Drivers who omit to mention previous drink driving convictions could well find their car insurance is invalid should a claim be made say Norwich Union.
A Norwich Union representative understood that a conviction for drink driving would increase a drivers car insurance premium considerably but by choosing not to declare it at all would cost much more when the cover was deemed invalid. Such a conviction would certainly come to light when a claim was made so it is in the drivers interests to declare it upon buying the insurance cover.
Should a person be found not to have declared something such as this and then had their cover terminated this information would be held on a central car insurance database explained Norwich Union, which would increase the premium still further.
Hastings Direct has been fined GBP735,000 by the FSA (Financial Services Authority) for treating its customers unfairly. The car insurance company was found to have cancelled over 4,500 policies following a pricing error.
The problem was caused by the Hastings Direct car insurance quotation system, which generated quotes that were lower than the market rate. The insurer then decided to cancel these policies, a step that was not acceptable according to the FSA.
Although a cancellation clause was included within the policies the FSA felt that Hastings Direct should have considered other options first rather than invoking the cancellations. They believe that it is not acceptable to cancel cover because of what is simply a pricing error.
Government proposals for new 20 mph zones are receiving mixed responses from officials says car insurance provider Swiftcover.
There has been talk of a new generation of speed cameras supporting these new zones, though a safety campaigner from Exeter was unsure as to whether the cameras were the best way forward. A 20 mph zone would be in area where there are going to be children it would be thought, so the placing of speed cameras would actually take drivers eyes away from the road and onto their speedometers, thus negating the point of the zone in the first place.
An alternative view was put forward by a county councillor who felt speed cameras would be better than traffic calming measures, feeling they would be more effective.
