Morethan Insurance

[Frontstep]

So as yet another update on the stupid box, the youth had an accident yesterday,
he should be fine the car is badly damaged yet the tracker.................

yep you might have guessed it completely missed it,
the 1/4 mile drive up to the accident not recorded,
the accident itself nothing,
the half hour where he was stopped waiting for assistance nothing,
it did record the drive home from the accident and scored 9.7 out of ten for smoothness and I can assure you the driving certainly didn't deserve any points at all.

As a plus point the dash cam I forced on him after these problems with the tracker worked perfectly throughout and exonerates him completely.

Hey ho first world problems.

PS Get yourself a dashcam the other driver was adamant they hadn't done anything wrong, the evidence from the dashcam is clear and saves a lot of arguing.

 

[Frontstep]

Further update,

My youths car is the white one in this (c&p) diagram.
Both cars arrived at the junction at the same time and set off together in the directions as indicated by the arrows.
The black car drove into the B post area on my youths car.
He had at the point of impact crossed the white centre line on the main road going left to right in this diagram.

There is no damage on the front of his car it starts on the left side of his drivers door as you face it.

The other side is denying any liability.
Mainly because they haven't seen the dashcam footage I assume.

As to the infamous black box missing it all Morethan haven't responded on that !


The moral of the story, get a dashcam oh and make sure its set up correctly.

 

[davemercedes]

Given the facts of equipment failings you've reported above FS, I would expect one of the motorist clubs e.g.: AA would be extremely interested because the accuracy you've questioned, coupled with a total failure to record anything must place the equipment reliability in severe doubt. I would anticipate the legal situation is such that the "black box" should not be used either as a legal "witness" nor for the insurer to judge a driver since it is plainly not reliable.

- Can you imagine what a field day "Mr Loophole" (the lawyer who got Beckham's speeding case dismissed) could make of this?

- And who says the law is/isn't an ass?

 

[Frontstep]

Given the facts of equipment failings you've reported above FS, I would expect one of the motorist clubs e.g.: AA would be extremely interested because the accuracy you've questioned, coupled with a total failure to record anything must place the equipment reliability in severe doubt. I would anticipate the legal situation is such that the "black box" should not be used either as a legal "witness" nor for the insurer to judge a driver since it is plainly not reliable.

- Can you imagine what a field day "Mr Loophole" (the lawyer who got Beckham's speeding case dismissed) could make of this?

- And who says the law is/isn't an ass?

Apart from my irritation with the whole affair and Morethans responses that is my reason for posting.
I have posted two clear examples where the technology has failed with the "two journeys" screenshot and the fact that an accident and the preceding 1/2 mile journey was not recorded.
There are other questionable events such as speeding through average speed camera controlled motorways at a claimed 78 in a 50 MPH limit.
We will all end up governed by these as Insurer after Insurer follows and as I have hopefully demonstrated they can and do record inaccurately.

The other point I hadn't mentioned is the youth is put off driving his car because he worries that he will either be un-insurable through false reports or his premium will go even higher through no fault of his own.

As before get yourself a dashcam.

 

[davemercedes]

Done that, thanks FS. Bought myself a pair of front and rear Nextbase 512 GW.

Rear did not work correctly; Nextbase sent me a replacement front-to-rear cable which fixed it - they denied any liability for fitting costs (well, they would wouldn't they?).

Early days to decide if I think it was worth it. Pictures quite good even though there's a hidden degradation of resolution when both are in use.

 

[LostKiwi]

Maybe they should call themselves Morethan Useless..

 

[Frontstep]

In truth its the technology and the blind faith in it, Insurance companies want no dissent or questioning of the system.
If you do you get the classic "computer says no" response.
Its redolent of the introduction of cash cards where banks response was a uniform no to any suggestions the system was fallible.
The youths driving record still contains the glaring faults and the associated costs to him, he has a renewal due soon and his record is tarnished unduly.
He also worries the Insurance company will cancel his Insurance again through no fault of his own.

 

[davemercedes]

In truth its the technology and the blind faith in it, Insurance companies want no dissent or questioning of the system.
If you do you get the classic "computer says no" response.
Its redolent of the introduction of cash cards where banks response was a uniform no to any suggestions the system was fallible.
The youths driving record still contains the glaring faults and the associated costs to him, he has a renewal due soon and his record is tarnished unduly.
He also worries the Insurance company will cancel his Insurance again through no fault of his own.

The scenario you've outlined is quite disgraceful. I suppose you/he could try writing to your MP... "Fighting injustices" and other buzzwords (may or may not) apply!

 

[Frontstep]

Todays further nonsense from Morethan they consider it 50/50 will we agree

wtf no it isn't.

 

[LostKiwi]

Todays further nonsense from Morethan they consider it 50/50 will we agree

wtf no it isn't.

How on earth can it be 50/50 when your son had right of way and the other driver drove into him?

The other driver should have gone to SpecSavers.

 

[Srdl]

How on earth can it be 50/50 when your son had right of way and the other driver drove into him?.

+1

 

[Frontstep]

Its Morethan they employ people who to quote, say to me "I have been doing this job for ten years so I know what I am talking about"
I did mutter under my breath the flat earth society ran a tad longer but I could feel it flying straight over the little cherubs head.

Apparently they can't remove errors from his driving record as detailed in previous posts but when I questioned the word can't should be replaced with won't or don't I quickly realised a discussion on semantics was better had with a suitable wall before the cherub.
I also brought up the issue of others driving his car under their Insurance as when the car was M.O.T 'd and the driver exceeded the speed limit that apparently is his fault for not supervising the driver or instructing them correctly and will remain on his record.

Little Britain..............

 

[LostKiwi]

I'm pretty sure "can't" would be in breach of GDPR.

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisation...dpr/individual-rights/right-to-rectification/

 

[davemercedes]

FRONTSTEP: It'll be a real PITA but I think it would be worth raising a petition to have legally enforceable rules laid down for precisely what insurers should be able to use black box info for - and a clearly defined process to fully investigate and if necessary remove invalid data from a user's file.

This is either an untruth on your part or quite simply it's down to a disgraceful lack of attention to detail by the software suppliers/testers (and I know which one I would follow up)! Contrary to the fairly standard "computer error" quote, computers do not usually make mistakes - they're incredibly accurate machines. BUT: the programs they run and/or the data input and controlling methods used, inevitably go back to the human element that can certainly result in invalid results. The first (speed) problem you've highlighted may be a simple calculation error such as a decimal point in the program specification but it won't be investigated unless the insurers get a large enough quantity of complaints etc.

btw:
Do you/your son have a TomTom or similar in the car? If not - I suggest you consider one.

Around my area especially on the motorways, speed cameras have grown like weeds over the
last few years so I never go far without my satnav because it beeps x 3 times and gives a verbal warning on the approach to a speed control - as we all know it is very easy to creep up just enough to be "flashed" - especially if the traffic is light.

• And I see nothing wrong with an electronic device warning me to stay within the limit - they were after all renamed as "Safety Cameras"

If you decide to follow the petition route I' sure you will be well supported by forum members.

 

[Frontstep]

The fundamental problem is very similar to that experienced by people on a daily basis with the banks the Insurers don't want their systems challenged as it introduces an expensive dispute procedure.

As we all get swallowed up by the insidious march of tracking technology more and more of us will come up against these problems.
My request for the data covering the first alleged speeding offence still hasn't been met.
The screenshot I have posted is, unless people think I have some advanced photoshop abilities proof that the system is fallible

The youth as detailed above has a dashcam with GPS and without it he would be losing his first NCB of that I have little doubt.

 

[LostKiwi]

My request for the data covering the first alleged speeding offence still hasn't been met.

Which is also against GDPR regulations.

 

[Frontstep]

Perhaps I should send them a link.

 

[Srdl]

Perhaps I should send them a link.

You should send them a properly worded complaint, threatening to go to the Financial Ombudsman and the Information Commissioners Office if they don't comply with your requests.

 

[LostKiwi]

You should send them a properly worded complaint, threatening to go to the Financial Ombudsman and the Information Commissioners Office if they don't comply with your requests.

This. Without a doubt.

 

[davemercedes]

We had the telematics with Adrian Flux when the boy had his first car and never had any issues with it , it was good that he knew they were watching him as we were via the app so we could keep an eye on him and his "antics" when he was driving.

If the car was being driven by the garage then that should be easy enough to prove.

If the car was being driven at an actual 21 / 24 in a 20 then it must have been showing 23 / 26 on the speedo so in theory the car was speeding.

Good luck with the last point , i argued with MT about pet insurance for three months as they said i still owed them money , even though i paid (the price they quoted) in full over the phone.

I moved to Admiral this year as MT would not budge on the renewal price , at all.

Kenny

You should send them a properly worded complaint, threatening to go to the Financial Ombudsman and the Information Commissioners Office if they don't comply with your requests.

+1 for that, FS
Another route might be to ask Dame Esther Rantzen OBE to review your evidence and maybe go for their jugular (she's currently fronting the "House Trap" program where they trap roof repair scammers etc). But whatever it is, she like a good fight!