Would this be considered insurance fraud?

  • Coldste's Avatar
    So I don’t work because I’m disabled. If I select the option to insure my car for social pleasure and commuting, would that be classed as fraud? The reason I’m asking is because this particular company won’t insure me for social and pleasure but they will for social pleasure and commuting. In my eyes I’m not actually I’d be paying for something I wouldn’t need.

    What’s weird is when I enter the address for my new house (we haven’t moved in yet needs work doing) the company will happily insure me for social pleasure even though that house is on a duel carriage way compared to my current house being on a quiet single carriage way road any advice?
  • 3 Replies

  • Drivingforfun's Avatar
    Are your disabilities declarable to the DVLA? I had some time where I wasn't working due to disability and one year I simply ticked "unemployed" rather than "unemployed due to disability/illness", because it saved me money. I decided that because my conditions were not declarable it didn't matter why I was unemployed so I wasn't lying. Could be an option.

    I have also had a Motability car while unemployed and they insure you for commuting regardless of whether or not you have a job.

    So, I am no expert but I would say no it's fine.
    Last edited by Drivingforfun; 05-02-24 at 17:50.
  • Harlow's Avatar
    Whether something is considered insurance fraud depends on the specific circumstances surrounding the incident. If the turning off of your toilet's water supply was done intentionally to make a false insurance claim, then yes, it could be considered insurance fraud. However, if it was turned off for legitimate reasons such as maintenance or repairs, then it wouldn't be considered fraud. It's crucial to be honest and transparent with your insurance provider to avoid any potential legal issues.
  • Beelzebub's Avatar
    There's no such thing as "insurance fraud", just fraud, which is an imprisonable offence

    The offence is committed if a person makes a false representation (or withholds information) in order "to make a gain for himself or another, or to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss", so - arguably - yes.

    Realistically, if the insurer were to accept you and then later find out about the deception, they would simply cancel the policy: you wouldn't be prosecuted. But cancellation itself has horrible consequences.

    Anyway, won't the insurer question why you want commuting cover when you're unemployed?