OK, I'm aware before asking that this is a potentially stupid question...
Just passed my car test today (hurrah!), but I've had a full A-class motorbike licence for 7 years. Now, every insurer's website asks the question "How long have you held your licence" or similiar. Now, I think technically and legally speaking the answer to that is 7 years, but that as of today I've added extra entitlements to my existing licence- but you could argue of course that I've had my car licence for... Um, 4 hours.
Doing a quick comparison shows that the difference in one of the (horrible) cars I'm looking at drops the insurance price massively, over 50%. Now it seems to me that I'm answering the question correctly but it does feel like a cheeky answer and even if not technically wrong or misleading, I can see it could cause issues.
What's the correct thing to do here STW? Tell me how to live!
The question is how long have you had a licence to drive the vehicle for which you are getting a quote for surely.
No they mean your car licence, which you haven't had for a day yet.
However it was the same for me years ago, they took into account some of my no claims from my bike and reduced the premium.
You could tell them 7 years, then you would have an accident, they would find out and not pay you anything. Much as it pains me, tell insurance companies everything. They will do anything to get out out paying you, so don't make it easy for them.
By having a license for the bike, you've surely therefore had a provisional car license? I passed my test in september 09, but had a car since may 09 I didnt have a full license, but a license nonetheless...
Provisional license doesn't count for anything. You can be insured on a car with a provisional license, but I'd be surprised if that was as the policy holder rather than just a named driver?
You will of course have had your provisional licence longer, but no doubt will have selected 'full UK licence' for the what type of licence do you hold question.
"The question is how long have you had a licence to drive the vehicle for which you are getting a quote for surely. "
Certainly that's what it should be, just common sense. But, it's not actually what they're asking... And according to the DVLA I didn't gain a driving licence today, I had a licence already, I just gained a new entitlement on my existing licence. But of course the exact same argument applies when going from a provisional to a full licence. All in all, it's a very bad bit of wording. If there's not something better in the smallprint I'll be fairly surprised.
(a similiar situation comes up if you buy insurance as a learner, which I did- I have more no-claims than I have years of having had a full licence, which sometimes confuses people, because I did a year on CBT and L plates)
Barelyincontrol makes the most valid point tbh.
thegreatape wrote, "You will of course have had your provisional licence longer, but no doubt will have selected 'full UK licence' for the what type of licence do you hold question. "
I've had a full UK licence for 7 years 😉 Provisional entitlements don't come into it at all in this case here.
I would actually ring and speak to a person and do the quote over the phone. If it helps my youngest found direct line were the cheapest for her own insurance policy upon passing her test. I would quote that you have had a full motorcycle licence with carprovisional entitlement for 7 years and let the insurance company take that how they want. That way its recorded, you have not lied to obtain your insurance and you will be assured that they will have to pay out if you claim.
thegreatape wrote, "You will of course have had your provisional licence longer, but no doubt will have selected 'full UK licence' for the what type of licence do you hold question. "
I did, but it was in answer to this -
I passed my test in september 09, but had a car since may 09 I didnt have a full license, but a license nonetheless...
in which case the hypothetical person (not you) can't count the time they have held their provisional licence if they are selecting 'full licence'.
I understand the logic of your argument, and on the face of it I agree that you could quite correctly state you have had your full UK licence for 7 years. If it was me, I'd be checking the small print very carefully if I was going to do that though 🙂
Ah, gotcha, sorry for missing your point.
I think this is one of those fun logic puzzles where the correct answer isn't actually all that important 😉 Insurers can be tricky enough even if there's no grey area (and the facts aren't always all that important either, almost ended up in court with Virgin a few years back over mis-selling)
Ring Directline. When I joined them 8 years ago, the assistant motor underwriter took me to the pub one day to ask my views on bike licences, as I had one. After advising of the additional training required, the lower likelyhood of a nil accident history, ect, it was decided to look on motorcyclists more favourably. Certainly, they were the first to allow motorcycle no claims to transfer over to car policies, so they may well be inclined to look on your bike licence favourably, but do ring and speak to a human rather than online.
Ah, cheers, that sounds good...