Data Protection and Penalty Points

magpie

In the spirit of getting to the bottom of this, after being annoyed by Hibernian phoning me up looking for my licence number months before my insurance is due for renewal, I sent the following email to the Data Commissioner:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Can you clarify for me the situation in regard to penalty points and car insurance?

1) Is it legal for insurance companies to ask that you disclose whether you have any penalty points?
2) Is it legal for an insurance company to refuse insurance based on your penalty points, or your refusal to answer questions either way?
3) Is it legal for an insurance company to offer 'discounts' based on your penalty points or lack thereof?
4) Is it legal for an insurance company to telephone you some months before your insurance is due for renewal and ask for your drivers licence number in order that they can check your penalty point status prior to offering a renewal quote?

My understanding was that penalty points, unlike a drivers licence endorsement, were between you, the DOE and the Guards, which is why they are not printed on the licence and expire after 3 years.

I would welcome your clarification.

many thanks

I'll keep you posted on any response

De Hipster

I will be very interested in the outcome of this...I have no penalty points (as yet), but do have a problem with insurance companies (and any other private industry entities) using & abusing the governmental data storage illegally for their own ends.

unkel

De Hipster wrote:

I will be very interested in the outcome of this

I'd like to see an official reply too

De Hipster wrote:

do have a problem with insurance companies (and any other private industry entities) using & abusing the governmental data storage illegally for their own ends.

It is only Hibernian. It was a deal done with the government. The reasoning is that people with more than 2 penalty points still pay the premium as before and people with less than 2 penalty points get a discount

If you don't want to let 3rd parties know your penalty points, just don't ask for a quote from Hibernian

aodh_rua

Isn't one of the underlying principles of insurance utmost good faith, that you must disclose any and all facts which may influence the mind of a prudent insurer. I'd imagine failure to disclose penalty points would fall under this.

Padraig Mor

unkel wrote:

The reasoning is that people with more than 2 penalty points still pay the premium as before and people with less than 2 penalty points get a discount

I wonder though if this is another way of saying that people with points are penalised?

Boggle

The real question is: Does the amount of penalty points you have act as an indication of how safe a driver you are?

To me the answer is no as most speed checks are put in places where the speed is artificially low (ie too low for the environment). This leads to a situation where you could get caught twice (8 points) on a safe section of road and be regarded as an extremely high risk driver. On the other hand people in rural areas(or people who know the traps in the area) can fly around at all speeds on unsuitable roads without any fear of ever getting caught. certainly, when considered like this, penalty points are a piss poor method of judging driver safety and should not have to be disclosed. (you are either entitled to drive or are not)

Dades

Boggle wrote:

The real question is: Does the amount of penalty points you have act as an indication of how safe a driver you are?

It's relevant. The issue of undeserved points is a Gardai/State issue.

In order for insurance companies to offer cheaper insurance, somebody must pay higher insurance. People have complained for years about the cost for young (read: high risk) drivers, and now when they try to apply new criteria there's another outcry.

The cost to insurance companies of rewarding a "safe" driver has to be recouped.

You gotta pay the piper.

magpie

In order for insurance companies to offer cheaper insurance, somebody must pay higher insurance

Bit of a simplification that, the reason why insurance in Ireland was so high for so long is that it was an unregulated cartel. Sure, insurance companies will give you hard luck stories about how much it costs them etc, but they still turn massive profits.

Besides, there is already a system in place to reward safe drivers. Its called a No Claims Bonus and its a f uck site more accurate as an indicator of safe driving than penalty points are.

I wonder though if this is another way of saying that people with points are penalised?

That's exactly it.

De Hipster

unkel wrote:

I'd like to see an official reply too



It is only Hibernian. It was a deal done with the government. The reasoning is that people with more than 2 penalty points still pay the premium as before and people with less than 2 penalty points get a discount

If you don't want to let 3rd parties know your penalty points, just don't ask for a quote from Hibernian

referring to my original post on this subject : http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=230462
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2433134&postcount=3

the idea that hibernian (or any other insurance company - the motor tax employees words were 'Insurance companies') can just lift the phone & ring the local tax office to see if you're disqualified and/or have points is not acceptable, this is something that, if already in existence, must be strictly monitored & regulated to avoid abuses of the system.

FFS the girl in the tax office said 'they (i.e. insurance companies) ring all the time & I just look up the system - sure if your disqualified you're not entitled to insurance...', isn't it just ****ing marvellous & great that the tax office is so devoid of work that they have the time to do some for the insurance cartels now too!

Dades

magpie wrote:

Besides, there is already a system in place to reward safe drivers. Its called a No Claims Bonus and its a f uck site more accurate as an indicator of safe driving than penalty points are.

Except you can cheat the NCB by paying out of your own or Daddy's pocket.

Quotations are all about statistics, and your penalty points are just another factor along with age, no claims bonus etc.

Just trying to be objective.

magpie

Just trying to be objective.

There's no room for that on boards

Dades

magpie wrote:

There's no room for that on boards

Yeah - I forgot I was on ww.rants.ie

FX Meister

The Atheist wrote:

Except you can cheat the NCB by paying out of your own or Daddy's pocket.

Don't you do the same thing when you pay more if you have points?

Dades

FX Meister wrote:

Don't you do the same thing when you pay more if you have points?

Um, I don't know. Do I? I'm confused.

FX Meister

The Atheist wrote:

Um, I don't know. Do I? I'm confused.

Yes, it's basically the same thing. You pay more if you don't have a NCB and you pay more if you have penalty points.

Boggle

It's relevant. The issue of undeserved points is a Gardai/State issue.

In order for insurance companies to offer cheaper insurance, somebody must pay higher insurance.

People have complained for years about the cost for young (read: high risk) drivers, and now when they try to apply new criteria there's another outcry.

The cost to insurance companies of rewarding a "safe" driver has to be recouped.

You gotta pay the piper.
__________________

Relevant: perhaps. Proportional: No.
While it may be a good guess that someone with no points might be a safe driver, having points does in no way make you a dangerous driver, and the amount of points wouldn't indicate how dangerous you are. (i've none incase you think I'm defending myself)
Example: Who is the more dangerous: A driver on 8 points or a driver on 2? You would expect it to be the driver on 8 but it could be a case of the the 8 point driver got caught 4 mph over the limit on a safe road whereas the 2 point driver was driving around on 4 bald tyres for months (when it comes in).

What I am against really is the double punishment: Government AND insurance companies both get a payout from the points system.

In order for insurance companies to offer cheaper insurance, somebody must pay higher insurance.

No they mustn't. Give everyone a reasonable rate and you'll find everyone pays an average amount

Captain Trips

The Atheist wrote:

In order for insurance companies to offer cheaper insurance, somebody must pay higher insurance.

No. In order for insurance companies to offer cheaper insurance, they can simply reduce their profit margin. They can be induced to this by an increase in much needed competition from Ireland *and* the rest of the EU.

Captain Trips

Boggle wrote:

Example: Who is the more dangerous: A driver on 8 points or a driver on 2? You would expect it to be the driver on 8 but it could be a case of the the 8 point driver got caught 4 mph over the limit on a safe road whereas the 2 point driver was driving around on 4 bald tyres for months (when it comes in).

Not even so...

Someone with 4 points could be deemed more "dangerous" than someone with 2 points simply because they contested it in court. This shows how ludicrous such a system of insurance based on "points" would be.

If that's the case, let's put government ministers on a "points system" ASAP!!

Dades

Captain Trips wrote:

No. In order for insurance companies to offer cheaper insurance, they can simply reduce their profit margin.

Or people could just drive under the speed limit.

One as likely as the other.