it's introduction, just with how it is going to be used.


The issues I have are that the low points drivers get nothing out of it.
See Gender Equalisation for past history as Kaiser has already pointed out.

cadaliac

I thought that if an insurance company wanted to see if you had points or not, they could request this information - whether or not you declared your points or not?
Is this not the case? If not, then I would welcome the decision.

kippy

cadaliac wrote: »

I thought that if an insurance company wanted to see if you had points or not, they could request this information - whether or not you declared your points or not?
Is this not the case? If not, then I would welcome the decision.

Up until now they have access to the points database. Which contained information of any driver with points and the amount of points they had.
It did not contain details about what those points were for.

oldyouth

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

On the contrary - just as gender equalisation hasn't led to any reduction in premiums (they merely charge women more), I think this latest money grabbing effort is well worth reporting.

I agree that IF they did manage it as you suggested (that "good" drivers pay less) this would be to welcomed, but unfortunately experience would tend to suggest this won't be the case.. everyone will just pay more.

Right, so I currently have no points and I pay €x for my insurance. At next renewal, my insurers check my record and verify that I have no points. You think that my premium will be loaded? I'd very much expect it to be reduced, given that Insurers can only assume you are points free and build in a contingency in case you are not

_Kaiser_

oldyouth wrote: »

Right, so I currently have no points and I pay €x for my insurance. At next renewal, my insurers check my record and verify that I have no points. You think that my premium will be loaded? I'd very much expect it to be reduced, given that Insurers can only assume you are points free and build in a contingency in case you are not

You have too much faith in insurers setting premiums for individuals rather than groups, stereotypes and for profit I'm afraid.

Take young male drivers. Despite some/many having a spotless driving history, they'll be automatically loaded.

Or how (as I already mentioned) gender equalisation hasn't led to any reductions there, women just pay more now.

Or how premiums have increased over the last few years to compensate insurers who had to pay out when homes and cars were flooded out West in the bad weather. My car which sits either in a secure car park or outside my front door in Dublin - well away from any flooding - costs me more to insure as a result of this too.

Or how we all pay more now too because of Sean Quinn's antics.

Again, I actually agree with the principle of what you're saying, but unfortunately experience would tell me it just won't happen.

Yakuza

I think it's fairer that someone with penalty points for a non-driving related offence (not that there are many, granted - wearing a seatbelt or no NCT, for example) shouldn't be penalised as much with someone who's gotten their points through speeding or drink driving, perhaps even treat them the same as someone with no points. That would be a good development.

Data protection laws work both ways - there are perfectly valid reasons why an insurance company should have access to your penalty points (and now, their breakdown). What possible reason could there be to deny an insurance company details, other than to fraudulently obtain a policy by lying about your points total? I'm not addressing any poster here, simply speaking generally.

Even if you did manage to obtain a policy having lied (*cough*forgotten*cough*) about your penalty points, what's going to happen if there's a claim? If they find out at that stage you had points when you took out the policy, they'll cancel it, return your premium and you'll now be both personally liable for the claim and the Gardaí will be having a further chat with you re driving with no insurance.

kippy

Yakuza wrote: »

I think it's fairer that someone with penalty points for a non-driving related offence (not that there are many, granted - wearing a seatbelt or no NCT, for example) shouldn't be penalised as much with someone who's gotten their points through speeding or drink driving, perhaps even treat them the same as someone with no points. That would be a good development.

Data protection laws work both ways - there are perfectly valid reasons why an insurance company should have access to your penalty points (and now, their breakdown). What possible reason could there be to deny an insurance company details, other than to fraudulently obtain a policy by lying about your points total? I'm not addressing any poster here, simply speaking generally.

Even if you did manage to obtain a policy having lied (*cough*forgotten*cough*) about your penalty points, what's going to happen if there's a claim? If they find out at that stage you had points when you took out the policy, they'll cancel it, return your premium and you'll now be both personally liable for the claim and the Gardaí will be having a further chat with you re driving with no insurance.

Again, I'll say it,
I and a few others on this thread, have no issues with the system as such. It is the way that the system will be used that's the issue.
ie from what we know of, there will be absolutely no benefit to ANY motorist seeking insurance as a result of it.

oldyouth

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

You have too much faith in insurers setting premiums for individuals rather than groups, stereotypes and for profit I'm afraid.

Take young male drivers. Despite some/many having a spotless driving history, they'll be automatically loaded.

Or how (as I already mentioned) gender equalisation hasn't led to any reductions there, women just pay more now.

Or how premiums have increased over the last few years to compensate insurers who had to pay out when homes and cars were flooded out West in the bad weather. My car which sits either in a secure car park or outside my front door in Dublin - well away from any flooding - costs me more to insure as a result of this too.

Or how we all pay more now too because of Sean Quinn's antics.

Again, I actually agree with the principle of what you're saying, but unfortunately experience would tell me it just won't happen.

I worked for insurers for over 30 years, so I know the good and the bad they are capable of. As for your examples, they don't help your argument.

With the non-discrimination legislation, you argue that the male rates stayed the same and the women's premiums went up. It will be the same here for those with or without points. It will just give insurers more ability to identify each.

As for premiums increasing for everyone because of the catastrophe flood claims, well that's just the principle of insurance. Everyone pays in to a pool to cover the losses of the few. When the losses become more than 'a few', everyone pays more

As for Sean Quinn's antics, many people availed of his below cost selling and we are all paying the price now.

I don't follow the link between this piece of legislation and your argument that young drivers (more than the rest) will automatically go up

ThreeLineWhip

Even if you did manage to obtain a policy having lied (*cough*forgotten*cough*) about your penalty points, what's going to happen if there's a claim? If they find out at that stage you had points when you took out the policy, they'll cancel it, return your premium and you'll now be both personally liable for the claim and the Gardaí will be having a further chat with you re driving with no insurance.

The Gardaí will have no interest in this as there is an insurance company on the hook.

Some people need a reality check.

ThreeLineWhip

Excesses mean nothing to those who have 3rd party only.

oldyouth

ThreeLineWhip wrote: »

The Gardaí will have no interest in this as there is an insurance company on the hook.

Some people need a reality check.

Obtaining an insurance policy through deception is a criminal offence, regardless of there being any claim

_Kaiser_

oldyouth wrote: »

I worked for insurers for over 30 years, so I know the good and the bad they are capable of. As for your examples, they don't help your argument.

With the non-discrimination legislation, you argue that the male rates stayed the same and the women's premiums went up. It will be the same here for those with or without points. It will just give insurers more ability to identify each.

As for premiums increasing for everyone because of the catastrophe flood claims, well that's just the principle of insurance. Everyone pays in to a pool to cover the losses of the few. When the losses become more than 'a few', everyone pays more

As for Sean Quinn's antics, many people availed of his below cost selling and we are all paying the price now.

I don't follow the link between this piece of legislation and your argument that young drivers (more than the rest) will automatically go up

My point was that you are arguing that this latest news will allow insurers to more finely tune how policy rates are determined to the individual - which I'd have no issue with myself - and you say that it should in fact lead to lower premiums for "good" drivers.

My counter-argument though is that they've singularly failed to do that historically. Young men pay more regardless of their personal experience or record because they fit into the "boy racer" bracket, everyone pays more because homes and cars got flooded out West, and why SHOULD everyone pay more again to cover Sean Quinn's activities?

My point is that all of the above examples show that no matter how "good" the individual is, he'll still end up paying for the sins of others - it'[s the same way as everyone pays for the M3 motorway, even though 80/90% of drivers will never use it, or how we ALL are paying higher charges and taxes because of the activities of Anglo and co.

In the same way, I can't see this latest measure leading to any reduced premiums. It'll just be an excuse to charge others more.

ThreeLineWhip

It has to be proven to the criminal standard of proof. Very difficult indeed.

cadaliac

oldyouth wrote: »

.........

.... well that's just the principle of insurance. Everyone pays in to a pool to cover the losses of the few. When the losses become more than 'a few', everyone pays more

As for Sean Quinn's antics, many people availed of his below cost selling and we are all paying the price now.

...........

Ya wha?
You must be joking me are you?

Yera, that's just the way it is. Pay up 'cause the insurance company says so.
Well you can Fcuk off, actually. (not you obviously oldyouth, the Ins company)
People availed of a legal advertised service from Quinn. How were they to know that it was below cost? You advertise a service, I avail/purchase the service, end of the deal.

I for one did not avail of that service and I have to pay for "his antics"? No, that makes no sense to me. I also know that I don't have a choice in the matter, which just adds to my frustration.

oldyouth

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

My point is that all of the above examples show that no matter how "good" the individual is, he'll still end up paying for the sins of others.

That is the actual principle of Insurance. Your beef should be with those who adversely affect your particular grouping, rather than the insurer

_Kaiser_

oldyouth wrote: »

That is the actual principle of Insurance. Your beef should be with those who adversely affect your particular grouping, rather than the insurer

You're contradicting your original point with that one.

And why shouldn't my "beef" be with the insurer? If they're choosing to ignore my own driving record and instead adding on charges because Joe Soap in ballygobackwards had his house flooded, or because others in my age group have lots of points or driving convictions, or simply because I was born a man, then it's very much the Insurance company that is responsible for that - not these other people that have no more power to define the rate charged than I do.

I'm afraid the argument that I should go take it up with someone else (equally as powerless) while the party actually responsible takes my money doesn't wash with me.

Henry Ford III

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

You're contradicting your original point with that one.

And why shouldn't my "beef" be with the insurer? If they're choosing to ignore my own driving record and instead adding on charges because Joe Soap in ballygobackwards had his house flooded, or because others in my age group have lots of points or driving convictions, or simply because I was born a man, then it's very much the Insurance company that is responsible for that - not these other people that have no more power to define the rate charged than I do.

I'm afraid the argument that I should go take it up with someone else (equally as powerless) while the party actually responsible takes my money doesn't wash with me.

Pooled risk means you, and everybody else gets pidgeonholed to a degree according to your risk profile. If young male drivers tend to get involved in more accidents and as a result the insurer pays more and bigger claims then it's only reasonable for their premiums to reflect that. People have to earn lower premiums, and I reckon that's fair enough tbh.

Young drivers don't have a record of no claims in most cases.

Yakuza

OSI wrote: »

Nope. Clearly states on my policy that if I don't declare points, I have a higher excess. Says nothing about the policy being voided.

Most proposal forms also have a catch-all phrase that states something along the lines that failure to declare any material fact (and they deem what is material, not the proposer) can render the policy void.

oldyouth

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

I'm afraid the argument that I should go take it up with someone else (equally as powerless) while the party actually responsible takes my money doesn't wash with me.

That's grand so

WillinDub

Question! who is issuing a driving license?
Answers?
A. Insurance?
B. RSA Government Company?

What is A. Insurance – a private profit organization?
What is B. RSA – Government control above private drivers (more or less in this case)

- You can drive fast without causing any accidents

- You can drive slow and push/force other people to breach the law.
(sample 100 km/h road, no overtaking allowed)
One car is driving in front of you 65 -85 km/h – you overtake – Gards trapped you down – 2 points and at least 80 Euro.
Insurance see this you pay higher fee – as you were driving unsafe.
Who in the name of God is unsafe in this case?

Where is the law issued by Leo - need to read exactly here.
It may run into a petition! that a private companies take data from the Government and this allow them to do so.

ThreeLineWhip

It is only a proposal at this stage. May never happen. But as usual the insurance company lackeys here are all congratulating themselves and boasting full in the knowledge it will swell their employers profits.