Joined
·
10,566 Posts
Thousands of motorcyclists could be unwittingly riding without insurance because of confusion over what constitutes a full licence.
Many riders tell their insurance company they have had a full licence since the date they passed their standard motorcycle test.
But the insurance ombudsman has concluded they are wrong, and a full licence is only obtained when the 33bhp power restriction elapses, usually two years after passing the standard test.
It means motorcyclists are unwittingly misinforming their insurers about how long they have held a full licence and being undercharged as a result. It renders policies invalid and could be grounds for claims to be rejected.
Alasdair Osborn had his policy cancelled by eBike after telling the broker he’d held a full licence since passing his standard bike test.
The broker argued he had not acquired a full licence until two years later, when the 33bhp restriction was removed. The firm demanded an extra £35 extra which Osborn refused to pay.
The Financial Ombudsman rejected Osborn’s complaint, telling him: ‘You discussed the problem with the DVLA and various emails confirm you passed your test on 29 April 2000 but – significantly – were restricted from riding larger bikes until 29 April 2002, because you were under 21 when you passed the test. As a result, you did not have a full licence until 29 April 2002.’
EBike said: ‘As the DVLA-issued photocard licence for Mr Osborn indicated he had a full motorcycle licence which had commenced in 2002, this conflicted with the information he had supplied.’
Do you tell your insurer you’ve had a full licence since passing the standard test or since the subsequent 33bhp restriction elapsed? Help establish the extent of the problem by filling in our surve
Many riders tell their insurance company they have had a full licence since the date they passed their standard motorcycle test.
But the insurance ombudsman has concluded they are wrong, and a full licence is only obtained when the 33bhp power restriction elapses, usually two years after passing the standard test.
It means motorcyclists are unwittingly misinforming their insurers about how long they have held a full licence and being undercharged as a result. It renders policies invalid and could be grounds for claims to be rejected.
Alasdair Osborn had his policy cancelled by eBike after telling the broker he’d held a full licence since passing his standard bike test.
The broker argued he had not acquired a full licence until two years later, when the 33bhp restriction was removed. The firm demanded an extra £35 extra which Osborn refused to pay.
The Financial Ombudsman rejected Osborn’s complaint, telling him: ‘You discussed the problem with the DVLA and various emails confirm you passed your test on 29 April 2000 but – significantly – were restricted from riding larger bikes until 29 April 2002, because you were under 21 when you passed the test. As a result, you did not have a full licence until 29 April 2002.’
EBike said: ‘As the DVLA-issued photocard licence for Mr Osborn indicated he had a full motorcycle licence which had commenced in 2002, this conflicted with the information he had supplied.’
Do you tell your insurer you’ve had a full licence since passing the standard test or since the subsequent 33bhp restriction elapsed? Help establish the extent of the problem by filling in our surve