Speculation on reason Admiral Group asks about SACs?

[Somewhatfoolish]

I've seen a few things saying that Admiral Group ask for info as to whether you've had a speed awareness course etc.

Obviously this is is for risk analysis but what I'm wondering in my head is what the primary purpose is.

The reason I am asking is the inevitable has happened and I finally got my first UK speeding bust today, happily due I think to attitude test type stuff from the very friendly officer I was offered 95 so it will be an FPN. But it occurred to me that when renewal comes up in the comparison sites I will be having to enter a speeding conviction AND that I have never been on one of the courses. That marks me out as a "proper" speeder, not just a lazy ditherer doing 38 everywhere.

So previously to the extent I have thought about the insurance companies asking about SACs I thought it was basically being weighted as if it were a speeding ticket. But now I wonder if something more "insidious" is going on - is it that they are actually using to "weight" the severity of your declared speeding offence? It is said that a single FPN usually makes bugger all difference to your renewal so it was odd to have them looking at SACs but have I now uncovered their true purpose I wonder... a "secret" marker as to how bad the FPN was? And if so, does it really suggest that if you did happen to be offered an SAC, that you really should go on it, lest you be confused for a scofflaw?


*I'm aware I need to tell my insurer once the COFPN comes through and is accepted blah blah and I will do so

[ridds]

How can they check?

I don't believe it is recorded on your licence. Happy to be corrected.

[simon_harris]

Do you still get the points if you do an SAC?

as attendance to an SAC is voluntary I don't see how an insurance company can use it for weighting, I might have done the exact same excess speed as the next person but chosen not to do the SAC.

[Fastdruid]

ridds said:

How can they check?

I don't believe it is recorded on your licence. Happy to be corrected.

They can't. It's one of those things though that if you fail to mention it you are lying to your insurer and so if it ever comes out giving them a great way to deny a claim (or at least try to).

[mikey_b]

It might not count towards totting up and an eventual ban, but it is still a punishment for being caught breaking the speed limit. Remember that most people don't have any points at all, a good number have just 3, but only a small proportion have 6 or more. So being caught speeding twice in <3 years is really quite unusual, and certainly not a marker of a good risk likely to be offered a low premium.

I don't see it as insidious - it's not unreasonable for insurers to want to know what sort of drivers their customers really are.

[Dingu]

Insidious? Username is somewhat apt!

Do they even ask these days anyway?

In any case the primary purpose is clearly risk analysis!

[Somewhatfoolish]

No one grasped my point.

What my little theory is is that the question isn't actually about SACs at all - it's a way of deciding how bad your FPN speeding offence was.

Consider the two following scenarios, all in a 70mph limit:

Driver A is caught speeding at 82mph on occasion 1, and 84mph on occasion 2, in a 70mph limit
Driver B is caught speeding at 92mph in a 70mph limit.

Which is the better risk statistically? I have no clue. In any case, if they only ask about convictions/fixed penalties then Admiral can't tell the difference between the two, as both (if acting like 95% of people and taking SACs/FPNs if offered) would have a single FPN.

But if you now ask about SACs, you can infer that Driver B was going quicker than Driver A in Driver B's offence because Driver B never did an SAC.

So is that the subtle thing that is the thinking? Or is it just the "accepted" explanation about SACs counting as equivalent to FPNs...?

[Mr Tidy]

No, it's because Admiral are a slimeball cr*pfest!

You only have to declare convictions or pending convictions - SACs aren't convictions.

[MikeM6]

Maybe declaring a SAC reduces premiums? The whole point of them is to reduce risk, so it stands to reason that, statistically, those that have undertake a SAC would present a reduced risk profile.

I've never done one, so I don't know.

[ridds]

Fastdruid said:

ridds said:

How can they check?

I don't believe it is recorded on your licence. Happy to be corrected.

They can't. It's one of those things though that if you fail to mention it you are lying to your insurer and so if it ever comes out giving them a great way to deny a claim (or at least try to).

But they can't find out. If they cannot legally find out about your SAC history then how?

I've been on a SAC. Never told any insurance broker about it. I never kept any details of the date or what the course was for.

There's SACs, courses for Motorway awareness and I'm sure others. Do they ask about non-SAC driver education courses?

It's a non-issue imho, file under "no".

[Sheepshanks]

Mr Tidy said:

You only have to declare convictions or pending convictions - SACs aren't convictions.

FPNs aren’t convictions but you have to declare those.

[Cold]

MikeM6 said:

Maybe declaring a SAC reduces premiums? The whole point of them is to reduce risk, so it stands to reason that, statistically, those that have undertake a SAC would present a reduced risk profile.

I've never done one, so I don't know.

Good one!

[Mr Tidy]

Sheepshanks said:

FPNs aren’t convictions but you have to declare those.

I don't think they need to be declared based on how the questions are phrased by most insurers.

[ridds]

Sheepshanks said:

Mr Tidy said:

You only have to declare convictions or pending convictions - SACs aren't convictions.

FPNs aren’t convictions but you have to declare those.

Endorsable FPNs have to be declared, non-endorsable don't.

SACs aren't endorsable.

[MattsCar]

How could they ever find out?

Surely if they were to find out, there would be a breach of data protection.

[Dingu]

Cold said:

MikeM6 said:

Maybe declaring a SAC reduces premiums? The whole point of them is to reduce risk, so it stands to reason that, statistically, those that have undertake a SAC would present a reduced risk profile.

I've never done one, so I don't know.

Good one!

If it were true that people with points crashed less then insurance would be cheaper with than without. That isn’t the case however.

[MikeM6]

Dingu said:

Cold said:

MikeM6 said:

Maybe declaring a SAC reduces premiums? The whole point of them is to reduce risk, so it stands to reason that, statistically, those that have undertake a SAC would present a reduced risk profile.

I've never done one, so I don't know.

Good one!

If it were true that people with points crashed less then insurance would be cheaper with than without. That isn’t the case however.

Mine didn't go up with 3 points, but that was over a decade ago now.

Points also don't necessarily teach you anything, but the SAC is designed to reduce the risk through education. To me that means it either reduces the risk and should reduce premiums, it's totally ineffective and just a punishment in a different format or no one has correlated a reduction in risk yet with the completion of the course.

Or it's all a conspiracy, depending on the amount of tin foil you prefer to wear on your head.

[PlywoodPascal]

Though not in insurance i think your reasoning is a bit muddled.

I don’t think insurers would ‘decide’ how much extra risk have no SAC and some FPNs is for a driver.

They will collect the data and know accident rates and severity for drivers with no SACs but some FPNs, neither, or both, and then calculate the risk. I suspect there is minimal ‘judgment’ of the risk in the sort of inductive, logical argument, manner that you’ve outlined - just assessment of it from the data.

Would be great if someone who really knows how it works would comment.

[alscar]

MikeM6 said:

Maybe declaring a SAC reduces premiums? The whole point of them is to reduce risk, so it stands to reason that, statistically, those that have undertake a SAC would present a reduced risk profile.

Or maybe declaring a SAC increases the premium if Admiral decide to use it as another underwriting consideration given they may view the line between a SAC v points as being “ fine “ nowadays ?
Either way not admitting to one could well see an issue later on in the event of a claim so possibly not worth the risk.

[Panamax]

An insurer can ask any questions it likes to assess the risk it's being asked to underwrite. You must give honest and complete answers. Insurance contracts are based on the principle of 'Utmost Good Faith', which means you are legally required to make a fair representation by disclosing all information and circumstances material to the risk you want covering.

If you say you've had points or a speed awareness course they will very likely ask, "what speed were you nicked for?" It would be impossible to argue that the speed had no relevance to their assessment of risk.