Tweet
The facts:
- I'm an immigrant who moved to the UK in 2021. I bought a car and car insurance, on the basis of my foreign driving licence.
- After 12 months I was required to pass a UK driving test. I was unable to drive solo until doing so, which took a while because of long wait times.
- Having passed my test in 2023, and changed my vehicle, I was quoted a significantly higher insurance premium by the same insurer.
- When I challenged the quote to a salesperson on the phone, they claimed I was now suddenly an inexperienced driver.
- When I used the insurer's website to get a quote as if I had recently moved the UK, with no UK licence, but everything else the same (vehicle details, my personal details), I received a quote that was less than 1/3 of my quote (a difference of over £1000).
- It also seems, from my own cursory research and testimony from other immigrants, that most motor insurers have a large discrepancy between quotes for foreign drivers with/without a brand new UK licence, all other things being equal (i.e. same number of years total driving experience, same job, age sex, etc.). This happens industry-wide.
The law:
Section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 states:
Indirect discrimination
(1)A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if A applies to B a provision, criterion or practice which is discriminatory in relation to a relevant protected characteristic of B's.
(2)For the purposes of subsection (1), a provision, criterion or practice is discriminatory in relation to a relevant protected characteristic of B's if—
(a)A applies, or would apply, it to persons with whom B does not share the characteristic,
(b)it puts, or would put, persons with whom B shares the characteristic at a particular disadvantage when compared with persons with whom B does not share it,
(c)it puts, or would put, B at that disadvantage, and
(d)A cannot show it to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
(3)The relevant protected characteristics are—
age;
disability;
gender reassignment;
marriage and civil partnership;
race;
religion or belief;
sex;
sexual orientation.
Section 9.1 of the same act states:
Race includes—
(a)colour;
(b)nationality;
(c)ethnic or national origins.
My current interpretation:
Addressing the relevant parts of section 19:
(1) For all people who hold a UK driving licence, the criterion used to determine a driver's level of experience is the length of time they have held the UK licence (and only their UK licence)
(2) (a) The insurer applies this criterion to UK nationals and foreigners alike.
(b) This criterion puts foreigners at a particular disadvantage. Their full driving experience is not taken into account, thus they pay significantly more for their insurance than UK nationals with the same level of experience (and indeed foreign nationals with the same level of experience, but no UK licence).
(c) It puts me at a disadvantage - I pay more for my insurance
(d) Evaluating driving experience for the purpose of providing motor insurance is a legitimate aim. However, I do not believe that it is proportionate to base this evaluation solely on the length of time a UK licence has been held, for the following reasons:
- We know that insurers can evaluate driving experience based on length of time a foreign licence has been held, since they ask for this information from customers who do not hold a UK licence, and provide them with insurance on that basis.
- We know that insurers evaluate the accident risk of experienced foreign drivers to be far lower than unexperienced drivers, since they offer them much lower insurance premiums when they do not yet hold a UK licence.
(3) Nationality (via race) is a protected characteristic under this rule.
I have read a bit about the case law in this area. This did make clear that proportionality and legitimacy are two separate things, and that one does not imply the other. However, there wasn't much guidance on what is proportionate. The Citizen's Advice Bureau suggests that the test is whether "the person applying the policy, practice or rule can't show there's a good enough reason for it". It seems obvious to me that an insurer would find it hard to justify why a person can suddenly go from a low risk driver to a high risk driver due to having passed an additional driving test. There can't be any data to support this.
In terms of addressing this, I've already filed a complaint with my insurer, and received a response (they deny any wrongdoing). I have since followed that up by filing a claim with the Financial Ombudsman Service. It's been 8 days since they received my claim, and I have yet to hear a response, so they have likely decided not to take action (they say if I haven't heard back in 7 days, that's probably why).
So I feel there is the possibility for me to take legal action here. However, I would like to hear the opinion of any lawyers or barristers who have experience dealing with this particular area of law.
Many thanks for your time and input.
- I'm an immigrant who moved to the UK in 2021. I bought a car and car insurance, on the basis of my foreign driving licence.
- After 12 months I was required to pass a UK driving test. I was unable to drive solo until doing so, which took a while because of long wait times.
- Having passed my test in 2023, and changed my vehicle, I was quoted a significantly higher insurance premium by the same insurer.
- When I challenged the quote to a salesperson on the phone, they claimed I was now suddenly an inexperienced driver.
- When I used the insurer's website to get a quote as if I had recently moved the UK, with no UK licence, but everything else the same (vehicle details, my personal details), I received a quote that was less than 1/3 of my quote (a difference of over £1000).
- It also seems, from my own cursory research and testimony from other immigrants, that most motor insurers have a large discrepancy between quotes for foreign drivers with/without a brand new UK licence, all other things being equal (i.e. same number of years total driving experience, same job, age sex, etc.). This happens industry-wide.
The law:
Section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 states:
Indirect discrimination
(1)A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if A applies to B a provision, criterion or practice which is discriminatory in relation to a relevant protected characteristic of B's.
(2)For the purposes of subsection (1), a provision, criterion or practice is discriminatory in relation to a relevant protected characteristic of B's if—
(a)A applies, or would apply, it to persons with whom B does not share the characteristic,
(b)it puts, or would put, persons with whom B shares the characteristic at a particular disadvantage when compared with persons with whom B does not share it,
(c)it puts, or would put, B at that disadvantage, and
(d)A cannot show it to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
(3)The relevant protected characteristics are—
age;
disability;
gender reassignment;
marriage and civil partnership;
race;
religion or belief;
sex;
sexual orientation.
Section 9.1 of the same act states:
Race includes—
(a)colour;
(b)nationality;
(c)ethnic or national origins.
My current interpretation:
Addressing the relevant parts of section 19:
(1) For all people who hold a UK driving licence, the criterion used to determine a driver's level of experience is the length of time they have held the UK licence (and only their UK licence)
(2) (a) The insurer applies this criterion to UK nationals and foreigners alike.
(b) This criterion puts foreigners at a particular disadvantage. Their full driving experience is not taken into account, thus they pay significantly more for their insurance than UK nationals with the same level of experience (and indeed foreign nationals with the same level of experience, but no UK licence).
(c) It puts me at a disadvantage - I pay more for my insurance
(d) Evaluating driving experience for the purpose of providing motor insurance is a legitimate aim. However, I do not believe that it is proportionate to base this evaluation solely on the length of time a UK licence has been held, for the following reasons:
- We know that insurers can evaluate driving experience based on length of time a foreign licence has been held, since they ask for this information from customers who do not hold a UK licence, and provide them with insurance on that basis.
- We know that insurers evaluate the accident risk of experienced foreign drivers to be far lower than unexperienced drivers, since they offer them much lower insurance premiums when they do not yet hold a UK licence.
(3) Nationality (via race) is a protected characteristic under this rule.
I have read a bit about the case law in this area. This did make clear that proportionality and legitimacy are two separate things, and that one does not imply the other. However, there wasn't much guidance on what is proportionate. The Citizen's Advice Bureau suggests that the test is whether "the person applying the policy, practice or rule can't show there's a good enough reason for it". It seems obvious to me that an insurer would find it hard to justify why a person can suddenly go from a low risk driver to a high risk driver due to having passed an additional driving test. There can't be any data to support this.
In terms of addressing this, I've already filed a complaint with my insurer, and received a response (they deny any wrongdoing). I have since followed that up by filing a claim with the Financial Ombudsman Service. It's been 8 days since they received my claim, and I have yet to hear a response, so they have likely decided not to take action (they say if I haven't heard back in 7 days, that's probably why).
So I feel there is the possibility for me to take legal action here. However, I would like to hear the opinion of any lawyers or barristers who have experience dealing with this particular area of law.
Many thanks for your time and input.
