• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Driving

Have you tried a quote from insurance companies not on comparison sites? Some of them do not ask about restricted licences. The company I am with weren't concerned about my T1 diagnosis and restricted licence and I haven't seen a hike in premium because of it. It was a case of 'sorry to hear that but as long as you're OK to drive and comply with the DVLA rules, carry on'.

Is it possible the vehicle is contributing to the higher premiums? I certainly saw an increase from changing my car.
 
Going on compare the market if i dont tell them im on a three year DVLA restricted licence its 2-3 thousand pound cheaper

Sent from my SM-G930F using Diabetes.co.uk Forum mobile app
If you have an accident even if it is not your fault, or the car was empty at the time (i.e. stolen) then if the inurnce company finds out that you witheld information that is pertinent to the insurance (i.,e. could affect their risk) then the inurance company has the right to refuse to pay up on the claim. The same is true of Life insurance too. It covers both pre-existing conditions at the time of application, and life events during the policy period. A DVLA restriction is pertinent. A hypo event as defined by DVLA is pertinent. Laser eye surgery is pertinent.

You need to check the small print in detail before you sign or you may not actually be covered. Most companies add the clause about witholding pertinent information buried in the small print. This makes it legal for them to refuse a claim.
 
I also ended up with a policy with one well known company who added on for everything including when you take driver education courses instead of points. My current insurer again only counts points.
 
If you have an accident even if it is not your fault, or the car was empty at the time (i.e. stolen) then if the inurnce company finds out that you witheld information that is pertinent to the insurance (i.,e. could affect their risk) then the inurance company has the right to refuse to pay up on the claim. The same is true of Life insurance too. It covers both pre-existing conditions at the time of application, and life events during the policy period. A DVLA restriction is pertinent. A hypo event as defined by DVLA is pertinent. Laser eye surgery is pertinent.

You need to check the small print in detail before you sign or you may not actually be covered. Most companies add the clause about witholding pertinent information buried in the small print. This makes it legal for them to refuse a claim.
I know that, the point is the difference ib the price of course i know i have to tell them

Sent from my SM-G930F using Diabetes.co.uk Forum mobile app
 
I know that, the point is the difference ib the price of course i know i have to tell them

Sent from my SM-G930F using Diabetes.co.uk Forum mobile app
The problem I saw in the post I replied to is that it can give the impression that you can get cheaper insurance by not declaring a pertinent risk that you know about at the time of application, As my reply says, that can be a false economy.

I agree that insurance companies should not be penalising a disability, but some do. So my advice is to shop around.

I had the opposite problem. I applied for car insurance, and declared my condition. The company refused my application. As a result I had great difficulty getting coverage since the small print usually asks 'Have you ever been refused coverage by an previous insurer' amd the first company had registered their decision on the national data base.
 
The problem I saw in the post I replied to is that it can give the impression that you can get cheaper insurance by not declaring a pertinent risk that you know about at the time of application, As my reply says, that can be a false economy.

I agree that insurance companies should not be penalising a disability, but some do. So my advice is to shop around.

I had the opposite problem. I applied for car insurance, and declared my condition. The company refused my application. As a result I had great difficulty getting coverage since the small print usually asks 'Have you ever been refused coverage by an previous insurer' amd the first company had registered their decision on the national data base.
Surely they weren't a previous insurer as they never insured you?
 
Surely they weren't a previous insurer as they never insured you?
On a technicality you are right, but they anulled the policy before they collected the first premium. but I had to return the policy documents and cover note to them.

I had to go through a Broker to find a replacement policy, but they came up with one that was cheaper than any on the comparison websites at the time, and their offerings since remain the cheapest I can find online. The policy I have is from a recognised insurer, not a backstreet supplier.
 
My insurance company didn't want to know any details and didn't change my premium when as a T2 I moved onto Insulin - I also have sleep apnoea another notifiable condition. I would ring round - mine is through the manufacturers named company. I was expecting a hike so was pleasantly surprised.
insurance company's are not aloud to load up insurance any more not for some time
 
I agree you are no more a risk as a controlled diabetic than someone who is unaware of a major heart or brain condition.

Well said, I could not agree more, unfortunately it all boils down again to the Big Boys jumping on the bandwagon to upt ones insurance just because one is Diabetic, this is where the label of Diabetic becomes frightening, as it is life changing for situations such as this.

The Diabetic world should review, take a look not at the arbitrary at whim numbers that decide on ones diagnosis they are chosen at whim and random, instead, look at the whole picture of a person, even if their blood finger tests are lets say high normal, or slightly too high and there is discordant situations, or perhaps just one number over a so called Arbitrary cut off level, common sense should kick in by the Doctors, to view the persons lifestyle, how they are eating, exercising and if they are more or less doing what would normally be recommended if higher than normal sugars, pre diabetic for example, they should use same as New Zealand, PRAGMATIC approach, wait and see, don't give a label diabetes just because one is slightly higher, or sitting on a cut off or one number over, instead, recommend further lifestyle changes, then review say in six or twelve months time, as a label is for life diabetic, it affects,dentistry, opticians, travel insurance, general insurance, driving, employment all these areas can cause huge extreme anxiety and stress that may be unwarranted, just because a doctor is not considering the whole picture of a person time of diagnosing, and anyway, I my opinion its not the doctors who diagnose its the politics and pharmas, for this sole reason, if a doctor says your diabetic, consider, this MAY MAY NOT BE THE CASE, you may just be pre diabetic for example especially if your just on the border line or hovering up or down either way.

More so if one has controlled situation of their high sugars, its one thing not to have control, and another to have control and more so if your doing that without any medication.
 
Well said, I could not agree more, unfortunately it all boils down again to the Big Boys jumping on the bandwagon to upt ones insurance just because one is Diabetic, this is where the label of Diabetic becomes frightening, as it is life changing for situations such as this.

The Diabetic world should review, take a look not at the arbitrary at whim numbers that decide on ones diagnosis they are chosen at whim and random, instead, look at the whole picture of a person, even if their blood finger tests are lets say high normal, or slightly too high and there is discordant situations, or perhaps just one number over a so called Arbitrary cut off level, common sense should kick in by the Doctors, to view the persons lifestyle, how they are eating, exercising and if they are more or less doing what would normally be recommended if higher than normal sugars, pre diabetic for example, they should use same as New Zealand, PRAGMATIC approach, wait and see, don't give a label diabetes just because one is slightly higher, or sitting on a cut off or one number over, instead, recommend further lifestyle changes, then review say in six or twelve months time, as a label is for life diabetic, it affects,dentistry, opticians, travel insurance, general insurance, driving, employment all these areas can cause huge extreme anxiety and stress that may be unwarranted, just because a doctor is not considering the whole picture of a person time of diagnosing, and anyway, I my opinion its not the doctors who diagnose its the politics and pharmas, for this sole reason, if a doctor says your diabetic, consider, this MAY MAY NOT BE THE CASE, you may just be pre diabetic for example especially if your just on the border line or hovering up or down either way.

More so if one has controlled situation of their high sugars, its one thing not to have control, and another to have control and more so if your doing that without any medication.
Here in the UK, a finger prick test is not used for diagnosus of diabetes, It is a momentary window into what could be a significant underlying problem. For example if you visit the doctor just after a meal or snack, then your levels will be higher than if you have been fasting or are about to eat a meal after the appt. Now the NHS uses the HbA1c blood test to detect that the average sugar levels in the previous 3 months or so is showing above average levels, thus indicating diabetes.

It is not all bad news. Once registered as diabetic in the UK, then this is a classed as a chronic disease and so NHS prescriptions are free, we can claim back VAT on healthcare products that may be needed, we get employment protection at work under the disabilities Act. We can get improved annuity deals on retirement and also get other assistance.

Whilst I agree that pre-diabetes and Gestationl diabetes may not merit the D label at first, it is nonetheless a pointer that action needs to be taken to ensure that there is no progression leading to full diagnosis. Because we in the UK do not fully screen everybody for high bgl, then most people who present at their doctor and show elevated bgl are usually quite advanced in the pathway, so you were lucky to be detected early. Like Cancer, an early diagnosis is actually something to be thankful for since it allows avoiding action to be taken before it becomes too late. It is a sad reflectionof life that even when presented with a DX of diabetes, most people go into denial, and do not take avoiding action so do not benefit from the initial DX. It takes further complications later after the disease becomes embedded that there is a sudden awakening and a desire to reverse the condition,

I hope you will take heed of the warning you have just recieved.
 
Have you tried a quote from insurance companies not on comparison sites? Some of them do not ask about restricted licences. The company I am with weren't concerned about my T1 diagnosis and restricted licence and I haven't seen a hike in premium because of it. It was a case of 'sorry to hear that but as long as you're OK to drive and comply with the DVLA rules, carry on'.

Is it possible the vehicle is contributing to the higher premiums? I certainly saw an increase from changing my car.
Even putting in my current car pusshes it up by £2000 next year

Sent from my SM-G930F using Diabetes.co.uk Forum mobile app
 
Back
Top