Reinstation of license after driving ban.

emmabrighton

Hi knowledgable patrons of the motoring forum.

I am looking to find an insurance company - not broker - who will write a letter stating that they will insure me after the driving ban is lifted.

I already tried my original insurer aviva, axa and one direct.

And I tried a few brokers asking them if they could get a letter from insurance company that quoted them, but they can't.

I must be doing something wrong because 90% of what Google throws up is for brokers and I was told by my solicitor that this won't do.

so, if you know of an insurer that will write a letter for a person with no license, I would be really appreciative if you passed on the details. I'm sure it would help others too.

Thanks,

Emma.

b_mac2

Do you need this letter before you get your license back?

To Elland Back

Chicken and egg situation you have there. Your last insurer is obliged to quote you providing you have a licence. You need to face them down and remind them they have to provide you with a quote, subject to getting it back

colm_mcm

I don't quite understand what's happening here, I assuming you're try some sort of appeal.

MugMugs

emmabrighton wrote: »

I must be doing something wrong because 90% of what Google throws up is for brokers and I was told by my solicitor that this won't do.
.

Why?

To Elland Back wrote: »

. Your last insurer is obliged to quote you providing you have a licence. You need to face them down and remind them they have to provide you with a quote, subject to getting it back

Really? Even if that person has been since banned? Got a source /link?

To Elland Back

MugMugs wrote: »

Why?

Really? Even if that person has been since banned? Got a source /link?

From Insurance Ireland

What can I do if I am unable to obtain motor insurance?
Insurance Ireland operates a Declined Cases Agreement, which is adhered to by all motor insurers in Ireland...................

Where an individual has held a policy within the previous three years, the insurance company concerned is obliged to provide the individual with a quotation. Again this is subject to the proviso that refusals have been received from three insurers (of which the previous insurer may be one).
The only grounds on which an insurer can refuse cover are where to provide insurance would be contrary to public interest.

A previous ban is not deemed to be contrary to public interest

colm_mcm

But if it's a current ban, surely they could just say they can't insure you without a licence?

To Elland Back

colm_mcm wrote: »

But if it's a current ban, surely they could just say they can't insure you without a licence?

What happens is that during the course of an appeal, a judge will often want to ensure that the offender will/can get insurance if he reinstates his licence. Providing the driver has a licence, his last insurer is obliged to quote.

Hence the reason I originally said it was a "chicken and egg" scenario and not easily resolved. OP's solicitor might need to make representations to the last insurer on his behalf

MugMugs

To Elland Back wrote: »

From Insurance Ireland

What can I do if I am unable to obtain motor insurance?
Insurance Ireland operates a Declined Cases Agreement, which is adhered to by all motor insurers in Ireland...................

Where an individual has held a policy within the previous three years, the insurance company concerned is obliged to provide the individual with a quotation. Again this is subject to the proviso that refusals have been received from three insurers (of which the previous insurer may be one).
The only grounds on which an insurer can refuse cover are where to provide insurance would be contrary to public interest.

A previous ban is not deemed to be contrary to public interest

Not as clear cut as you eluded to.

Three refusals in writing, refer to the declined cases committee who instruct the last insurer to quote.

To Elland Back

MugMugs wrote: »

Not as clear cut as you eluded to.

Three refusals in writing, refer to the declined cases committee who instruct the last insurer to quote.

I can't account for your comprehension of my post. Bottom line is your last insurer is obliged to quote if you have a licence, as I stated

Skatedude

To Elland Back wrote: »

I can't account for your comprehension of my post. Bottom line is your last insurer is obliged to quote if you have a licence, as I stated

But he cant get his licence without the quote, and he cant get the quote until he has his licence,

To Elland Back

Skatedude wrote: »

But he cant get his licence without the quote, and he cant get the quote until he has his licence,

I did say that originally too. The only solution I can see is to get the declined cases committee to force his last insurer to provide a quote 'subject to reinstatement of licence'

MugMugs

To Elland Back wrote: »

I did say that originally too. The only solution I can see is to get the declined cases committee to force his last insurer to provide a quote 'subject to reinstatement of licence'

Which would subsequently breach policy conditions which usually go along the lines of excluding cover for parties whom do not and are not permitted to hold a current licence. You'll never be directed to breach your own conditions. It's a moral hazard at the very least.

Which brings me back to my original question of why a brokers letter isn't sufficent.

To Elland Back

MugMugs wrote: »

Which would subsequently breach policy conditions which usually go along the lines of excluding cover for parties whom do not and are not permitted to hold a current licence. You'll never be directed to breach your own conditions. It's a moral hazard at the very least.

Which brings me back to my original question of why a brokers letter isn't sufficent.

You really are making a mountain out of a molehill, especially on a subject you claim to be knowledgeable, having penned an incomplete explanation in your sticky on Insurance FAQ's.

What are you on about breaching policy conditions??? I said to get a QUOTE subject to obtaining a licence. The chain of events would be to a) get a guote subject to licence, b) show the quote to the judge to allow him reinstate the licence and finally c) go back to the insurer with the licence and effect cover

As for a broker's letter being insufficient, they cannot quote or bind an insurer beyond their delegated authority. A situation like this would be beyond their remit, unless they operated a specific scheme for disqualified drivers

colm_mcm

I assume xsdirect would do an online quote?

To Elland Back

colm_mcm wrote: »

I assume xsdirect would do an online quote?

Their Assumptions are that you've not been disqualified from driving

MugMugs

To Elland Back wrote: »

What are you on about breaching policy conditions??? I said to get a QUOTE subject to obtaining a licence. The chain of events would be to a) get a guote subject to licence, b) show the quote to the judge to allow him reinstate the licence and finally c) go back to the insurer with the licence and effect cover

No need to be so defensive dude.

The DCC won't instruct an insurer to quote for somebody speculatively.

To Elland Back wrote: »

As for a broker's letter being insufficient, they cannot quote or bind an insurer beyond their delegated authority. A situation like this would be beyond their remit, unless they operated a specific scheme for disqualified drivers

I didn't ask you about the broker.

I asked the OP.

To Elland Back

Defensive? You had a go at my correct information about obtaining a quote with ramblings about breaching policy conditions for having no licence.

The DCC will instruct insurers to quote in these circumstances. I have obtained such letters in the past (though not easy)

You asked me about brokers in Post 13, when quoting my previous comment.

I'm done here. Best of luck OP

emmabrighton

I couldn't tell you why the court does not see brokers as being sufficient but it could well be because a broker is merely an intermediary.

So, it looks like the best approach is to obtain letters from 3 insurance companies declaring that they will not quote me and then go to the DCC where they will instruct the insurer to quote.

No day out tomorrow so.

MugMugs

Your case doesn't fall under the Declined Cases Agreement.

You're not legally entitled to be on the road at the time of the quote.

You'd fall "contrary to public interest"

This has been floated for some reason but it's not relevant to you right now.

As Colm said earlier, your best bet is to speak to a high risk insurer like the likes of XS direct but even then, a speculative quote is going to be near impossible to get.

Best of luck either way

WheatenBriar

Would open driving on someone elses policy (a partner perhaps) not suffice?

MugMugs

WheatenBriar wrote: »

Would open driving on someone elses policy (a partner perhaps) not suffice?

The banned party still isn't named on a policy so it's moot.

To Elland Back

Why, why why, do I bite??

It is not contrary to public interest to obtain a quote if you don't have a licence. It would be contrary to public interest to wilfully drive without insurance or a licence. This is a process to put the OP on a firm legal footing to be compliant on the road. It IS a matter for the Declined Cases Committee

As for XS Direct, it has already been posted here that they cannot accommodate drivers with disqualifications

MugMugs

To Elland Back wrote: »

It is not contrary to public interest to obtain a quote if you don't have a licence.

I didn't say it was. I said it is contrary to public interest to quote somebody knowing that they're banned.

To Elland Back wrote: »

It IS a matter for the Declined Cases Committee

It's not.

AXA site isn't playing ball with me

AVIVA wrote:

Keeping to policy conditions
1 You must keep to these conditions
before we will make any payment
under this policy.
d Any person whose driving is
covered by the terms of the
certificate must hold a licence to
drive that vehicle and must meet
the conditions and any limits
of the driving licence held or, if
they have held a licence to drive
that vehicle, must not have been
disqualified from holding that
licence

Liberty are a bit clearer.

Liberty Insurance wrote:

These general exceptions apply to all
sections of this policy.
We will not provide cover for any of the
following.
3. We will not cover the driver unless;
a they hold a valid licence to drive the
vehicle; and
b they meet the conditions and any
limits of the driving licence.

So they're quoting for a no indemnity policy. It won't happen

To Elland Back wrote: »

I'm done here. Best of luck OP

Welcome back

WheatenBriar

MugMugs wrote: »

The banned party still isn't named on a policy so it's moot.

You don't need to be named on a policy with open driving...

MugMugs

WheatenBriar wrote: »

You don't need to be named on a policy with open driving...

Exactly, so it's hardly going to help the OP in a court.

WheatenBriar

MugMugs wrote: »

Exactly, so it's hardly going to help the OP in a court.

But isn't the question by the judge answered when the driver says he's insured or will be under his partners open policy
So get them to have open driving if they don't already have it

MugMugs

WheatenBriar wrote: »

But isn't the question by the judge answered when the driver says he's insured or will be under his partners open policy
So get them to have open driving if they don't already have it

So confirmation of a commitment to cover from a professional outfit won't suffice for a judge but the OP's bestie or partners say so that they will let them use their car under Open Drive notwithstanding that the OP will be most likely endorsed which may run contrary to the "Open drive" insurers policy will suffice?

No

thebiglad

WheatenBriar wrote: »

But isn't the question by the judge answered when the driver says he's insured or will be under his partners open policy
So get them to have open driving if they don't already have it

Open driving will have restrictions on who can use the car age/convictions will be amongst them so even if open drive was sufficient argument (which seems unlikely) OP would probably be excluded under the T&C of the open drive endorsement anyhow.

Besides, open drive assumes OP not to be the owner and main user of the vehicle, what Judge is trying to see here is OP insured for their own vehicle in their own name.

WheatenBriar

MugMugs wrote: »

So confirmation of a commitment to cover from a professional outfit won't suffice for a judge but the OP's bestie or partners say so that they will let them use their car under Open Drive notwithstanding that the OP will be most likely endorsed which may run contrary to the "Open drive" insurers policy will suffice?

No

Gosh you really are trying hard today aren't you?
Licences are restored every day of the week in courts so your line as if its impossible isn't credible or helpful
You've no evidence either that open driving on a husband or wives policy doesnt count so cannot discount that either
I know I've open driving on mine and all that is required is a valid licence

MugMugs

WheatenBriar wrote: »

I know I've open driving on mine and all that is required is a valid licence

Zing !

Open drive requires the driver to generally be over a certain age, not have a conviction, no endorsements and as pointed out by your good self above, have a licence.

No.

WheatenBriar

thebiglad wrote: »

Open driving will have restrictions on who can use the car age/convictions will be amongst them so even if open drive was sufficient argument (which seems unlikely) OP would probably be excluded under the T&C of the open drive endorsement anyhow.

Besides, open drive assumes OP not to be the owner and main user of the vehicle, what Judge is trying to see here is OP insured for their own vehicle in their own name.

But the OP has not gone into that kind of detail
While Im here,I think its timely that I condemn the Op for being in this position
Never Ever drink and drive

My own policy btw does not have anything on it bar a valid licence stipulation,I keep it in the car and looked there

WheatenBriar

MugMugs wrote: »

Zing !

Open drive requires the driver to generally be over a certain age, not have a conviction, no endorsements and as pointed out by your good self above, have a licence.

No.

Eh,no not necessarily
You're being ridiculous
Hes asking the judge to restore a valid licence based on him having the ability to drive insured
So in any situation of course he doesn't have one untill the judge restores it
You'd imagine this never happens going by what you're letting on

MugMugs

WheatenBriar wrote: »

You're being ridiculous

How ironic.

Fair enough WheatenBriar.

You've clearly missed your calling. Take the OP's case on and let us know how it goes

WheatenBriar

MugMugs wrote: »

How ironic.

Fair enough WheatenBriar.

You've clearly missed your calling. Take the OP's case on and let us know how it goes

Lol I'm not a lawyer and by your answers above clearly you aren't either, or have much experience of reading the court reports in the local rag,but seeing as you appear to use google to help you,I would respectfully suggest you use it to find a few correct examples of irony for future reference

bear1

I'm lost, why would you need an insurance quote to get your licence back?