View Full Version : Thousands of restricted riders unwittingly uninsured
Scythe92
30-01-12, 12:30 PM
http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/News/newsresults/General-news/2012/January/jan3012-thousands-unwittingly-uninsured/
I think this is VERY worrying.
There is no option of an restricted licence, and I do have a full UK licence, whether restricted or not?
Luckily my bike is SORN, but this could worryingly lead to a massive increase in premiums as I, according to insurers, do not have a 'full' licence?
I imagine there's many riders in the same situation as me on here, thought I'd point it out.
MisterTommyH
30-01-12, 12:44 PM
How surprising that the insurance ombudsman sided with the insurance companies.
Is this right?
Or MCN's usual garbage?
Scythe92
30-01-12, 01:09 PM
How surprising that the insurance ombudsman sided with the insurance companies.
It's such a load of crap, entirely! How are you meant to declare it when no category for a restricted licence exists? It certainly isn't a provisional, and according to them it isn't a full licence..
i think the one big thing that they have omitted is the fact that you are not required to pass a further test, therefore you have a full motorcycle licence but have a restriction for two years unless you are old enough to do direct access.
it's a load of bull to get more money out of the public. time for MAG to get involved.
but it may just be MCN spouting crap as per usual.
Geodude
30-01-12, 01:38 PM
i think the one big thing that they have omitted is the fact that you are not required to pass a further test, therefore you have a full motorcycle licence but have a restriction for two years unless you are old enough to do direct access.
it's a load of bull to get more money out of the public. time for MAG to get involved.
but it may just be MCN spouting crap as per usual.
Spot on Bib, but worrying if they can get away with it :(
Dave20046
30-01-12, 01:46 PM
WHen I was restricted upon getting each quote I asked the insurance company to verify me being restricted wasn't an issue most said it wasn't and the ones I went with put it on record... I knew it all was a bit smoke and mirrors... as with any dealing with insurance companies-not to be trusted
And the ombudsman's quote is technically incorrect ~ he isn't restricted from riding bigger bikes at all , just using all the power
yorkie_chris
30-01-12, 03:02 PM
Load of bollox.
If you are restricted and insured currently, let sleeping dogs lie, IMO.
The headlines are a bit dramatic IMO.
The Ombudsmans decision was about whether or not eBike were justified in charging a fee. It doesn't mean that bloke, or anyone else, is not insured.
He was asked if he had a full or restricted bike licence. He answered "Full". He was then asked how long he had held that licence and he included the period of his restriction. He got it wrong and there was a small premium adjustment which he refused to pay. That's what the complaint was about.
It's easy to see where people might go wrong - that's what happens when you try to shoehorn new regulations into frameworks that don't support them (hence DVLA's made up A2 classification). Hopefully there will be some clarification but no-one currently on a restricted licence needs to worry.
In the meantime, when buying insurance online, make sure you answer the question that you're actually being asked.
yorkie_chris
30-01-12, 03:28 PM
I've usually answered that with "I passed my bike test in June 07".
Vague, not the answer to the question posed, simply a statement of fact and if they've f***ed up knocking 2 years off not my problem. I reckon...
454697819
30-01-12, 03:31 PM
its a full license with a power restriction
Dumb stupid MCN
Load of crap, I was getting told I didn't have a 'Full' licence with Bennetts due to the restriction, then when I spoke to CIA they told me that Bennetts are just trying to add extra onto your insurance without it being in plain sight.
I did my insurance details on the phone, when asked about restriction he told me, "We can see from your age that your meant to be restricted, so no need to add it as a modification". They know if your meant to be restricted or not.
A 'Full' licence is obtained when you receive that certificate after MOD2. & you get that little pink card.
Quote from MCN "restricted from riding larger bikes" Well anyone could get on a Mille & Restrict it, when does it class as a "Larger Bike"? As soon as your restriction comes off? Bit of a joke.
Scythe92
30-01-12, 05:11 PM
Load of crap, I was getting told I didn't have a 'Full' licence with Bennetts due to the restriction, then when I spoke to CIA they told me that Bennetts are just trying to add extra onto your insurance without it being in plain sight.
I did my insurance details on the phone, when asked about restriction he told me, "We can see from your age that your meant to be restricted, so no need to add it as a modification". They know if your meant to be restricted or not.
A 'Full' licence is obtained when you receive that certificate after MOD2. & you get that little pink card.
Quote from MCN "restricted from riding larger bikes" Well anyone could get on a Mille & Restrict it, when does it class as a "Larger Bike"? As soon as your restriction comes off? Bit of a joke.
Yes, I've always taken it from my MOD2 pass date.
I thought I should bring it to the forum's attention. Let's hope other insurers don't bother with eBike's way of thinking, although most people know eBike are a PITA anyway.
todsky426
30-01-12, 06:40 PM
when i was using a restrictor there was no option online so i rang them up(MCE) and they had never heard of a resticted bike :S so i spoke with a manager and he said the restrictor had to be classed as an accessory but made a note of what it was so it actually cost me more to insure a 33bhp SV than a full power model, then i crashed it.....suddenly MCE did know what a restrictor was and wanted to see the certificate.
-Ralph-
30-01-12, 07:01 PM
Case closed. Thanks again TamSV.
Bluefish
30-01-12, 08:06 PM
Well I agree with the Insurer's, because you haven't passed the full bike test if you did it on a resticted motorbike, you know under 33bhp or what ever it is, 2 years later you have the full entitlement, them's the rules.
Wideboy
30-01-12, 08:19 PM
out of interest how many restricted people have sent their licence back to have the 33bhp removed after it expired?
Personally, I think they're talking out of their ass - I'm struggling to find any reference in law to an A2 licence. So far, the closest I've found is http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2824/schedule/2/made, which mentions A and A1 (the latter being the sub-125cc category) but no A2.
Dave20046
30-01-12, 10:05 PM
out of interest how many restricted people have sent their licence back to have the 33bhp removed after it expired?
I haven't because mine just says 'less than 33hp (or alike) until x/x/x'
yorkie_chris
31-01-12, 09:33 AM
Well I agree with the Insurer's, because you haven't passed the full bike test if you did it on a resticted motorbike, you know under 33bhp or what ever it is, 2 years later you have the full entitlement, them's the rules.
No, them's not the rules.
You wouldn't do the restricted test on a restricted bike for a start, you'd do it on a 125.
Passing this (full, 3 part) test entitles you the full A2 category.
Jayneflakes
31-01-12, 07:09 PM
out of interest how many restricted people have sent their licence back to have the 33bhp removed after it expired?
I was planning on doing so in April when my restriction is up, also adding my Reverend to my driving license too. :smurfin:
Do Vicars get points if caught speeding? :smt084
Do Vicars get points if caught speeding? :smt084
no they go to hell..
454697819
31-01-12, 08:32 PM
I state again..
IT is a full license with a power restriction
Like my wifes license is a Full car license with an Auto restriction,
the date I gave... The date I tore up my L plates..
it is not rocket science
the date I gave... The date I tore up my L plates..
I had the hard back L plate, got a good 50metres out of a frisbee
IT is a full license with a power restriction
+1
The issue seems to be that eBike want to know how long it's been since your restriction ended. You could argue with that, and they do seem to be out of step with the market on this one, but they're entitled to underwrite their business as they see fit - free market and all that.
As it happens, I was speaking to the Ombudsman's technical advice unit today and mentioned this case in the passing. Interestingly, they couldn't see a record of any other enquiries on this one (which tells you something about journalistic standards at MCN).
As far as they were concerned this was solely a case about the insurers right to apply their own premium rates. There was never any question that the policyholder had been dishonest - it was accepted that this was a genuine and understandable mistake - but once eBike were aware of the correct situation they wanted to apply the correct premium. The ombudsman agreed they should be able to do so. There was never any question about cover being in place.
I suggested that most riders, when asked that question, would think about the date they passed their test. The chap at the ombudsman agreed with me. :)
He said that, if an insurer had been trying to avoid a claim on this, they would have to pass a much higher test. In that case the ombudsman would want to see a very clear and qualified question that couldn't be misinterpreted. If there's any ambiguity in the questions asked then, in a claim situation, the policyholder always gets the benefit of the doubt.
If the bloke in this story had a claim denied the ombudsman would have judged that he should get it paid but he, in turn, would have to pay the small additional premium due.
Personally, I think there's an argument to be had here in terms of what constitutes a full licence and, although I quite like them, I reckon eBike have got this one wrong. The way DVLA have chosen to deal with licences reissued after the restriction doesn't help.
In any event, despite the MCN headline, there doesn't seem much reason to worry about your cover.
Well my restriction is up in April and I'll make sure I avoid eBike.
Well my restriction is up in April and I'll make sure I avoid eBike.
I don't see why. :smt102
They're one of the better ones IMO. Sensible about mods. Reasonable policy wordings. Decent T&C's - e.g. don't administer an anal raping if you dare to make a change during the course of the year, unlike almost everyone else.
The biker that took this nothing complaint to the ombudsman was a bit of a knob as far as I'm concerned. It was a complaint about pricing and that's doomed to failure every time. Despite what MCN think, the complaint doesn't revolve around the status of a restricted licence and it tells us very little about how the ombudsman views a restricted motorcycle licence. They are also entirely wrong with their mischievous suggestion that thousands are without cover because of this - but it gives them a good opportunity to advertise their own MCN Compare insurance site. They either know they're talking crap or they don't care.
Like I say, I think eBike might be wrong in their discounting strategy but, hey, maybe their stats back up their approach. Who knows? But if you want to avoid insurance providers because one small aspect of their underwriting doesn't seem to make sense, then you'll have no-one left to go to. :)
All we really know is that eBike had a knob for a customer and MCN employ lazy journalists. Hardly a black mark for eBike.
If you want to avoid someone, avoid MCE. =;
I have used MCE before and they did get something wrong on my policy at first even though they repeated everything they wrote down which was all correct but somehow still ended up being wrong on paper.
eBike has never given me a decent quote, they've never been in the top 5 cheapest for me on comparison sites but I guess I shouldn't really judge them on this one isolated issue.
But I do agree with avoiding MCE after having minor problems with them myself and reading all the complaints on here.
When I get quotes and am asked when did you pass your test, I answer October 2002. If they want the specifics I'll give them, but only if asked. I have only ever had one issue when getting quotes and that was with Confused.com because it said something like that it wasn't possible to have a full license because of my DOB. In which case I added two years and it let the quotes through.
Spanner Man
02-02-12, 08:56 AM
Good morning all.
Looks like another excuse from the 'Hand starters' known as the insurance industry to avoid coughing up in the event of a claim.
Moral of the story is; Make sure you tell them everything that's relevant.
Cheers.
Looks like another excuse from the 'Hand starters' known as the insurance industry to avoid coughing up in the event of a claim.
But it isn't. It's nothing like it. Cover was never in question.
You might have a prejudice against the insurance industry but, like those who say all mechanics are cowboys and thieves, in reality you would find the true picture is significantly better than you think. :)
timwilky
02-02-12, 12:35 PM
Although I no longer use e-bike (Found better bike insurance) I cannot fault them. I have put them to the test with a claim and it ran very well. I would recommend them from that perspective.
To be honest if the question was when did you qualify to ride this class of motorcycle then there would be no argument as the answer would have to be date of full power test (or 250 pre DAS/125 rules etc) or 2 years after reduced power test.
But still what does it matter. eBike has taken the decision to only recognise a licence gained on a restricted motorcycle as full once the qualifying 2 years has expired. So what, you don't like their policy. Go elsewhere
when ever I get that question, i look on my license for the A category and use the date that is there.
I did have a restriction in power placed on my license for the first 2 years (8 years ago) and never had a problem, I dont see how it could be argued that you have to declare your pass date as anything different from what is written on your license.
yorkie_chris
02-02-12, 01:26 PM
It depends what question they ask you, quite simply.
EssexDave
02-02-12, 08:12 PM
To the person asking if anybody has sent off their license to have restriction removed - I have not as DVLA told me it costs £45 and I don't need to.
I did get stopped by police, who asked if my bike was restricted, I said no, he said it should be, I said let's phone DVLA - he mumbled on to the other two people I was with about riding gear blah blah blah and went on his way.
Spanner Man
03-02-12, 07:28 AM
But it isn't. It's nothing like it. Cover was never in question.
You might have a prejudice against the insurance industry but, like those who say all mechanics are cowboys and thieves, in reality you would find the true picture is significantly better than you think. :)
Having seen many cases of insurance companies 'ducking out' due to 'small print' errors over the years, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the issue in question is used as an excuse not to cough up at some time.
I have had more dealings with Insurance companies than most I would think. Over the last 10 years or so, they have become a fecking nightmare to deal with.
Since the formation of the likes of Aviva. Which itself was a merger between General Accident, Commercial Union, & more recently Norwich Union, plus a few more besides. I have noticed an increasing trend of 'claim ducking'. What's more the average time they take to pay repairers such as myself has increased from 10-15 working days, to around 60!
I could go on, but suffice to say, the industry is starting to smell like a dead Cat, & it's us that are ultimately paying the price via our premiums.
In short, the true picture is somewhat worse than you think.
Cheers.
Having seen many cases of insurance companies 'ducking out' due to 'small print' errors over the years, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the issue in question is used as an excuse not to cough up at some time.
Then you'll be pleased to see that the ombudsman has already confirmed that, if they try, it won't wash.
I have had more dealings with Insurance companies than most I would think. Over the last 10 years or so, they have become a fecking nightmare to deal with.
I've dealt with thousands of claims of all types and the vast majority are settled fairly, even generously - but that's been on insurance contracts that were properly arranged. There were always problems with insurance company staff not knowing what their own policies covered and that hasn't really changed much over the last 25 years. Last year I collected over £600,000 for clients in commercial motor claims that were originally declined. In most cases my clients were never aware that there was a problem because I resolved it. Big companies are often crap to deal with - that's par for the course.
What has changed in the last few years is how insurance is purchased. More people are dealing direct and they're now exposed to this lack of knowledge. I've sorted out a number of "direct" claims for people - so much so I've considered marketing it as a stand alone service. There was nothing unusual about those claims for me - just the usual nonsense I get in my business all the time - and they're usually pretty easy to resolve.
That's not the biggest problem though. A recent study of online motor insurance purchases showed that 40% of them contained an error in the information provided. Half of these errors were enough to make the insurance invalid. This wasn't small print - it was things like driving convictions and previous accidents. That's a huge number and it's much worse than when people used to actually have to speak to someone - it's easier to lie to the machine.
Like my farming client who recently wanted to add a little Fiat with his 18 year old daughter as an additional driver and him as the main driver. His daughter lives 30 miles away and that's where the car will be. He got a quote from me and a quote online. I was MUCH more expensive. The difference was, I told him not to be so daft and I rated the premium on his daughter. The online quote just accepted the information he gave.
I dealt with the issue before it was a problem, as traditional brokers always have. The online guys would accept the business and then deal with him after it was a problem. That's the big difference. I can tell you he would be the first to be crying about the evil insurers and their small print when his transparent lies were uncovered.
There's loads of that going on now. You see threads on it here all the time.
Since the formation of the likes of Aviva. Which itself was a merger between General Accident, Commercial Union, & more recently Norwich Union, plus a few more besides. I have noticed an increasing trend of 'claim ducking'. What's more the average time they take to pay repairers such as myself has increased from 10-15 working days, to around 60!
Agreed. Aviva, like most huge multinational companies, is unsuitable for contact with human beings - as supplier, employee or customer. As stated above, part of the problem is lots of customers are now dealing with these companies themselves but they're not equipped with the knowledge, experience or patience to do it.
You can service your own bike, write your own will, sell your own house - but you'll need to do some studying and be capable of the work. If you're unable or unwilling to do that, you should go to someone who knows what they're doing. Everyone is now acting as their own insurance broker but they don't put any effort into the job.
I could go on, but suffice to say, the industry is starting to smell like a dead Cat, & it's us that are ultimately paying the price via our premiums.
In short, the true picture is somewhat worse than you think.
Some areas need improvement, no doubt about it.
We need to recognise how the cover is bought for one. I think a move, for motor insurance at least, away from contracts of "utmost good faith" in the traditional sense is now needed. Instead of expecting motorists to declare all material facts the onus should be on the insurer to ask all material questions. So if they want a piece of information they have to ask for it in a very clear, unambiguous way. The regulator and ombudsman are leaning in that direction anyway but it should be formalised.
Secondly, we need to get an urgent grip on the personal injury bandwagon created by the last Government. When you see that from the inside it's hard to comprehend how such a system can be allowed to exist. It's not the culture of claiming so much, but the costs. The costs and fees totally eclipse the actual compensation payments. Madness.
We're obviously going to keep buying online but if claims costs were under control, premiums would be a bit more realistic, people would hopefully be less inclined to stretch the truth and fewer claims would be declined.
In the meantime, all you need to do is tell the truth and check your paperwork. If you do that you're very unlikely to have a problem.
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.