Car Insurance for Convicted Driver - TT99 - advice needed

Duncombe

Sparx wrote: »

How old are you may I ask and how old were you when you were convicted of driving without insurance?

Just curious as if you were old enough, I would of thought your own car insurance would provide you Third Party cover to your friend's vehicle you were driving at the time but if you are under 21 I think it is (or 25?) you are not eligible for third party insurance on other vehicles.

I had an argument about this with another poster a few days ago.

The 'driving third party on someone else's vehicle' rule only applies (in most cases) when the car in question is insured in its own right. Most insurance companies specify this in their policies.

A friend of mine got caught in the same way this OP did - 6 points and a fine, despite it being an innocent mistake. They were the only points on his licence though, so not as damaging.

Some young driver policies specify that the insurance obtained is for one vehicle only, but not all. My sister is 21 does not have this restriction on her policy.

And to the numpty complaining about excessive premiums after being caught speeding 3 times...you're fighting a loosing battle. You have no one to blame but yourself for the "unsafe driver" label you have been given.

lisyloo

A speeding driver does not equate to a bad driver, nor an unsafe driver. Half the people on the roads wouldn't pass their driving tests today. Some people are clueless, careless and damn right dangerous when travelling at the correct speed!

As you mentioned in your post. EVERYBODY speeds at some point. On your way home from work this evening I bet my bottom dollar that you went over the speed limit at one point or another.

So far I'm in total agreement.

The difference is that you were lucky enough not to have a traffic cop stood in a bush with a speed gun pointed at you... I was, 3 times.

No, the difference is that most people would recognise the consequences and stop speeding at 9 points.

You appear to feel you are not at all responsible for the speed of your car and that is why you will have higher insurance premiums.

JohnnySix

I hate all these holier-than-thou responses.

Have you ever noticed how many people are cruising in the third lane on the motorway? That's a good 25% of all drivers. Some just get an unlucky trio of minor speeding convictions of 3 years - it doesn't mean that they go at 40+ all the time in 30 zones.

To all these perfect drivers - can you guarantee me that you have never done either 31mph or 71mph... because that's technically speeding as well. Glass houses...

Quote

If you haven't been convicted of speeding then you can afford to be holier-than-thou. I don't object to people convicted of speeding, per se, it's just just the attitude they have on here. Moaning about the price of their insurance. Should they pay the same for insurance as someone who hasn't been caught speeding? No.

So S T F U.

foggytown

Quote wrote: »

If you haven't been convicted of speeding then you can afford to be holier-than-thou. I don't object to people convicted of speeding, per se, it's just just the attitude they have on here. Moaning about the price of their insurance. Should they pay the same for insurance as someone who hasn't been caught speeding? No.

So S T F U.

Agree all. If you are caught speeding how on earth can you whine about the consequences afterwards? You KNEW (or should have known) there was a speed limit. You KNEW (or should have known) the consequences of being caught. End of.

On second thought, maybe it isn't surprising that you think it unreasonable that an insurer would not want to charge the same premium to a driver who has no speeding convictions and one who does.

Dangermac

JohnnySix wrote: »

I hate all these holier-than-thou responses.

Have you ever noticed how many people are cruising in the third lane on the motorway? That's a good 25% of all drivers. Some just get an unlucky trio of minor speeding convictions of 3 years - it doesn't mean that they go at 40+ all the time in 30 zones.

To all these perfect drivers - can you guarantee me that you have never done either 31mph or 71mph... because that's technically speeding as well. Glass houses...

I agree with you. To a greater or lesser extent, I would say that 95+% of people speed.

However, and this is where I think you are missing the point, the OP has had 4 seperate convictions:

- First conviction you should be on guard and should be sticking religiously to the speed limit.

- 2nd conviction is a a real wake up call (only 2 convictions away from a ban now)

- 3rd Conviction. Last chance saloon. No more chances.

- 4th conviction. Cant say you havent been warned.

BTW, it is unlikely that someone has had 4 convictions for driving 1MPH over the limit. Chaces are he/she has been at least 10% + over the limit.

Taking into account the 3 chances that the OP has had to reduce the weight on his right foot, he doesnt deserve to have a licence.


DM

future_don8

Hi Paddy, if you ever look again at this post. Here is some positive advise no a do-gooding comment like the rest i have been reading.

Friends of mine have spent money insuring say a lawnmower or moped for instance for a small amt of money each year, with this they can build up ncb, don't know if this will help but it's an idea

Cheers bud good luck

Gene_Hunt_2

rdawson84 wrote: »

I've heard different peoples opinions about this... Some say a TT99 stays on your license for 4 years, others say you can get around this on minor technicalities, eg: A "disqualification" is not the same as a "conviction", therefore when an insurance company asks "Have you had any convictions in the past 5 years", you could actually answer "no" and it be truthful.

You are correct in what you say.

You were convicted and the sentence was disqalification so they are not the same. You have 3 convictions to disclose to the insurance company.

infinitydreams

I personally find the level of punishment ridiculous and also when compared to the level of punishments being dealt out to robbers and true criminals it's unlawful.

I had 2 speeding offences and then was pulled over for driving without insurance last year. At the time I was in total shock as I've always been insured since passing my test at the age of 17 and hence how I built up over 8 years no claims.

Admiral had cancelled my policy due to a non-payment, something which I found strange considering I paid by Direct Debit, they reported that they had sent me letters, I hadn't received one!

At court I was given 6 points, £300 fine and told that it was my fault for not inspecting my bank statements over a 8 weeks period.

Before entering the court room a young man was laughing at how he had just got away with just 30 hours community service for robbing a house. His lawyer said he had a result as the fine they had issued couldn't be paid due to him not working and being on benefits.

In comparison I came out of the court room £300 lighter as well as the £200 I had already paid to get the car out of compound. Then to suffer financially due to the 3 month ban and not being able to work to my normal potential.

But then the biggest shock...insurance! I had previously been paying £450 for a BMW 645 (2004) and was all of a sudden being quoted £1200 for a BMW 328 touring (1996).

So to compare:

Driving Ban Cost over 5 year: £3750 (additional insurance) + £300 fine + £200 compound charge + £3500 (added to gf policy) = £7750.00

Criminal who robbed someone: 30 hours community support + no fine

Now can someone please explain to me how this is right?

TSx

infinitydreams wrote: »

I personally find the level of punishment ridiculous and also when compared to the level of punishments being dealt out to robbers and true criminals it's unlawful.

I had 2 speeding offences and then was pulled over for driving without insurance last year. At the time I was in total shock as I've always been insured since passing my test at the age of 17 and hence how I built up over 8 years no claims.

Admiral had cancelled my policy due to a non-payment, something which I found strange considering I paid by Direct Debit, they reported that they had sent me letters, I hadn't received one!

At court I was given 6 points, £300 fine and told that it was my fault for not inspecting my bank statements over a 8 weeks period.

Before entering the court room a young man was laughing at how he had just got away with just 30 hours community service for robbing a house. His lawyer said he had a result as the fine they had issued couldn't be paid due to him not working and being on benefits.

In comparison I came out of the court room £300 lighter as well as the £200 I had already paid to get the car out of compound. Then to suffer financially due to the 3 month ban and not being able to work to my normal potential.

But then the biggest shock...insurance! I had previously been paying £450 for a BMW 645 (2004) and was all of a sudden being quoted £1200 for a BMW 328 touring (1996).

So to compare:

Driving Ban Cost over 5 year: £3750 (additional insurance) + £300 fine + £200 compound charge + £3500 (added to gf policy) = £7750.00

Criminal who robbed someone: 30 hours community support + no fine

Now can someone please explain to me how this is right?

You'll find the guy who robbed someone's house will be paying a fortune for his insurance now as well.