Dash Cam - Insurance reduction

[flookyk]

If anyone has a dash cam fitted to your cars, please don't forget to inform your insurance company.

I have just had my renewal quote for beginning of May and, after informing them of having had the front and back system fitted by the Lexus dealer, have found my insurance being reduced by £27 a year (5.4%),not a lot but better in my pocket than theirs.

[DAN@ADRIAN FLUX]

Hi,

Just to let you know that a number of our insurance schemes offer discounts for the fitment of a HD dash cam.

Regards,

Dan.

[Herbie]

On 4/19/2021 at 8:39 AM, flookyk said:

If anyone has a dash cam fitted to your cars, please don't forget to inform your insurance company.

I have just had my renewal quote for beginning of May and, after informing them of having had the front and back system fitted by the Lexus dealer, have found my insurance being reduced by £27 a year (5.4%),not a lot but better in my pocket than theirs.

When Keith posted this in the Facebook group, I pointed out that it may be worth taking into account what may be the 'other side of the coin', so for completeness, here it is:

It may not be that straightforward. Some dashcams are quite big and can't be left in situ overnight for fear of some scrote nicking it. Sod's Law states that the day you forget to put it back in will be the day you have an accident and when they ask for footage you can't supply it. What an ideal opportunity for them to reduce or refuse a payout because you got the insurance on the premise of having a dashcam fitted. I've never told them I have a cam but will provide footage if I ever need to.

[Linas.P]

Just to clarify few points here. 

1. Some insurance companies (certainly not all), will provide discount which will be a joke... ~£20 is actually accurate, the only difference is that £20 on my £1400 insurance is not 5.4%. Further, I have never seen any insurance company promising it, so I suspect it is simply based on sales person discretion. Basically they just knock down £10-30 based on their mood if you raise this point when negotiating the price. 

2. You having said you have dash-cam does not make you liable to provide the footage. This is somebodies assumption or invention . What you have to do is laid out in your insurance contract, providing dash-cam footage even if one is fitted and even if you got discount for it is not in contract (unless it is, so check you contracts first) and therefore you have no legal obligation to provide it, nor insurance can deny claim if you didn't provide footage.

Again based on the first point, it not rule unless it is in contract and rather based on discretion... and that discretion is not based on promise you will provide footage, but rather on statistical probability that somebody with dash-cam will be following the rules themselves and that in non-fault accident it will be easier to prove non-fault. 

If you afraid of leaving dash-cam in car then probably don't get it in the first place. Because, parking mode is actually almost the most useful part - it is far more likely that your car will get bumped in the car park on hit and run, than it is for you to disagree whose fault it was in the accident whilst driving. So if you not planning to keep it in the car, then what is the point? 

Other advise - theft from the cars being on the rise and dash-cams being a target, it may turn out that soon insurance companies will start charging you extra for having one, rather than discounting. Don't forget that dash-cam would be covered under insurance cover and if having one increases risk of your car being broken into, then insurance may actually increase. So if you want that silly £20 off(I say "silly" because it is drop in the ocean compared to ridiculous insurance prices), instead of saying - "I have dash cam", say "would there be any discount if I fit one". This leave the room for your to backtrack if they say no, or if they say that your price would actually increase. 

Finally, only ask this after they already say that is the best price they can offer, if you say that before it then they may say "yes it is already the best price including dash-cam discount" and you will never know if you got discount. Don't forget - insurance companies are not your friends, they are aggressive for-profit organisations which exists to rip you off and they have strong lobby and backing of government in doing so.

[Herbie]

1 hour ago, Linas.P said:

Because, parking mode is actually almost the most useful part

Not sure about that Linas.

Having parking mode is better than not having it but only marginally so, given that it can only 'see' out of the window it's mounted to.

Quite a lot of people still only have one mounted on the front windscreen so yes, it'll see anything that happens at the front but that still leaves 75% of the car unmonitored.

[Linas.P]

That is fair point and I found myself that parking mode didn't help when somebody set nail under my tyre, it would not help either if somebody deliberately "keys" the car. So from that perspective your are correct.

However, assuming that one parks car correctly (and that is always reversing in) then at least in theory the only exposed part of your car is the front, and that 25% covers most of outcomes when somebody either reverses into the car or scrapes past it. I personally try to park somewhat strategically, so that behind the car is the wall and on one side is the pillar or something similar i.e. leaving as little as possible space which isn't covered by dashcam. As well if in any doubt I take pictures of the cars from either side - sure it not cover all eventualities, but reduces the risk somewhat.

Further, most of current systems could be configured with 2 cameras, so it will cover both front and back, regardless how your park. The future is that all cars will have 360 cameras with automatic recording in case of accident, ANPR and even cloud storage (like new S-Class). 

In either case what I am saying - chances of having accident where you are not at fault, but could not prove it without dashcam are very slim. I had 3 non-fault accidents and I did have dash cam in all of them. I would have proven innocent in either case, the only difference is that with dash-cam it was far easier and quicker to prove and I had added bonus of using claims management companies (they rarely take cases unless they are clear cut and dash cam makes them very much clear cut). So dash-cam is certainly a time saver and convenience. However, the biggest issue is damage to the car when it is unattended, because as you may know there is usually no way to know who bumped into it unless you have it on the dash cam, as many times as I had some damage and I asked for CCTV I was always refused any evidence (supermarket security could not care less about the scrape on your car).

[Phil xxkr]

1 hour ago, Linas.P said:

Just to clarify few points here. 

1. Some insurance companies (certainly not all), will provide discount which will be a joke... ~£20 is actually accurate, the only difference is that £20 on my £1400 insurance is not 5.4%. Further, I have never seen any insurance company promising it, so I suspect it is simply based on sales person discretion. Basically they just knock down £10-30 based on their mood if you raise this point when negotiating the price. 

2. You having said you have dash-cam does not make you liable to provide the footage. This is somebodies assumption or invention . What you have to do is laid out in your insurance contract, providing dash-cam footage even if one is fitted and even if you got discount for it is not in contract (unless it is, so check you contracts first) and therefore you have no legal obligation to provide it, nor insurance can deny claim if you didn't provide footage.

Again based on the first point, it not rule unless it is in contract and rather based on discretion... and that discretion is not based on promise you will provide footage, but rather on statistical probability that somebody with dash-cam will be following the rules themselves and that in non-fault accident it will be easier to prove non-fault. 

If you afraid of leaving dash-cam in car then probably don't get it in the first place. Because, parking mode is actually almost the most useful part - it is far more likely that your car will get bumped in the car park on hit and run, than it is for you to disagree whose fault it was in the accident whilst driving. So if you not planning to keep it in the car, then what is the point? 

Other advise - theft from the cars being on the rise and dash-cams being a target, it may turn out that soon insurance companies will start charging you extra for having one, rather than discounting. Don't forget that dash-cam would be covered under insurance cover and if having one increases risk of your car being broken into, then insurance may actually increase. So if you want that silly £20 off(I say "silly" because it is drop in the ocean compared to ridiculous insurance prices), instead of saying - "I have dash cam", say "would there be any discount if I fit one". This leave the room for your to backtrack if they say no, or if they say that your price would actually increase. 

Finally, only ask this after they already say that is the best price they can offer, if you say that before it then they may say "yes it is already the best price including dash-cam discount" and you will never know if you got discount. Don't forget - insurance companies are not your friends, they are aggressive for-profit organisations which exists to rip you off and they have strong lobby and backing of government in doing so.

Linas, there you go again 😁 denigrating Insurance companies and "for profit" firms. Are you a "hiding in the closet Marxist" or write for the Morning Star 🤣 if so we should know?  It is said far left people employ projection, that is to say accusing people of doing things as they are doing themselves. So we need to know Linas.P who are you scalping today? 💰

[Linas.P]

Not sure what you are surprised about - Insurers are ****. It is not like one day I would say "I hate them" and next day I have suddenly forgotten about it. 

I think you digging far too deep, there are no hidden marxist agenda - the simple matter is that insurance in UK sucks. It is by far the worst value proposition product I use and that I ever had in my life. I will be very clear about this - if I had an option not to insure in UK I would 100% chose not to insure at all, the value of it is just so terrible that I would rather risk not having it. There are reasonable and logical ways of how to measure value and fairness of the service and even beyond my personal opinion it is still terrible.

Secondly, this is based on my simple belief that anything that is mandated by law must be provided on the fair terms, indiscriminately and ideally by non-profit (to be fair that is the only way in which it could be done). So if by law I must have insurance, I expect the government to provide it at fair cost. Yes that sounds kind of socialist I agree... but I guess in this case unrestricted and bloodthirsty capitalism (greatly represented by insurance in UK) is not great either. Even in capitalist own terms when it comes to "free market" the way insurance is procured breaches all possible safeguards and red lines. Nowhere near as bad as communism (ask 200 million dead), but still fairly terrible.

Finally, instead of attacking strawman I would suggest to read the actual points I made about the topic. Have I said something incorrectly? 

[serbarry]

I fully agree with Linas and the situation in Ireland as far as insurances are concerned is very similar to UK. 

[LenT]

2 hours ago, Linas.P said:

Just to clarify few points here. 

1. Some insurance companies (certainly not all), will provide discount which will be a joke... ~£20 is actually accurate, the only difference is that £20 on my £1400 insurance is not 5.4%. Further, I have never seen any insurance company promising it, so I suspect it is simply based on sales person discretion. Basically they just knock down £10-30 based on their mood if you raise this point when negotiating the price. 

Firstly, when I see such figures as £1400 - which may well be typical - I wonder what I’m doing right?

My last two renewals with the AA have been £450 plus the ‘gift’ of £20 of shopping vouchers!  And that was negotiated before COVID reduced my mileage, but I still regard it as reasonable.  Now when it comes to dashcams, I have had them on three cars, insured with the AA and Saga, and have never been offered - nor to be fair actively sought - a discount.

I’m inclined to agree with Linus that a dashcam discount can be a double-edged sword.  By involving a discount for it, then surely the video evidence becomes a factor in any claim resolution.  So if you are unable - or unwilling - to provide it, then that will surely affect the outcome.  If appropriate I prefer to keep it as a surprise witness, so’s to speak.  

So when I had a write-off claim against Allianz - and they showed signs of delaying tactics - the submission of the video files ensured it was settled in full within days.

So basically, rather than seek or accept a discount based on the availability of dashcam files, I prefer to retain control of their use.

[Linas.P]

3 minutes ago, LenT said:

Firstly, when I see such figures as £1400 - which may well be typical - I wonder what I’m doing right?

My last two renewals with the AA have been £450 plus the ‘gift’ of £20 of shopping vouchers!  And that was negotiated before COVID reduced my mileage, but I still regard it as reasonable.  Now when it comes to dashcams, I have had them on three cars, insured with the AA and Saga, and have never been offered - nor to be fair actively sought - a discount.

I’m inclined to agree with Linus that a dashcam discount can be a double-edged sword.  By involving a discount for it, then surely the video evidence becomes a factor in any claim resolution.  So if you are unable - or unwilling - to provide it, then that will surely affect the outcome.  If appropriate I prefer to keep it as a surprise witness, so’s to speak.  

For IS250 I used to pay £680 as well, £1400 was RC200t. Probably not living in London helps, then age... and I had 3 non-fault accidents + windscreen replacement (one of which I didn't even claim at all and none of which I claimed from my insurance directly, except of windscreen) which I feel is unfair to count against me, but insurance companies can do what they want and what can I do about it?

Either I am missing the point or it seems you actually disagree with me? What I said is opposite - outcome of your claims does not depend on you providing video evidence, even if you got discount for having dash-cam, unless it is in the contract.

This is fairly simple contract law matter without any ambiguity, if discount would depend on you providing the evidence then sales person would be obliged to let you know it and in T&C it would have to say precisely that - something along the lines "The discount is provided on condition that in event of accident you will provide video from dash-cam, failure to do so may invalidate your insurance/affect your claim". For comparison when you have black box insurance that is exactly what it says - the black box has to be present in the car for insurance to be valid.

Now... because insurance companies can literally put anything they want in the contract I would not be surprised if some companies would have such clauses, but what I am certain about is that I had this discount from 4 different companies and neither of them had this clause (Esure, Bell, Admiral and Elephant - this technically makes only two because last 3 are all part of the same company). So instead of speculating, I would advise to find your insurance T&Cs and check whenever it does or doesn't require the video. 

 

 

[LenT]

21 hours ago, Linas.P said:

Either I am missing the point or it seems you actually disagree with me? What I said is opposite - outcome of your claims does not depend on you providing video evidence, even if you got discount for having dash-cam, unless it is in the contract.

This is fairly simple contract law matter without any ambiguity, if discount would depend on you providing the evidence then sales person would be obliged to let you know it and in T&C it would have to say precisely that - something along the lines "The discount is provided on condition that in event of accident you will provide video from dash-cam, failure to do so may invalidate your insurance/affect your claim".

Firstly, Linus, I think we are in agreement on the basic position that, on balance, one is better off NOT to negotiate a special discount for having a dash cam - albeit possibly for different reasons. Anyway, that is my position.

Regarding your interpretation of Contract Law, I expect a Company could indeed introduce just such a clause. Whether any have I have been unable to determine. Perhaps Dan@AdrianFluk might return and clarify this point. However, I would suggest that to claim that it is essential is questionable.

Are you aware of an ‘Implied Contract’? As the name suggests, if two parties enter in to an agreement clearly based on the admitted existence of specific factors, then this has the same force in Law as a written Contract.

In other words, if I solicit a discount based on the claim that I have a dash cam and, by implication, will be able to provide video evidence in the event of a claim, and I accept a discount on that implied basis, then that has the same legal force as if it was spelt out in a detailed clause.

On this basis, there are other ramifications. Failure to provide video evidence of an incident might then count against you when your insurers consider the claim. In addition, should the other party discover that this Implied Contract exists, then I can conceive of a situation, should the claim be serious enough, that they might Subpoena the video files – and again failure to provide them would definitely influence a Court.

I also note that Gemma Stanbury, head of car insurance at Confused.com, (who may or may not know what she is talking about) points out that ‘It’s important to remember that if you make a claim and you don’t have dash cam footage to support it, you may have to repay any discounts that you may have had. It could also invalidate your policy.’

[Linas.P]

I like your "non-combative attitude", but I don't think we are in agreement here 🙂 What I said was just advice how to reap most "advantage" you could from insurance companies during negotiation and how to structure it so that one could backtrack at any time in case it takes a wrong turn.

Yes I am aware of implied contract, but it has no relevance here. Why? Because implied contract cannot co-exist when there is written contract already in place.

So in that sense - if there would be no other contract in place, such contract could be implied. However, because there is already actually contract it automatically supersedes any implied contracts, it is very simple - if it is not written into your contract, then such rule does not exist - end of story.

Finally, enforcing implied contract would be problematic, because any such enforcement could not automatically invalidate your insurance, this would need to be first decided by court that implied contract was reasonable and agreed by both parties. For example - one could argue that you said you have dash-cam fitted... which is true, but that does not automatically means you are always recording, or that you will keep records for specific time.

 

[LenT]

On 5/5/2021 at 1:28 PM, Linas.P said:

I like your "non-combative attitude", but I don't think we are in agreement here 🙂 What I said was just advice how to reap most "advantage" you could from insurance companies during negotiation and how to structure it so that one could backtrack at any time in case it takes a wrong turn.

Yes I am aware of implied contract, but it has no relevance here. Why? Because implied contract cannot co-exist when there is written contract already in place.

So in that sense - if there would be no other contract in place, such contract could be implied. However, because there is already actually contract it automatically supersedes any implied contracts, it is very simple - if it is not written into your contract, then such rule does not exist - end of story.

Finally, enforcing implied contract would be problematic, because any such enforcement could not automatically invalidate your insurance, this would need to be first decided by court that implied contract was reasonable and agreed by both parties. For example - one could argue that you said you have dash-cam fitted... which is true, but that does not automatically means you are always recording, or that you will keep records for specific time.

 

apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol">Thanks for your response to my earlier post, Linus. You raise some interesting points. I’ve laid out my comments in a way which I hope is clear.

apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol">What I said was just advice how to reap most "advantage" you could from insurance companies during negotiation and how to structure it so that one could backtrack at any time in case it takes a wrong turn.

apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol">Coming from one who likes to question the moral rectitude of the Insurance Industry, isn’t this equivocal approach equally dubious?

apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol">Because implied contract cannot co-exist when there is written contract already in place.

apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol">Naturally. It would also be a redundant argument.

apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol">So in that sense - if there would be no other contract in place, such contract could be implied.

apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol">Agreed. In Law there’s no practical distinction between contracts that are expressed or implied.

apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol">However, because there is already actually contract it automatically supersedes any implied contracts, it is very simple - if it is not written into your contract, then such rule does not exist - end of story.

apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol">I suggest that your logic falls down here. Firstly your statement presumes that such an Expressed Contract actually exists. I’ve examined the T&Cs of our two Insurers (AA and Saga) and there’s no mention of dash cams as a source of evidence. But then I haven’t asked for, or been offered, a discount for having one - which may explain that.

apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol">Considering the enthusiasm with which the AA promotes their use, this is slightly surprising.

apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol">It’s also interesting that considering dash cam discounts are supposedly now widely offered, that no-one has come forward here to explain how it affects their Insurance. Either they are not as common as suggested, or they can’t be bothered!

apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol">I would also have thought that the Broker who posted earlier on the thread – and whose Company claims to be something of a pioneer in this aspect of car insurance – has not yet returned to explain how they operate it.

apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol">...if it is not written into your contract, then such rule does not exist - end of story.

apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol">Now we’re getting back to the establishment of an Implied Contract.

apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol">Finally, enforcing implied contract would be problematic, because any such enforcement could not automatically invalidate your insurance, this would need to be first decided by court that implied contract was reasonable and agreed by both parties. For example - one could argue that you said you have dash-cam fitted... which is true, but that does not automatically means you are always recording, or that you will keep records for specific time.

apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol">A surprising comment coming from one who has stated, in effect, that Insurance is a con and Insurance Companies will strive to identify any reason to avoid paying out. With this statement I suggest that you are not only providing Insurers with all the ammunition they need to shoot down your claim, but you are also handing them the loaded shotgun!

apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol">If you (by which I mean anyone!) asks for or accepts a discount in return for using a dash cam, then, as already agreed, a Contract (or probably more precisely, a Clause or Codicil within the Contract) is established.

apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol">Merely by accepting - and paying - the Insurer's fee on the basis that it includes a ‘dash cam discount’ you are accepting the Implied conditions. If you were intending to run a defence in Court that, for example, you didn’t have to use the dash cam for the purpose for which it was designed, well...good luck with that!

apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol">You wouldn’t expect that to work with, for example, seat belts!

apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol">As an industry expert I quoted earlier stated; ‘It’s important to remember that if you make a claim and you don’t have dashcam footage to support it, you may have to repay any discounts that you may have had. It could also invalidate your policy.’ (My emphasis)

apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol">or that you will keep records for specific time.

apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol">So you’re suggesting, in your Defence, that you might delete the records of an incident in which you were involved? I think that would neatly conclude the case for the Prosecution!

apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol">What I do believe is a valid reason for not accepting a ‘dash cam discount’ is that you may be unable to supply the video evidence for reasons beyond your control. A corrupt microSD card, for example.

apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol">Still, I’d be interested to have the views of anyone who has been involved in just such a situation.

[Linas.P]

56 minutes ago, LenT said:

Thanks for your response to my earlier post, Linus. You raise some interesting points. I’ve laid out my comments in a way which I hope is clear.

What I said was just advice how to reap most "advantage" you could from insurance companies during negotiation and how to structure it so that one could backtrack at any time in case it takes a wrong turn.

Coming from one who likes to question the moral rectitude of the Insurance Industry, isn’t this equivocal approach equally dubious?

Because implied contract cannot co-exist when there is written contract already in place.

Naturally. It would also be a redundant argument.

So in that sense - if there would be no other contract in place, such contract could be implied.

Agreed. In Law there’s no practical distinction between contracts that are expressed or implied.

However, because there is already actually contract it automatically supersedes any implied contracts, it is very simple - if it is not written into your contract, then such rule does not exist - end of story.

I suggest that your logic falls down here. Firstly your statement presumes that such an Expressed Contract actually exists. I’ve examined the T&Cs of our two Insurers (AA and Saga) and there’s no mention of dash cams as a source of evidence. But then I haven’t asked for, or been offered, a discount for having one - which may explain that.

Considering the enthusiasm with which the AA promotes their use, this is slightly surprising.

It’s also interesting that considering dash cam discounts are supposedly now widely offered, that no-one has come forward here to explain how it affects their Insurance. Either they are not as common as suggested, or they can’t be bothered!

I would also have thought that the Broker who posted earlier on the thread – and whose Company claims to be something of a pioneer in this aspect of car insurance – has not yet returned to explain how they operate it.

...if it is not written into your contract, then such rule does not exist - end of story.

Now we’re getting back to the establishment of an Implied Contract.

Finally, enforcing implied contract would be problematic, because any such enforcement could not automatically invalidate your insurance, this would need to be first decided by court that implied contract was reasonable and agreed by both parties. For example - one could argue that you said you have dash-cam fitted... which is true, but that does not automatically means you are always recording, or that you will keep records for specific time.

A surprising comment coming from one who has stated, in effect, that Insurance is a con and Insurance Companies will strive to identify any reason to avoid paying out. With this statement I suggest that you are not only providing Insurers with all the ammunition they need to shoot down your claim, but you are also handing them the loaded shotgun!

If you (by which I mean anyone!) asks for or accepts a discount in return for using a dash cam, then, as already agreed, a Contract (or probably more precisely, a Clause or Codicil within the Contract) is established.

Merely by accepting - and paying - the Insurer's fee on the basis that it includes a ‘dash cam discount’ you are accepting the Implied conditions. If you were intending to run a defence in Court that, for example, you didn’t have to use the dash cam for the purpose for which it was designed, well...good luck with that!

You wouldn’t expect that to work with, for example, seat belts!

As an industry expert I quoted earlier stated; ‘It’s important to remember that if you make a claim and you don’t have dashcam footage to support it, you may have to repay any discounts that you may have had. It could also invalidate your policy.’ (My emphasis)

or that you will keep records for specific time.

So you’re suggesting, in your Defence, that you might delete the records of an incident in which you were involved? I think that would neatly conclude the case for the Prosecution!

What I do believe is a valid reason for not accepting a ‘dash cam discount’ is that you may be unable to supply the video evidence for reasons beyond your control. A corrupt microSD card, for example.

Still, I’d be interested to have the views of anyone who has been involved in just such a situation.

Not really sure what part of "Because implied contract cannot co-exist when there is written contract already in place" was not clear. All insurance policies have contracts and T&C, this means there cannot be any further implied contracts on top of it.

The moral argument you raised is valid and it is down to you do decide. I see insurance companies as criminals trying to steal my money - as such should I don't see any reason to be honest with them. It is like robber coming to you and saying "look I am going to cut off your fingers if you not going to tell me where you keep the money", to keep your fingers you may point them in direction on where you keep your change and say "this is all I have" despite having bigger stash of saving somewhere else. Now are you suggesting this would be "immoral" to lie to robber like that? I doubt it? So this is my perspective on the thing...

Now again, you said if you agreed, then "a Contract (or probably more precisely, a Clause or Codicil within the Contract) is established" - no it isn't, unless it is written into your contract. Going back to previous point "that implied contract cannot co-exist", the only way in which such agreement can be enforced would be insurance company adding addendum to existing contract or issuing new contract with clause governing "dash-cam discount". It is very clear that you still don't understand that implied contract cannot be formed when there is already a contract in place. And secondly you are trying to imply the contract onto yourself, which even the insurance company isn't implying. I appreciate your carefulness, but at least from legal perspective this seems beyond what would be necessary. 

"It’s important to remember that if you make a claim and you don’t have dashcam footage to support it, you may have to repay any discounts that you may have had. It could also invalidate your policy." - clearly "industry expert" does not understand how law and contracts work. Perhaps it is just acknowledgement that insurance companies are fraudsters and they may try to illegally invalidate your policy, or it assumes there is actually a clause to cover this. In short this statement is generic - in contracts "may or could" does not exist, instead "will or must" should be used. Because if insurance may be invalidated, it may as well not going to be invalidated, maybe you could provide footage, or maybe you could not provide footage... you see the issue? If contract says you must provide the footage and your cover will be invalidated otherwise, only then you must provide it, because indeed it will be invalidated otherwise. Could there be a case where insurance company attempts to reject the claim on this basis anyway without having it in contract - I would not not be surprised, after all they are what they are - ******* ****.

Little bit from my personal experience - I always had dash-cam and I always had discount, I had 3 non-fault accidents and not a single time insurance company aske me for footage. Now this does not mean anything, because maybe your insurance will ask for it, but what is important is again to read the contract and understand if that is your duty under the contract to provide anything to them.

In short - unless you contract specifically says, that by accepting this discount you commit to providing the footage and you insurance will be invalidated if you fail to do so for any reason, including reasons outside of your control.

[LenT]

2 hours ago, Linas.P said:

Not really sure what part of "Because implied contract cannot co-exist when there is written contract already in place" was not clear. All insurance policies have contracts and T&C, this means there cannot be any further implied contracts on top of it.

The moral argument you raised is valid and it is down to you do decide. I see insurance companies as criminals trying to steal my money - as such should I don't see any reason to be honest with them. It is like robber coming to you and saying "look I am going to cut off your fingers if you not going to tell me where you keep the money", to keep your fingers you may point them in direction on where you keep your change and say "this is all I have" despite having bigger stash of saving somewhere else. Now are you suggesting this would be "immoral" to lie to robber like that? I doubt it? So this is my perspective on the thing...

Now again, you said if you agreed, then "a Contract (or probably more precisely, a Clause or Codicil within the Contract) is established" - no it isn't, unless it is written into your contract. Going back to previous point "that implied contract cannot co-exist", the only way in which such agreement can be enforced would be insurance company adding addendum to existing contract or issuing new contract with clause governing "dash-cam discount". It is very clear that you still don't understand that implied contract cannot be formed when there is already a contract in place. And secondly you are trying to imply the contract onto yourself, which even the insurance company isn't implying. I appreciate your carefulness, but at least from legal perspective this seems beyond what would be necessary. 

"It’s important to remember that if you make a claim and you don’t have dashcam footage to support it, you may have to repay any discounts that you may have had. It could also invalidate your policy." - clearly "industry expert" does not understand how law and contracts work. Perhaps it is just acknowledgement that insurance companies are fraudsters and they may try to illegally invalidate your policy, or it assumes there is actually a clause to cover this. In short this statement is generic - in contracts "may or could" does not exist, instead "will or must" should be used. Because if insurance may be invalidated, it may as well not going to be invalidated, maybe you could provide footage, or maybe you could not provide footage... you see the issue? If contract says you must provide the footage and your cover will be invalidated otherwise, only then you must provide it, because indeed it will be invalidated otherwise. Could there be a case where insurance company attempts to reject the claim on this basis anyway without having it in contract - I would not not be surprised, after all they are what they are - ******* ****.

Little bit from my personal experience - I always had dash-cam and I always had discount, I had 3 non-fault accidents and not a single time insurance company aske me for footage. Now this does not mean anything, because maybe your insurance will ask for it, but what is important is again to read the contract and understand if that is your duty under the contract to provide anything to them.

In short - unless you contract specifically says, that by accepting this discount you commit to providing the footage and you insurance will be invalidated if you fail to do so for any reason, including reasons outside of your control.

apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol">Firstly Linus I should say that I’m impressed that it apparently only took you eight minutes to respond. I’ve been somewhat tardier! So to address your points:

apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol">Not really sure what part of "Because implied contract cannot co-exist when there is written contract already in place" was not clear.

apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol">No part was unclear, Linus. I was actually agreeing!

apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol">I see insurance companies as criminals trying to steal my money - as such should I don't see any reason to be honest with them.

apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol">Yes, I see the distinction. How far do you take this attitude? In order to obtain a premium reduction, do you not declare changes that materially affect the vehicle? Do you keep cars parked in an unlit side-street while claiming they are securely garaged? Do you have the same attitude to, say, Household Insurance?

apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol">I can’t believe that that is seriously the case!  😟

apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol">I, however, see them (certainly the ones I choose to deal with) as organisations providing a service which is both a legal requirement and a means of indemnifying, compensating and representing me should I be involved in a claim.

apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol">As with any business and commercial arrangement, the Law presumes that all parties are acting in ‘good faith’ and therefore penalises those who don’t.

 apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol">It is very clear that you still don't understand that implied contract cannot be formed when there is already a contract in place.

apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol">Again that’s a point with which I actually agreed, additionally pointing out that as there is no distinction in Law, it would in any case be redundant.

apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol">"It’s important to remember that if you make a claim and you don’t have dashcam footage to support it, you may have to repay any discounts that you may have had. It could also invalidate your policy." - clearly "industry expert" does not understand how law and contracts work.

apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol">You choose your ‘expert’ and you makes your choice. Where would the Legal Profession be if it couldn’t call on different Experts? Perhaps an ‘Insurance Expert’ who runs a Lexus might be able to comment?

apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol">In short - unless you contract specifically says, that by accepting this discount you commit to providing the footage and you insurance will be invalidated if you fail to do so for any reason, including reasons outside of your control.

apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol">Firstly, I think you’ll find that I was specifically citing ‘reasons beyond your control’ as a legitimate reason for NOT providing the video evidence.

apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol">Frankly, Linus, while I enjoy a debate I can’t see that I can add anything further to this particular one. The purpose and function of a dash cam is well established. Its ability to provide incontrovertible video evidence in the event of an incident is the main reason given for its installation by the Manufacturers, Motoring organisations and Insurers. That is its Main – if not Sole – function.

apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol">If you accept a Benefit by agreeing to operate one then you accept the strictures that imposes - either Expressly or by Implication, it makes no difference.  I would not be surprised if obtaining a dash cam discount and then deliberately failing to provide video evidence - without a legitimate reason - in the event of a claim either for or against you, could not be described by My Learned Friends as 'obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception'.

apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol">That is certainly how I see it. No doubt other opinions are available!  🙂

[Linas.P]

I think we are certainly getting there 🙂

37 minutes ago, LenT said:

How far do you take this attitude? In order to obtain a premium reduction, do you not declare changes that materially affect the vehicle? Do you keep cars parked in an unlit side-street while claiming they are securely garaged? Do you have the same attitude to, say, Household Insurance?

I can’t believe that that is seriously the case!  😟

I, however, see them (certainly the ones I choose to deal with) as organisations providing a service which is both a legal requirement and a means of indemnifying, compensating and representing me should I be involved in a claim.

If you accept a Benefit by agreeing to operate one then you accept the strictures that imposes - either Expressly or by Implication, it makes no difference.

When I say that I would not insure if I would have a choice - I mean it! The insurance prices in UK are unbelievable, unreasonable, unfair and in my opinion outright criminal. So I am very very serious about it. I only insure because I am forced by the law to do it. Again you say "the companies which I choose to deal with"... No... I don't choose any of them on my own will, I am just forced to have their service which I don't even want (for such price)!

This is very clear distinction from household, life or any other optional insurance - you may choose their service, but you not forced to have it. Somehow all these different insurances are significantly cheaper as well. This is because the providers knows that they have to create competitive offer, as the customers won't buy their product otherwise (that is how free market works). With car insurance the story is different - insurance is total rip-off yet everyone are forced to have one, so insurance companies can take advantage of it and charge literally whatever they like. The only choice we have - is either pay crazy price which does not make any sense or don't drive at all. This is not fair or free market - this is money which is taken from me by force and thus I see no difference between insurance company and robber.

So when you say it is assumed that you enter into agreement in "good faith"... No I am forced into it, so there are no good faith on my part and I am willing to stretch it as far as I could legally get away with. Would I outright lie to insurance company to get my premium reduced... Absolutely, as long as this does not legally invalidate my cover. Strangely enough, I actually say my car is parked on the street away from home, despite it actually being garaged and I say that I do business miles, despite technically not doing any - and that is just because it reduces my cover (why that reduces the cover I don't know, it does not make sense, but so does the insurance in UK overall). 

There are other things you can lie and get away with. For example - your profession, how many kids you have, whenever you own property, whenever you attended SAC, or whenever you are married and few other things which Insurance companies have no legal power to check. Yes they issue contract on assumption of "good faith", but because they have no legal power to check "how faithful you were", this means legally they cannot prove either way. Good practice would be for insurance companies not to ask such questions, but they do just because many people fall for it and end-up paying more then strictly necessary.

In short, I provide information which is legally required and can be checked, and I would never lie on that, because Insurance company could find out whenever I was honest or not and punish me. On all the rest of optional information I will only provide it if there is benefit to me in the form of reducing premium, no matter if that is true or false.

Finally, again you say "If you accept a Benefit by agreeing to operate one then you accept the strictures that imposes" - No! Unless that is written in your contract, if it is not written in your contract then it becomes "implied" contract, which we already agree does not apply here. So again - No! You can absolutely agree to take benefit for nothing in return!

[paulrnx]

Linas wouldn't always be able to provide dashcam footage anyway because this would reveal the speed he drives around at, racing everyone and anyone who dares to get in his way. I’m sure he drives his car in the same way that he drives his keyboard. Looking out for anyone who does something he disagrees with so that he/she can be taught a lesson. 😉🤣🤣🤣

A bit tongue in cheek but possibly some element of truth in it!

[NemesisUK]

Don't fit a dash cam, they are accident magnets.... 😉

[LenT]

On 5/8/2021 at 3:51 PM, Linas.P said:

I think we are certainly getting there 🙂

If only....🙂

On 5/8/2021 at 3:51 PM, Linas.P said:

I don't choose any of them on my own will, I am just forced to have their service which I don't even want (for such price)!

I think maybe you overlook one of the fundamental reasons for having Insurance. It’s so that other citizens have recourse to compensation if you should be responsible for an incident causing them actual loss.

On 5/8/2021 at 3:51 PM, Linas.P said:

I provide information which is legally required and can be checked, and I would never lie on that, because Insurance company could find out whenever I was honest or not and punish me. On all the rest of optional information I will only provide it if there is benefit to me in the form of reducing premium, no matter if that is true or false.

These two sentences are surely contradictory. False information is – by definition – false. That you provide false information to obtain an admitted benefit ‘in the form of reducing premium’ is a fraud in order to obtain a pecuniary advantage. This misrepresentation can have very serious consequences.

Under Contract Law, the principle of ‘ab initio’ will apply. This means that the Contract will be void ‘from the beginning’. So you will have been driving uninsured from the date you took it out!

As I mentioned before, Insurers will make basic checks on applications – they have Industry records, for example, that will bring up previous claimants – but generally they operate ‘in good faith’. But this only applies up to the point that a claim is made – at which point Investigators may spring into action. Entire TV series have been created on this very basis!

On 5/8/2021 at 3:51 PM, Linas.P said:

This is very clear distinction from household, life or any other optional insurance - you may choose their service, but you not forced to have it.

Not entirely correct. For example, this may not apply in certain landlord/tenant relationships, or if applying for a ‘Buy-To-Let’ mortgage.

On 5/8/2021 at 3:51 PM, Linas.P said:

Finally, again you say "If you accept a Benefit by agreeing to operate one then you accept the strictures that imposes" - No! Unless that is written in your contract, if it is not written in your contract then it becomes "implied" contract, which we already agree does not apply here. So again - No! You can absolutely agree to take benefit for nothing in return!

apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol">If I’ve given the impression that I agree that an ‘Implied Contract’ does not apply here in the absence of an ‘Expressed Contract’ then I must apologise. My position, to repeat it, is that if you obtain a Benefit on the clear understanding that you will operate a dash cam in the insured vehicle, then you have entered into an ‘Implied Contract’ with the Insurer.

apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol">The term that applies is, I believe, known as the ‘Officious Bystander’ test. (Count me in there!). In other words, that the function, purpose and advantages of operating a dash cam are so obvious to the parties involved that they would be accepted if put to them at the time by the aforesaid Bystander!

apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol">Finally (I hope) - and as I’ve mentioned before – it’s a pity that someone who actually has obtained a ’dash cam discount’ hasn’t volunteered how this has been expressed in their Insurance.

apple Color Emoji, Segoe UI Emoji, Segoe UI Symbol">Or, perhaps more revealingly, a comment from a Broker or Insurance Company as to how they might apply it!

(PS: I hope I've got all the formatting right!☺️)

[Linas.P]

Damn I might need to take a break again...

To properly answer to this topic I would need to go deep into theoretical, logical and moral arguments which may or may not be relevant i.e. insurance companies may not be fair, but we can't do anything about it. Now surely, I may not be able to do anything about it, but that does not mean I have to like it, as such I don't, I actually hate them. Instead of answering your points directly (some of them fair) I would just go back to my beliefs, which are not facts or the way things work, they are how the things should work in my opinion. Obviously, that does not make any of your points invalid, but I hope maybe it is going to help you to understand my perspective.

So to start with - driving is privilege given to everyone fairly by the government and based on clear fair criteria. Do you agree? 

So if it is given to you by the government, only the government should be able to take it away. Right?

There are million more fundamental questions like that, but let's start from here...

[Linas.P]

On 5/9/2021 at 9:14 AM, paulrnx said:

Linas wouldn't always be able to provide dashcam footage anyway because this would reveal the speed he drives around at, racing everyone and anyone who dares to get in his way. I’m sure he drives his car in the same way that he drives his keyboard. Looking out for anyone who does something he disagrees with so that he/she can be taught a lesson. 😉🤣🤣🤣

A bit tongue in cheek but possibly some element of truth in it!

This is mostly true, although I religiously follow all the rules, except of speed limits. Speed limits are something I inherently cannot appreciate and will never follow, because they are set arbitrary and without true scientific reason. As such they cannot be fair and cannot be respected.

The only speed limit I follow is "safe speed based on conditions", meaning I will happily do 100 on the nice, quiet, dry and empty road on warm and sunny summer day even if sign say 50.

And... in my 15 years of driving I never had an accident which was my fault. Sure some slow retards have bumped into me few times, but it was never my fault. Perhaps I could have let them in, despite it being my way of right, but what matters is that they were at fault. 

What that means... not sure... perhaps that the way I am driving is safe enough and my judgement of "safe speed" is correct.

[Sundance]

A most interesting interchange of views of which in my humble opinion those contributed by Len remain the more objective and pragmatic in that they correctly portray actuality as opposed to the somewhat more tangential subjectivity of Linas's evident dislike of conformity whether it be legitimate, contractual or implied. 🙂

Please let's not develop the discussion into 'theoretical, logical and moral arguments' 🙄 as that would almost certainly prove not be relevant other than perhaps to enable Linas to further confuse, opinionise and detract from the genuine and well constructed points that have enabled Len to illustrate the clarity of fact that Linas appears willing to ignore. But then judging from his limited driving experience he has many more years ahead in which to learn from experience and build on his understanding and wisdom.

Well done chaps. 👍

Len ... A1 for exactitude. 😉

Linas ... A1 for discombobulation. 😬

[NemesisUK]

1 hour ago, Linas.P said:

And... in my 15 years of driving I never had an accident which was my fault. Sure some slow retards have bumped into me few times, but it was never my fault. Perhaps I could have let them in, despite it being my way of right, but what matters is that they were at fault. 

So, you could have avoided the accident(s) but chose not to because it was your "way of right"??

[Phil xxkr]

46 minutes ago, Sundance said:

A most interesting interchange of views of which in my humble opinion those contributed by Len remain the more objective and pragmatic in that they correctly portray actuality as opposed to the somewhat more tangential subjectivity of Linas's evident dislike of conformity whether it be legitimate, contractual or implied. 🙂

Please let's not develop the discussion into 'theoretical, logical and moral arguments' 🙄 as that would almost certainly prove not be relevant other than perhaps to enable Linas to further confuse, opinionise and detract from the genuine and well constructed points that have enabled Len to illustrate the clarity of fact that Linas appears willing to ignore. But then judging from his limited driving experience he has many more years ahead in which to learn from experience and build on his understanding and wisdom.

Well done chaps. 👍

Len ... A1 for exactitude. 😉

Linas ... A1 for discombobulation. 😬

Well it seems to me Rowley an awful lot of people on here have missed their true calling in life 😁 And don't mean leader of the Labour Party 🤕i