posted 3 years ago

New Rules Minimise Insurance Fraud

Motor Insurance Companies To Cross-Reference Data With DVLA

The vast majority of motorists support the initiative to provide insurers with information from the DVLA Database if it reduces fraud, an AA Poll has confirmed. But how will this help? Thousands of drivers provide false statements to their insurance companies in order to reduce their premiums. Some therefore claim to live in low crime areas – perhaps with parents – but in fact reside in less secure parts of the country. Others exaggerate their experience by claiming to have (say) seven years behind the wheel when they only have three. Also, some fail to declare motoring convictions such as driving without due care and attention or reveal something less significant. The Secretary of State for Transport, Patrick McLoughlin MP, has therefore confirmed that from 2014 motor insurance companies will be allowed to cross-reference some of the information drivers provide with the DVLA Database (Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency).

AA Responds To Survey Results

AA Insurance Director, Simon Douglas, said: “This shows that drivers are fed up with a fraudulent minority trying to get cheaper insurance by telling lies at their expense. We know that an astounding quarter of motorists wrongly declare their driving history to insurers either not declaring convictions or disqualifications, or declaring something less significant. Many more provide other false information such as age, driving experience or even address in order to obtain a cheaper insurance premium. This is unfair to safer, honest motorists.” Mr Douglass concluded: “It’s hard to think of a change to the insurance process that has been given such resounding support from the public.”

Results of AA Poll

The AA surveyed 17,883 of its members to seek their views on this insurance fraud initiative. 92% of the respondents said it is “a good idea if it cuts down fraud” and 91% were in favour if it “helps bring down premiums”. I suspect, however, that any savings will be swallowed by insurers rather than passed to consumers. Furthermore, 84% claimed it is “necessary because people give false information to try to cut premiums”, and 79% said it is a “good idea” if it “cuts out lots of questions”. After all, insurers will not have to ask how long drivers have held licenses or whether they have convictions. But not everyone is in favour of the initiative. As such, 22% said they “object” to their data being given to insurers and 64% “worry” that it could be “used for other purposes”.


Why don't we introduce a system whereby tax, insurance and current M.O.T. certificate are clearly displayed in the front windscreen of the car.

Excellent idea & may increase safety.

agree totally

why don't the government let us all see the website of cars insured so we can type in a registration ourselves and find out if such a car is insured, we could then report these scumbags, but would the insurer REALLY bring it down, I DONT THINK SO, so do something about the rip off insurance firms

In our local news paper it tells us who has been fined bt the courts for not having any car insurance.But the fines are far lower than the insurance premium would have been in many cases so people take the chance and do not insure their cars.why pay £900 to insure when you will only get fined £300 if caught.

How about asking motorists how they feel about DVLA passing motorists details to private parking companies etc.

Seems fine but insurance rule should be change like if you parked your car in paid parking or parking place in shopping centres and some one hit your car not your fault , but in this case your next premium will be go high ,Why ? So, Government and insurance Co. has to look on this matter as well.

They brought in CIE (continuous insurance enforcement) last year to reduce the amount of uninsured driving, The police have ANPR technology on roadside cameras as well as SPECS ANPR based average speed cameras. You would have though that by now there would be enough technology to give drivers without insurance no place to hide. I complained to my MP when CIE came in as I have a motorbike that I rarely use in the winter. however I could have kept it taxed but uninsured, on a nice day a quick phone call would have arranged cover and I could have been on the road legally in 5 minutes. under new rules is the bike is not insured I have to cancel the road tax and SORN it. Now if a nice day turns up I can insure the bike in 5 mins, three or four hours later it will show up on the MIB data base and I can tax it on line, 5 days later the tax disk will arrive and I can ride it! What has happened to the nice day in the meantime???? This also applied to people with a second car, maybe a classic that does not get used all year round. yet more paper work for the governments bottomless piggy bank, sorry I meant motorist!

Sounds great for the motorist who does everything by the book. Why should we fall fail to the driver who thinks they better than the law. It would be good if the insure started rewarding the good motorist with lower premiums

I have been driving since 1963 and received one speeding conviction in 1966 on a motorcycle that would barely do 40 mph flat out! Anecdotal evidence has shown that DVLA records are sadly lacking. Motor insurers must have a powerful lobby to protect their interests by legislation. SORN is but one example. I have disclosed every detail in my driving record but the underwriters get it wrong time and time again because, clerically, they are incompetent. I have no confidence in any new initiative until the DVLA put their house in order and when the underwriters accept their station in the affairs of man. The ordinary honest driver pays the price for their folly all the time. If they gave me a discount, I would happily install a journey recorder (cost £150) in my car: They are not interested.

However, If someone has years of experience driving overseas then this should be taken into account. The DVLa will only have a record of years of driving in the UK.

Seems fine. So just get on with it.

If you have nothing to hide then why worry?

The Insurance companies will sell this data on to the dodgy "No Claim No Fee" solicitors and we will get calls 24 X 7 X 365 to chase us to make claims! Pathetic idea!

Could I suggest that insurers check DVLA information in the event of a claim instead of blanket searches this would stop any claim in its tracks & the fraudsters would not have the claims paid.End off, problem solved in one

Another abuse by the government of our data we are forced to give them. Private companies should never have access to information given to a government department. DVLA information should only be accessed by the police and then under strict conditions. As an aside third party insurance should be covered by the government directly, via road fund licence or via fuel tax.

Premiums are shooting up every year and I pay the market value of my car every year to pay insurance Even for adding a young driver prices are horrible please either do something to benefit motorists or keep away from our data

I have no problem with this, as DVLA only hold information which I should be telling my insurer in the first place.I do think that this should be a tool to make prices fair, and not to boost profits. Honest driver do pick up the bill for the dishonest. I do agree with Sydney Marsh, in that Insurers should not be affiliated with garages. Insurance approved establishments could be scored by a governing body perhaps.

This is to be welcomed but is only part of the motorist's problem. Many insurance agencies and / or managers have financial interests / connections with garages they recommend or direct you to. These inflate claims to push up premiums the same happens with house insurance]. So the links with repairers needs deep investigation. Then there is the refusal of UK governments to introduce the USA " Lemon Law" that cleaned up back street garages that sell dodgy cars. One so called reputable garage [of a national company] claimed a car had been checked out by their mechanic. When the main agent checked it needed £4k of work. That would not happen if we had the "lemon Law"