declaring a disqualification

Long_Dark_Tunnel

Hi to all,
apologies in advance if this is a dumb question but I need some clarification as I have never been in this situation before.
I have recently come off a disqualification for dd, when i got my liscense back under the endorsements section it has details of the conviction but I have no points.
Would I still need to declare this to any insurance company?
The reason I ask is because it was my understanding that it was the points insurance companies look at.
Any help on this matter would be very much appreciated!

glider3560

Yes, you certainly need to declare this.

Insurers are probably more interested in a disqualification than they are points.

If you insure over the phone, you'll probably be asked if you have ever been disqualified. Online it may be asked, or it could be in the insurer's assumptions (which you agree to).

raskazz

Long_Dark_Tunnel wrote: »

Hi to all,
apologies in advance if this is a dumb question but I need some clarification as I have never been in this situation before.
I have recently come off a disqualification for dd, when i got my liscense back under the endorsements section it has details of the conviction but I have no points.
Would I still need to declare this to any insurance company?
The reason I ask is because it was my understanding that it was the points insurance companies look at.
Any help on this matter would be very much appreciated!

Insurers are most concerned with the offence code and the date of conviction, although will still take account of points/disqualifications.

DD40, DD60 and DD80 all carry potential endorsements of 3-11 points. Clearly it would be unwise for an insurer to only be concerned with points, because they would then only know about the offences for drivers being given points, and would never know about the offences for drivers who have been involved in more serious types of the same offence - i.e. those who were disqualified!

If the date of conviction is within the last 5 years then you have to declare the conviction to insurers.

hollie.weimeraner

A driving disqualification does not entail "points" on your licence. You are legally obliged to disclose a drink drive conviction for 10 years as it is not considered spent until that period elapses. Any further convictions within this time will attract a 3 year ban.

Lot of information here http://www.drivingban.co.uk/drivingban/drinkdrivingban.htm

raskazz

hollie.weimeraner wrote: »

A driving disqualification does not entail "points" on your licence. You are legally obliged to disclose a drink drive conviction for 10 years as it is not considered spent until that period elapses. Any further convictions within this time will attract a 3 year ban.

Lot of information here http://www.drivingban.co.uk/drivingban/drinkdrivingban.htm

The offence may appear on the licence for 10 years but the conviction is spent after 5 years under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (as long as no it did not involve imprisonment). As such it is only required to be disclosed to insurers for 5 years from the date of conviction.

hollie.weimeraner

raskazz wrote: »

The offence may appear on the licence for 10 years but the conviction is spent after 5 years under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (as long as no it did not involve imprisonment). As such it is only required to be disclosed to insurers for 5 years from the date of conviction.

Yes you are correct re the spent conviction but (some?) insurers do ask for disclosure of DD offences for 10 years and the offence remains on the licence for 11 years before it can be removed.

Interesting post on the financial ombudsman site

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]disclosure of spent motoring convictions[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Some of the insurance complaints we deal with involve the customer’s failure to disclose ‘spent’ motoring convictions to their insurer. These cases often reveal customers’ confusion about whether they must disclose previous convictions. For example, someone applying for motor insurance six years after they were convicted of a drink-driving offence may consider that, since the endorsement remains on their licence for 11 years, they are obliged to disclose the conviction to the insurer. However, under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, the conviction is ‘spent’ after five years. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Nevertheless, some firms ask customers applying for insurance: 'Have you or anyone who is to drive the vehicle been convicted of any offence within the last five years or had his licence endorsed within the last 11 years?'[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A recent High Court decision (in the case, R v DVLA & Another, ex parte Pearson [2002]) indicates that it is an unlawful breach of statutory duty for firms to rely on endorsements relating to spent convictions in order to disadvantage a driver.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The driver in the case, a Mr Pearson, had a spent conviction for drink-driving, but the endorsement was still on his licence. Some time after his offence and conviction, Mr Pearson trained and qualified as a driver of heavy goods vehicles. Inevitably, however, prospective employers asked to see his licence and they declined to take his job application further after seeing the endorsement. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Mr Pearson’s action against the DVLA (Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency) and the Secretary of State was brought under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998, as he claimed ‘breach of his right to respect for his private life’. He sought to establish that because the endorsement remained on his licence beyond the rehabilitation period, it interfered with his private life (by preventing him from obtaining employment). [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The judge dismissed the claim on the basis that Mr Pearson’s human rights had not been infringed. However, the judge commented on the purpose of endorsements and, arguably, his comments have implications for insurers. The judge pointed out that the endorsement of a drink-driving conviction remains on a driver’s licence for 11 years, for the purpose of any future sentencing, and he stated 'I see no reason why, if he had any evidence, a rehabilitated drink driver who is refused a driving job simply by reason of his spent conviction should not be able to maintain an action for breach of statutory duty'. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]By way of analogy, there seems no reason why a rehabilitated drink-driver, if he had evidence, would not have an equally strong case if he was refused insurance or was given less favourable terms and conditions than other policyholders, simply because of his spent conviction. If firms insist on asking questions about spent convictions, then they must effectively ignore the answers they receive. Otherwise, we are likely to consider they have breached their statutory duty. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Similarly, if a firm cancels the policy of a customer who has a spent conviction (but whose licence is still endorsed), simply because the customer did not disclose the endorsement, then we will uphold the customer’s complaint.[/FONT]

dacouch

Insurers can ask for whatever period they want, as has been pointed out by other posters, you only have to declare convictions that are not spent under the rehabilitation of offenders act.

Long_Dark_Tunnel

Thanks to all for the input, some extremely useful info!! :cool: