This is usually a question asked by insurers when insuring a car or geting added as a named driver on someone else's insurance. My Malaysian licence was not acceptable in the UK on repatriation here for more than 6 months. I passed a new test and was issued woth a UK licence in late 1969. I have no documentation for this, however, although it was examined closely when I started to work temporarily as a minicab driver shortly after.
The date on my current licence (both parts) is 1975. I queried this with DVLA who said that they only have records back to 1975. Asked how an insurer could check on my claim that the correct year was 1969, they could only say that they would tell the insurer that their records only went back as far as 1975 ... (although I imagine the inusurer would know this already).
My insurance is up for renewal soon. I imagine if I claim 1969 I will not be believed. Has any else had this problem please?
|
>> I imagine if I claim 1969 I will not be believed.
Why? It is all at least 37 years ago and I'm sure the insurance company are only interested in the last few years.
I passed my test in 1972 and always use this date to answer any questions. Just looked at my Driving Licence card and it shows "<23-07-74". Never ever been questioned.
|
Does the OP really think anyone gives a monkey's over whether they've held a licence for 37 or 43 years?
They're only interested if it's been held for a short time.
|
>> Does the OP really think anyone gives a monkey's over whether they've held a licence
>> for 37 or 43 years?
I give a monkey's ~ it's all part of life's rich pattern.
:-D
Last edited by: L'escargot on Fri 24 Aug 12 at 15:32
|
Pedant's Corner
>> I give a monkey's ~ it's all part of life's rich pattern.
>> :-D
>>
Pageant
|
>> Pageant
>>
Only if you're old fashioned! tinyurl.com/brza6v2
Last edited by: L'escargot on Fri 24 Aug 12 at 15:56
|
>>
>> Only if you're old fashioned! tinyurl.com/brza6v2
>>
Pedants are old-fashioned.
|
|
Page ants are a protected species.
|
|
Hmm, I've usually heard "Tapestry" used in that one.
|
>> I queried this with DVLA
>> who said that they only have records back to 1975.
They must have records back to at least 22nd October 1974, because that is the date from which my licence is valid. It doesn't say when I passed my test. That was so far back in the mists of time that I can only remember the approximate year! Why it says it's valid from 1974 I know not.
|
|
When I last used the insurance search engine things it gave a drop down list which IIRC went up to 11 years or 12+
|
I've not been asked when I passed on many occasions. When I have, I just put the year in or make a date up.
Sometime in the mid sixties, I think. Bike test was certainly 1963.
Ted
|
I passed in 1956 or was it 1856 or 1965 or 1657?
Elizabeth the First complained I was never good at dates...after I stood her up at the Virgins' Ball
|
|
Was the Ball at Kirriemuir?
Last edited by: Roger on Fri 24 Aug 12 at 20:13
|
IIRC four and twenty of them came down from Inverness.
I doubt if you'd find that many of them now.
|
>> IIRC four and twenty of them came down from Inverness.
Black birds?
Last edited by: L'escargot on Sat 25 Aug 12 at 07:29
|
|
In the event of a claim, I fear the insurer could hold this to be a failure of complete disclosure and decline to pay up.
|
|
No smiley, so I'm assuming that was a serious comment. As someone has already stated, anything over 12 years or so makes no difference. I made a claim recently, the insurance company was more interested in the facts behind the accident, not when I exactly passed my test.
|
Again taking a clue from the no smiley...
Your duty to the insurer is to disclose all *material* fact. Becuase of the possible disagreement over what constitutes "material" it is better to disclose all facts and let them sort it out.
An insurer may readily show a fact is material by illustrating that had they known of that fact then they would have treated the risk differently. However, if that fact would have made no difference to their treatment of that risk, then they may do nothing.
i.e. unless they can show that they would have treated the risk differently for someone with a 14year licence as opposed to someone with a 12year licence then they can do nothing. Probably even if you told them the wrong figure on purpose.
If they can show that they would have treated it differently then they may apply that treatment restrospectively. That would normally be a premium change.
If they can show that they would have refused the risk had they known, then that will be able to cancel the policy.
However, in the event of a claim they will almost certainly still have to pay out, but that breach may give them the right to pursue you for their losses - which could be extensive.
Of course if they are able to show a material contractual breach they are able to simple refuse to pay any of your own damages, albeit that they may have to stand by that decision in court.
None of which avoids the fact that you may be prosecuted for fraud if that is appropriate.
|
I can't be bothered to go and get it, but my driving licence shows the date they issued a full licence, not the date I passed the test. I know this as I was away at university on the date of licence issue and would not have been around to take a driving test.
Although I sent off my provisional licence and pass certificate pretty promptly - probably within a day or two knowing me, the full licence start date is nigh on a month later.
But since it is more than 35 years ago, a month here or there is nothing.
|
|
If I recall correctly you had up to 1 year from the test date to convert it to a full licence. Although it might have been 6 months.
|
Also, taking a clue from the no smiley:
___________________________________________________________________
This is history, based on "uberima fidae".
consequences of non-disclosure:
fraud:
www.out-law.com/page-9942
www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/79/79-motor-insurance.htm
www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/61/61-insurance.htm
www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/46/46_non_disclosure_insurance.htm
www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/27/27-ins-nondisclosure.htm
www.law-essays-uk.com/resources/sample-essays/insurance-law/emerging-issues-in-the-law-commissions.php
All that is history.
____________________________________________________________________
This is the future:
Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/6/contents/enacted
Disclosure and representations before contract or variation
(1)This section makes provision about disclosure and representations by a consumer to an insurer before a consumer insurance contract is entered into or varied.
(2)It is the duty of the consumer to take reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation to the insurer.
(3)A failure by the consumer to comply with the insurer’s request to confirm or amend particulars previously given is capable of being a misrepresentation for the purposes of this Act (whether or not it could be apart from this subsection).
(4)The duty set out in subsection (2) replaces any duty relating to disclosure or representations by a consumer to an insurer which existed in the same circumstances before this Act applied.
(5)Accordingly—
(a)any rule of law to the effect that a consumer insurance contract is one of the utmost good faith is modified to the extent required by the provisions of this Act, and
(b)the application of section 17 of the Marine Insurance Act 1906 (contracts of marine insurance are of utmost good faith), in relation to a contract of marine insurance which is a consumer insurance contract, is subject to the provisions of this Act.
|
|
Some interesting disputes there, including the usual 'fun' about what constitutes a modification and what doesn't; interesting to see that the ombudsman often sides with the consumer, not the insurance company in these cases.
|
>>interesting to see that the ombudsman often sides with the consumer, not the insurance company in these cases.
In fact Courts and Ombudsman usually err on the side of the consumer. When I was involved in such things, some years ago, the commonly quoted figures were that an insurance company could avoid almost 20% of claims if they followed the letter, but in fact avoided less that 2%.
The difference being a combination of perception & marketing and their chances in court.
|
Full UK driving licence from...? - crocks
