you could always try to speak to someone above the ■■■■■■/cabbage thats getting their info from the computer screen and see if they can take a reality pill aout it…but have a good quote already from somewhere else before you tell thm your cancelling if they cant cop themselfs on with you.
Rjan:
They do not typically ask specific questions about HGV drivers involved in damage happening at work, and before you refer to any more law, I can tell you the law is now quite clear that consumers do not have to volunteer any information unless a clear and specific question is asked - because indeed, like the OP, most people would not consider what happens in the employment domain to be relevant to what happens in the private motoring domain (particularly if the employer considered it to be acceptable damage rather than driver misconduct).
This is opinion, not fact, and it is wrong. The OPs post is testament to the legal position. Please don’t post if you don’t know what you are talking about because your erroneous opinions could be harmful to other members.
Harry Monk:
This is opinion, not fact, and it is wrong. The OPs post is testament to the legal position.
I didn’t see any testament about the law in the OP’s post. He simply said an accident or claim had been recorded against him on a database, which does not even begin to address whether the insurer asked him a specific question about that claim.
Please don’t post if you don’t know what you are talking about because your erroneous opinions could be harmful to other members.
Let me be clear, what I’ve stated as law, is law. What you have posted is simply wrongheaded - like I said, speeding tickets have to be declared simply because they ask unambiguously about them. If they didn’t ask, you wouldn’t be required to tell them. That is now the law as it relates to consumer insurance.
It is my opinion that the OP’s claim is not material to his private car policy, and that is his opinion too, and like I say it is the opinion of the majority. It does not matter what the insurer’s opinion is privately.
If the insurer asks a general question about accidents, and, in the reasonable opinion of the majority of people in this country, that question in its context is not referring to the circumstances the OP was involved in, then he was not under an obligation to disclose it.
It is no different to how we would not tell our motor insurers we burned our fingers under the hot tap, cut ourselves with paper, or tripped on the stairs. These are accidents, but they are not, in the reasonable opinion of most people, the kind of accidents the insurer is asking about.
The OP is in hot water because he failed to mention an accident which occurred at work when renewing his car insurance. Are you advising other members to do the same?
Harry Monk:
The OP is in hot water because he failed to mention an accident which occurred at work when renewing his car insurance.
+1
Look on the bright side it’s better to get notification by the insurer to put right the policy than for them to decline a claim and cancel a policy on the grounds of a fraudulent application.Which they could easily do. 
But doubling car insurance because of a shunting accident with a truck is obviously a bit of a rip off.
Rjan:
I didn’t see any testament about the law in the OP’s post. He simply said an accident or claim had been recorded against him on a database, which does not even begin to address whetherIt is no different to how we would not tell our motor insurers we burned our fingers under the hot tap, cut ourselves with paper, or tripped on the stairs. These are accidents, but they are not, in the reasonable opinion of most people, the kind of accidents the insurer is asking about.
Firstly it’s clear that a shunting accident with a truck will fit the definition of a motor accident from the point of view of motor insurance.
Which leaves the question of it being very unusual for a motor insurance application not to include the question of any recent motor accidents on it.The issue in this case being the precedent of the amount in premium penalty being imposed for it not the fact of the accident.
put up that pic of your dad in his budgie smugglers and see if it knocks them off their thread…its a slim chance but you never know… 
Accidents, claims and damage in the last five years
You must declare any accidents, claims, losses or damage that occurred within the last five years, regardless of whether it involved your car, motorbike, van or any other motor vehicle, even where you were not at fault, were driving a different vehicle or the incident involved a named driver (even if they have since been removed from the policy).
For example:-
Road traffic accidents
Fire, flood or storm damage
Theft of or from a vehicle
Windscreen/glass claims
Before you buy a policy, insurers may check your claims history with the Claims and Underwriting Exchange. This check helps them to prevent claims fraud.
The above was lifted from a well known comparison website with an annoying fat man singing in the adverts. Seems fairly convincing to me, the OP just didn’t understand the question or didn’t read the question properly. Should it affect his personal insurance? Probably not, but the fact is, we will never know for sure because currently he is being penalised for being a bit dim when filling in a form…
Harry Monk:
The OP is in hot water because he failed to mention an accident which occurred at work when renewing his car insurance. Are you advising other members to do the same?
I’m stating what the law is, and I’m advising the OP to lodge a complaint with his insurer.
What other posters do is entirely up to them, but in my experience insurers act as a law unto themselves unless challenged.
The sharing of data behind the scenes is, itself, highly suspect in this case.
If the OP was not asked about damage at work, then in my view a general question about “motoring accidents” in the context of private car policy, does not refer to the OP’s circumstances. The OP makes it clear that he did not perceive the connection either. It is at worst an innocent non-disclosure, at best not a non-disclosure at all (because the insurer failed to ask a specific question to elicit the information they desired).
Rjan:
Harry Monk:
The OP is in hot water because he failed to mention an accident which occurred at work when renewing his car insurance. Are you advising other members to do the same?I’m stating what the law is, and I’m advising the OP to lodge a complaint with his insurer.
What other posters do is entirely up to them, but in my experience insurers act as a law unto themselves unless challenged.
The sharing of data behind the scenes is, itself, highly suspect in this case.
If the OP was not asked about damage at work, then in my view a general question about “motoring accidents” in the context of private car policy, does not refer to the OP’s circumstances. The OP makes it clear that he did not perceive the connection either. It is at worst an innocent non-disclosure, at best not a non-disclosure at all (because the insurer failed to ask a specific question to elicit the information they desired).
OK, you’ve said your thing and I’ve said mine, now it’s for other members to sort the wheat from the chaff.
Carryfast:
Firstly it’s clear that a shunting accident with a truck will fit the definition of a motor accident from the point of view of motor insurance.
I don’t agree that it does. Taking a calculated risk to manoeuvre in tight client’s premises (under the close supervision of the client) with multiple hazards or no visibility, because the alternative is millions of pounds of redesign or using multiple smaller vehicles at vastly greater cost, is not a “motoring accident” at all. It is a driver following his employer’s orders on private premises.
It might be completely different if a driver has a serious crash on the public road, which is almost invariably treated as misconduct, and the employer is not entitled to tell the driver to take risks there.
Rjan:
It is at worst an innocent non-disclosure, at best not a non-disclosure at all (because the insurer failed to ask a specific question to elicit the information they desired).
The insurer seems to have answered both questions by saying that it knows of an undisclosed accident history for whatever reason.Now take the revised policy with the increased premium required or leave it.
If the OP was not asked about damage at work, then in my view a general question about “motoring accidents” in the context of private car policy, does not refer to the OP’s circumstances. The OP makes it clear that he did not perceive the connection either. It is at worst an innocent non-disclosure, at best not a non-disclosure at all (because the insurer failed to ask a specific question to elicit the information they desired).
[/quote]
OK, you’ve said your thing and I’ve said mine, now it’s for other members to sort the wheat from the chaff.
[/quote]
if you get a ■■■■■ at this,then you have a tang hidden in your family tree somewhere… 
Carryfast:
Rjan:
It is at worst an innocent non-disclosure, at best not a non-disclosure at all (because the insurer failed to ask a specific question to elicit the information they desired).The insurer seems to have answered both questions by saying that it knows of an undisclosed accident history for whatever reason.Now take the revised policy with the increased premium required or leave it.
Or lodge a complaint and take it to the Financial Ombudsman, and quite possibly to the Information Commissioner’s Office, too.
oh god,oh god,oh god…done and dusted…i wonder who will get the last word now.
Rjan:
(because the insurer failed to ask a specific question to elicit the information they desired).
“Did you cause damage to a building on a farm in the last 5 years?”
Is that the sort of question you are looking for?
By the OPs own admission, he says after the farmer said he hit the building he did “all the usual, and informed the office”. Did he think the farmer would repair the building out of his own pocket? He was driving a truck, he hit a building, the insurance pays out. The OP is guilty of not being able to draw a conclusion.
Rjan you are not seriously suggesting the vehicle is not insured for accidents on private land? Come on… Seriously
“Did you cause damage to a building on a farm in the last 5 years?”
Is that the sort of question you are looking for?
By the OPs own admission, he says after the farmer said he hit the building he did “all the usual, and informed the office”. Did he think the farmer would repair the building out of his own pocket? He was driving a truck, he hit a building, the insurance pays out. The OP is guilty of not being able to draw a conclusion.
Rjan you are not seriously suggesting the vehicle is not insured for accidents on private land? Come on… Seriously
[/quote]
I moved 1 metre under the guidance of the property owner and my open trailer door caught his shed in an area most people would fancy backing a car into. I appreciate it goes through an insurance company and I don’t need idiots like you saying things like “did I think the farmer was going to fix it”. Obviously not! But is it something that should penalise me on my personal car insurance? I don’t think it is. This is my point.
Listen mate you can argue whether or not you think its fair all day long. The simple fact is you were in charge of a vehicle when a claimable accident happened, so you should have declared it. I’m really not having a go at you. It doesn’t matter if God himself was banking you round that corner, sadly you were at wheel… Just like I don’t care that you were such a trucking hero to get yourself into the space in the first place.
We have a form that the customer has to sign if they want us to do anything we deem as a bit risky on their land. I’ve got no idea how this works from a legal standpoint, it discourages them from asking us to do anything too daft we find.
Like I have said all along its probably not fair, but if you had disclosed it you might not have been stung so badly, equally you could have had the opportunity to shop around. You even asked in your OP if we thought your stated position was wrong, I’m telling you I think it is, ■■■■ it up buttercup 
F-reds:
Rjan:
(because the insurer failed to ask a specific question to elicit the information they desired).“Did you cause damage to a building on a farm in the last 5 years?”
Is that the sort of question you are looking for?
It doesn’t have to be situation specific.
It would be enough to ask “do you drive vehicles for your employer?”, and if so, “have you been driving or manoeuvring those vehicles, on or off the public road, when any damage has occurred involving the vehicle?”. That is a specific question for occupational drivers.
That is evocative of completely different situations, than a car insurer asking “have you had any accidents?”.
Even a JCB driver digging through a water main could be said to have an “accident”, but I maintain that the question “have you had any accidents?” asked by a car insurer does not refer to such things, and it does not refer to the OP’s circumstances (at least as he’s described them and I’ve interpreted them).
By the OPs own admission, he says after the farmer said he hit the building he did “all the usual, and informed the office”.
And how does that bear on whether the insurer has asked him a specific question about it?
Also, how does it bear on the matter of folders of personal data being passed about behind the scenes?
Did he think the farmer would repair the building out of his own pocket? He was driving a truck, he hit a building, the insurance pays out. The OP is guilty of not being able to draw a conclusion.
He doesn’t have to draw a conclusion. He is not there to do favours for his insurers, and his insurers are not there to do favours for him. They are in fact there to find any way (fair or foul) of undercutting their competitors, as well as finding any excuse not to provide insurance to their customers at the price advertised, like the mechanic who takes your car apart and then says the price must go up (except insurers do it with an air of accusing fraud and criminal wrongdoing to consumers who have behaved perfectly reasonably).
Insurers also consistently fail to ask proper questions about the risk, because they know their customers do not like the intrusion and the effort of answering a hundred questions, so they ask general questions which people don’t associate with the information sought, and then try to argue that there has been non-disclosure. They used to be able to get away with these accusations because of the duty of the customer to disclose information even that the insurer had not asked for, but that law has now been decisively abolished.
Insurers also make mistakes in the recording of information, or mistakes in the interpretation of information recorded, or misuse information without lawful grounds, and this is why the OP should explore that question too.
Rjan you are not seriously suggesting the vehicle is not insured for accidents on private land? Come on… Seriously
You don’t need to be insured (or even licenced) to drive on private land, provided it is not a public place (where being in the bowels of a farm complex is probably not a public place).