Car Insurance for Convicted Driver - TT99 - advice needed

oscarward

TSx wrote: »

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

This is presuming they do have insurance. People with such a poor regard for the law/society as to undertake robbery are hardly likely to pay attention to such things.:(

Herzlos

rdawson84 wrote: »

Hey man.

I'm in more or less exactly the same boat as you. I totted up 12 points (first 3, then 6, then another 3) all for speeding within a 2 year period... I got slammed with a 6 month ban and a £200 fine.

This was 2 years ago so I'm back driving again but not enjoying the constant fcuking I receive from insurance companies, who see it fit to charge me triple rate prices and beyond!

I currently got my TT99 declared only - None of the convictions that led to this, if that makes sense.

I too need a car for work so I'm cruising around in a 14 year diesel Seat and paying £800 a year for the privledge. (My quote without the TT99 is £154!!!)

My policy is up for renewal and I'm sick of being punished when really I've served my ban and paid my fine. I'm thinking of going with a new insurer and not declaring sweet fa.

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.

It's a risky business, but I think I might speak to a lawyer and see where I stand. But I like you don't see why we should pay thousands extra in insurance over 4 years when we've paid our fine and served out bans!

This country is a joke... The justice system is a joke...

I don't think the justice system is the problem. You've been banned from driving after 3 speeding incidents (one of which dished out 6 points - what happened there?), are considering lying about your insurance (making it void, good luck on that one), and think that the problem lies elsewhere?

You're surprised car insurance costs so much for a consistent speeder?

I'm not saying no-one speeds occasionally, and concede that it's easy to sneak over the limit and get caught out, but 3 times? After the first one I'd be very careful (I drove like a saint for weeks after the car next to me set off a GATSO), but certainly after the 6 pointer.

Your insurance reflects your risk; and you have to admit someone with a speeding ban is a much higher risk than someone with a clean license. So all you can do is accept responsibility for it, and put up with the cost until it starts to come back down (and it will once the endorsements start to expire). But if driving is so important to you, then surely it wouldn't hurt to be a bit more careful?


I also agree that the penalties for things like burglary are far too lenient, but that doesn't mean that motoring offences are somehow less illegal.

rudekid48

oscarward wrote: »

This is presuming they do have insurance. People with such a poor regard for the law/society as to undertake robbery are hardly likely to pay attention to such things.:(

You mean like the bloke that brought this up in the first place while he was whining about getting fined for having no insurance? :rotfl:

Herzlos

rudekid48 wrote: »

You mean like the bloke that brought this up in the first place while he was whining about getting fined for having no insurance? :rotfl:

To be fair, it sounds like he borrowed a friends car which he could drive with 3rd party insurance under his own policy, but failed to check that the car was actually insured by the owner, which is a bit of an oversight, but still not comparable to deliberately driving his own vehicle uninsured (or voided).

rudekid48

Herzlos wrote: »

To be fair, it sounds like he borrowed a friends car which he could drive with 3rd party insurance under his own policy, but failed to check that the car was actually insured by the owner, which is a bit of an oversight, but still not comparable to deliberately driving his own vehicle uninsured (or voided).

No, not the OP, the fella on this page who got his policy cancelled for not paying for it, then got caught without insurance....

Herzlos

rudekid48 wrote: »

No, not the OP, the fella on this page who got his policy cancelled for not paying for it, then got caught without insurance....

Ah, my mistake. Though again that doesn't sound like malicious avoiding of insurance and more likely to be a billing mistake / poor budgetting.

rudekid48

Herzlos wrote: »

Ah, my mistake. Though again that doesn't sound like malicious avoiding of insurance and more likely to be a billing mistake / poor budgetting.

Sure, couldn't possibly be his own fault

forgotmyname

If you have cover to drive other cars then why would you be prosecuted for having no insurance?

Unless your policy specifically states the other vehicle must be insured. I know that ones been
around the boards many many times before.

It must be insured, No it doesnt......... He's behind you etc etc..... sorry...


I mean OK his cars on the road illegally so tow it away but being done for no insurance when you have cover?

infinitydreams

I find some responses on these forums so funny, it's as though people just want to start an argument.

I know that I got caught speeding once 6 points (was being a wally) and since then drove extremely carefully.

What I am annoyed about is that I feel my punishment of nearly 8k over a 5 year period is an excessive amount of money and when compared to other more serious crimes certainly excessive.

To be treated like a criminal and financially worse than a criminal is not right and surely no one can disagree with that!

Spiderham

infinitydreams wrote: »

What I am annoyed about is that I feel my punishment of nearly 8k over a 5 year period is an excessive amount of money and when compared to other more serious crimes certainly excessive.

I think that you are conflating the penalty element (fine and points on your licence) with insurers' commercial decisions (increased premiums). Insurers aren't fining you for your conviction, that is not their role. The reason for the increase will be because, in their experience, drivers with those convictions will be more likely to have claims and cost them more. The court doesn't take insurance increases into account when sentencing and the increased insurance is not their intention, that is just a corollary owing to insurers' rating structures and should not be used to compare the punishment from the courts in different crimes.

If you buy a higher rated car/move to a higher rated area and you're insurance goes up by (say) £500, you wouldn't say that's bad because it's more than a shoplifting fine. You may think it's unfair, but that wouldn't be your supporting reasoning/argument.