Licence clarification

[Dicky Ticker]

With regard to young or recently passed riders who has an "A" licence and who an"A2"licence
Reading the Insurance Ombudsman's report it appears that you do not have a "Full Licence" till your 2 years have expired after passing your test and an insurer has the right to charge extra while you have the restriction on your licence.
Declaring that you have a "Full" Licence before this can make your insurance void . That is a question not a statement

Can anybody clarify regarding the declaration of having an A or A2 when applying for insurance and substantiate their answer.

[yorkie_chris]

I would suspect the test would be then if the new drivers act* applies to you when you get your proper test passed or when your restriction expires.

I would also say it is not a simple matter of "making insurance void", some common sense must apply of whether it was possible to actually hold a full licence given the proposors age etc. and from this I would say A2 does count as a "full UK" bike licence and unless the option was specifically given (in event of an online quote say) of what licence do you hold A/A1/A2/provisional etc and you lied you would be fine.

*The "if you get 6 points within 2 years of passing your first full category retake your test" thing.

[Dicky Ticker]

I am asking for the regulation or rule of law that does apply regarding not being classed as a full licence till after the two years have expired-------as referred to by the
Ombudsman not me.My translation of the law with regards to the six points and 33bhp restriction is that you are in a intermediate area between provisional and full.
What makes sense or is common sense seems to be a grey area regarding insurance and is it down to the individual to make a full declaration of facts to the insurance company rather than they presume or deduce the facts.
I seriously doubt if you lied to an insurance that it would be fine

[Dicky Ticker]

Please I don't want to get into what people think or rights and wrongs,just a clarified black and white answer.
Thanks.

[yorkie_chris]

...and unless the option was specifically given (in event of an online quote say) of what licence do you hold A/A1/A2/provisional etc and you lied you would be fine.


I seriously doubt if you lied to an insurance that it would be fine

Highlighted for clarity. I am not suggesting it is a good idea to lie to them. As always when dealing with these things it is a case of phrasing the truth in the correct manner.


As an example when I was on restriction, filling in online forms they would ask "type of licence" with the options generally something like:

Full UK
Provisional UK
EU
None

With these options obviously the only one which fits is "full UK", it's not a lie.




Here is DVLA paper INF45
https://www.dvla.gov.uk/dvla/forms/~/media/pdf/leaflets/INF45.ashx

Note it shows the <25kW as a category of vehicle, hence a valid "full licence".
It is also on a form "your full licence explained".


The only possible outcome to this is that the A2 category is a full licence for that category of vehicle.

[Dicky Ticker]

During the lapse from posting I have found out that the majority of insurers require you to declare you have a full licence but some ask.The main idea being that by law you can not ride anything above 33bhp and if you do it then becomes a police matter.
Bennetts and Swinton both gave an answer along these lines stating that if the vehicle was above 33bhp you are not insured--------------according to them as you are unlicenced for that class of motorbike.

[Joe Marcon]

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/12/12/19/py7etysu.jpgIt wouldnt say that on my license if i havent got a full bike license . Which A2 is a full license!


Sent from my iPhone

[Joe Marcon]

And no its a police matter because u arnt riding within accordance to license. So u still are insured .


Sent from my iPhone

[yorkie_chris]

if the vehicle was above 33bhp you are not insured--------------according to them as you are unlicenced for that class of motorbike.

Now as I understand it,

Correct, you are not licenced for that class of vehicle. Just the same as if I was driving a 40 tonne artic on my <3.5 ton car licence. Offence that Joe states is what you'd get done for.

The "not insured" matter is different, one risk is if you had a crash as you had been well outside the cover offered they would still have to pay out for 3rd party damage, but could then pursue you personally to recover the payout.

[Dicky Ticker]

A2 is a full licence for bikes up to 33bhp and it is the riders responsibility to ensure that if the bike is capable of in excess of 33bhp that a restriction is fitted and in working order.
This is according to two insurance companies --not me.

[Spank86]

According to the government websites on the issue it IS a full licence, just as my Car licence is a full licence even though the category of trailer I can pull is limited.

You have a full A1/A2 licence you just dont have the A category.

[yorkie_chris]

A2 is a full licence for bikes up to 33bhp and it is the riders responsibility to ensure that if the bike is capable of in excess of 33bhp that a restriction is fitted and in working order.
This is according to two insurance companies --not me.

That is how I see it as well.

So to bring this back to your OP, a new rider DOES have a full licence within their 2 years.

[Joe Marcon]

Plus i havent put 33bhp on my insurance so they dont pay for it, they pay my full power bike. So it defo would be police matter about accordance to license . If i had 33bhp down theyd insure it as that, but if it was full power then they may void it .


Sent from my iPhone

[Dicky Ticker]

In short it is all a matter of category entitlement.

[yorkie_chris]

In short it is all a matter of category entitlement.

Could you clarify the question you are asking.

[Spank86]

Pretty much.

You can have a full licence in almost any category whilst having a provisional in another.

As long as you are answering the question about the correct type of licence (not car when they are asking about bike for example or not A1 when they specifically ask about A) you are correct in claiming a full licence.

It is worth noting however that a 33bhp restrictor most certainly IS a performance modification, it drastically alters the performance of the bike so unless they specifically refer to performance ENHANCING mods you would need to declare it to be within the law.

[Dicky Ticker]

Simple ----don't ride anything you are not entitled to ride,if you are entitled to ride it restricted and it is insured for you go ahead.

Knowing how devious insurance companies can be about small type I just think that any out they could find to escape an obligation they would use it,not just in this case but in general.

[Joe Marcon]

I see what u mean . Im riding my mums bike and thats restricted anyway. So i have to live with it till i can afford a new bike


Sent from my iPhone

[Bibio]

its a full licence but restricted and in a way the same applies to diabetics/disabled who also have to inform their insurance company.

[widepants]

Is it me ,or is everyone ignoring Joe?

[yorkie_chris]

you would need to declare it to be within the law.

But not necessarily criminal law.

There is no act of parliament for example that says you are uninsured if you changed your brake lever to one you bought at HG instead of suzuki. It's complicated.

[Spank86]

Is it me ,or is everyone ignoring Joe?



I'm waiting on the translation software.

[yorkie_chris]

its a full licence but restricted

The term "restricted" is misleading.
It's a full licence for the category of vehicle. (sub 25kW motorcycle)

Just like for some bizarre reason you can get your full 125cc licence (category A1), which actually permits you to carry passengers, go on the motorway etc. but this licence does not "mature" into an A licence.

[Spank86]

But not necessarily criminal law.

There is no act of parliament for example that says you are uninsured if you changed your brake lever to one you bought at HG instead of suzuki. It's complicated.

Well if its performance effecting and the companies not notified you would have invalidated your insurance, then you would be considered by the police to be uninsured.

A brake lever on the other hand I wouldn't consider performance effecting at all.

[yorkie_chris]

Well if its performance effecting and the companies not notified you would have invalidated your insurance, then you would be considered by the police to be uninsured.

A brake lever on the other hand I wouldn't consider performance effecting at all.

Every policy I've seen states "enhancing" but that's not the point you're getting at, I see what you mean there.

However AFAIK you can't simply "invalidate" the 3rd party cover part of insurance. Look on any policy document "nothing here affects your right as a 3rd party to make a claim" or words to that effect. Therefore even if you have gotten yourself into more sh*t than a faggots finger, the police are not actually going to try do you for no insurance. You may have a civil claim against you for a load of damage though, and find getting insured in future near impossible...


Now I'm completely prepared to admit I'm wrong here, if you can find any cases prosecutions for no insurance of:

Modified vehicle owners being prosecuted for not declaring mods
A2 licence bikers with full power bikes
People towing trailers above their MPM limits
Kids being done when they're a named driver on mummies insurance

All amount to broadly the same thing based on the things we're talking about recently, bullshtting the insurers and seeing whether it is a police or a civil matter. Convictions for the above cases, or similar would prove the point.

[Joe Marcon]

Ignoring me? I didnt know i was really involed lol


Sent from my iPhone

[leebex]

Is it me ,or is everyone ignoring Joe?

So widepants, are you saying you are actively ignoring joe :mrgreen:

[widepants]

Therefore even if you have gotten yourself into more sh*t than a faggots finger,

I had to read that twice to make sure my eyes wernt ****ed.

[Dicky Ticker]

There is a rule of "Non Disclosure" which insurance companies apply and use on many occassions to repudiate claims. Loads of examples over the net,some for the silliest of things.

[yorkie_chris]

There is a rule of "Non Disclosure" which insurance companies apply and use on many occassions to repudiate claims. Loads of examples over the net,some for the silliest of things.

In the example of you stating you have a "full UK" type of motorcycle licence a non disclosure has not occurred.

Simply, they have asked a question, you have answered it fully. They did not specifically ask what category of motorcycle licence you hold.

[leebex]

In the example of you stating you have a "full UK" type of motorcycle licence a non disclosure has not occurred.

Simply, they have asked a question, you have answered it fully. They did not specifically ask what category of motorcycle licence you hold.

On a similar note, a couple of years back I took out bike insurance online, really simple one page form, no boxes to mark in modifications, and it wasnt mentioned, nor stated standard bikes only.

The insurance guy at the call centre was a bit off with me when I got the docs through and mentioned I had an aftermarket exhaust fitted, he said "Its usually customary to mention this when taking out the insurance" so I just replied how can I when your online form neither asks for any information or has a box to put in comments or information in.

[yorkie_chris]

There is usually a part in the fine print which does state the online quote is for standard bikes.

[leebex]

luckily it was simple enough for him to add it on and didnt add to the cost. But I do prefer talking to someone when sorting insurance, so everything can be clarified, and you know the insurance is set up correctly.

[Spank86]

Every policy I've seen states "enhancing" but that's not the point you're getting at, I see what you mean there. well if it says enhancing then obviously you wouldn't need to declare it, I've not read the sheets recently.

However AFAIK you can't simply "invalidate" the 3rd party cover part of insurance. Look on any policy document "nothing here affects your right as a 3rd party to make a claim" or words to that effect. Therefore even if you have gotten yourself into more sh*t than a faggots finger, the police are not actually going to try do you for no insurance. You may have a civil claim against you for a load of damage though, and find getting insured in future near impossible...


Now I'm completely prepared to admit I'm wrong here, if you can find any cases prosecutions for no insurance of:

Modified vehicle owners being prosecuted for not declaring mods
A2 licence bikers with full power bikes
People towing trailers above their MPM limits
Kids being done when they're a named driver on mummies insurance

All amount to broadly the same thing based on the things we're talking about recently, bullshtting the insurers and seeing whether it is a police or a civil matter. Convictions for the above cases, or similar would prove the point.
Not sure if I could and I can't find much info about either way but its definitely a grey area because although the insurance company would have to pay a third party they could inform the police that your insurance wasn't valid and I don't know what they'd do then. Sounds like the sort of thing one of our resident boys in blue MIT be able to explain,

[TamSV]

Reading the Insurance Ombudsman's report it appears that you do not have a "Full Licence" till your 2 years have expired after passing your test and an insurer has the right to charge extra while you have the restriction on your licence.
Declaring that you have a "Full" Licence before this can make your insurance void . That is a question not a statement

Can anybody clarify regarding the declaration of having an A or A2 when applying for insurance and substantiate their answer.

What's the Ombudsman's Report you're referring to DT? I remember a case earlier in the year that was very poorly reported in the press.

In general terms, you need to answer the question you're asked. If you're just asked how long you've held a full licence it would be reasonable to use the date you passed your test. If you're specifically asked how long you've had an unrestricted licence then the answer will be different.

Incidentally, there's new rules coming for non-disclosure in private motor contracts. See the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/6/contents/enacted) (have a look if you have an interest - it's not really that heavy in the realm of such things). It does theoretically represent a shift in the position of insurers but it pretty much follows what was normal market practice anyway.

With regards to insurers dealing with TP claims when non-disclosure is discovered then, yes, they will. Possibly as RTA Insurer (under the Road Traffic Act) or, if the insurance policy is voidable (e.g. obtained fraudulently) as "Article 75" insurer (see the Motor Insurance Bureau Articles of Association). Each has different implications for insurers and policyholders but, in general, the insurer can come after you for underpaid premiums or, in the case of void contracts, for their Third Party outlay.

[Joe Marcon]

Anyway moving on.......


Sent from my iPhone

[rb8989]

I have a Cat A, that is as I understand, a full license. Six or twelve points, it's still a full license afaik.