Why does car insurance cover drivers with more than 12 penalty points?


A driver with 12 penalty points gets an automatic ban, right? Although this is the theory, in practice magistrates are easily persuaded to ignore a ban in favor of simply adding more points.

About 8,000 drivers continue to drive legally despite having accumulated more than 12 penalty points. Every day reckless and dangerous drivers are stopped by the police and prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), but then treated with such leniency by the magistrates that they continue to offend – resulting in extra work for the police, not to mention permanent danger to other road users. Drivers with 12 penalty points are generally required by law to be disqualified for at least six months or longer by the courts.

A driver accumulated a total of 62 penalty points on his license for speeding without a ban.

It is clearly not the responsibility of car insurers to provide de facto traffic enforcement, but why do they cover drivers with 12 or more penalty points?

Join the debate on Twitter…

This is another example of questionable ethics that most customers are unaware of.

Admiral was one of several car insurers in 2018 to be embroiled in racial profiling allegations – journalists found that drivers with Arabic names were charged hundreds of pounds more than other identical customers in all but their name.

Churchill may have a friendly-looking British bulldog as a mascot, but it seems the creature is as likely to growl in rage as it will cackle if the legal case brought by the insurance giant in 2013 is anything to go by. to do.

In a bid, it is assumed, to protect its bottom line on behalf of its clients, Churchill Insurance has appealed a High Court decision ordering it to pay £5million in compensation to a young girl from 13-year-old who suffered brain damage after being run over by one of his then-speeding customers.

Bethany Probert was walking on a grassy edge when she was hit by the car, but the insurer claimed she was partly to blame as she was not wearing a high visibility jacket at the time.

When the case was heard in the High Court, the judge ruled that the insurance company was 100% liable because the driver was speeding. However, the insurers appealed the initial decision. The plan, it seems, was for Churchill’s lawyers to argue that Bethany should have known she had to wear reflective clothing because she was an experienced rider.

At the time, the Churchill Insurance spokesman said: ‘Although we accept that our policyholder was partly responsible for the accident, we are appealing the decision that he was fully responsible.’

Had the appeal been heard, the lead case would have established the extent to which children can be held liable for their injuries in motor vehicle crashes. However, as is often the case, and quite understandable considering what they had already been through, Bethany’s beleaguered parents agreed to a reduced out-of-court settlement.

We don’t know whether or not ethical car insurance exists – we often have to fight them tooth and nail when seeking compensation on behalf of our bike insurance clients (even when their driver is in full ) so we’d be interested to hear from anyone who thinks they are.

The ethical choice

ETA was established in 1990 as an ethical provider of green and reliable travel services. More than 30 years later, we continue to offer bicycle, breakdown assistance and mobility scooter insurance while putting concern for the environment at the heart of all our actions.

The Good Shopping Guide considers us the most ethical supplier in the UK.


Comments are closed.