Car Insurance: clean license, but still stung on SP30... WHY???

raskazz

Edelman wrote: »

Well yes. To get answers from the DVLA and the Police - you know they are correct!

I know for a fact that they are NOT correct. It is highly unlikely that the people with which you spoke at either institution had any formal legal training or qualifications.

An insurer has the right to ask for details of, and apply premium loads/terms in respect of, any unspent convictions under the Act. Whether the conviction is still on showing on the licence or not is immaterial to whether a conviction is spent or unspent, as per R v DVLA & Another, ex parte Pearson. Whether points arising from a conviction still count towards a "totting up" is also immaterial. In simple terms, all that matters under the terms of the Act are (i) How old the individual was when convicted and (ii) what sentence was given.

Read the Act and you will see quite clearly that the Rehabilitation period for a motoring conviction - where the only sentence was a fine - is 5 years from the date of conviction assuming that the individual was 18 or over at that date of conviction.

You can read the original text of the Act here:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/53

For some useful further reading, see the following link:

http://www.unlock.org.uk/xoffenders.aspx?sid=62#penaltypoints

Yorkie1

I think we are hitting our heads against a brick wall with this one raskazz ...

You are completely correct legally and OP is not.

DVLA don't wipe the conviction off their records either. When you get a DQ5 record (i.e. a person's DVLA history) through in court proceedings, the full history is there from time immemorial - it's just that you don't cite those that aren't relevant for rehabilitation, resentencing, or totting up reasons.

FlameCloud

Yorkie1 wrote: »

I think we are hitting our heads against a brick wall with this one raskazz ...

You are completely correct legally and OP is not.

DVLA don't wipe the conviction off their records either. When you get a DQ5 record (i.e. a person's DVLA history) through in court proceedings, the full history is there from time immemorial - it's just that you don't cite those that aren't relevant for rehabilitation, resentencing, or totting up reasons.

As well as the results of the D796 form that any investigator would make you complete if a suspicious claim comes in.

Quentin

Yorkie1 wrote: »

I think we are hitting our heads against a brick wall with this one ........

Yes. Definitely time to shut the troll food shop for this thread!

thenudeone

Edelman wrote: »

Forget it. I got the answers I needed from DVLA and Police.
Rehab was mentioned here. God knows why, as you don't need rehab from speeding convictions.

My license is clean.

You can live happily in your wrong belief right until the moment you have a serious accident when your insurer will crawl over everything with a toothcomb. Then, when he finds that you failed to declare a relevant fact which was specifically asked for, he'll try to invalidate your policy (which you will have to declare for life to very prospective insurer) and hold you fully liable for the costs that he's had to pay out to third parties, as explained here http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/46/46_non_disclosure_insurance.htm

The very best outcome you could hope for would be that the ombudsman then decides that your non-disclosure was an oversight and persuades the insurer only to claim from you the proportion of the total costs by which your premium was under-costed due to the missing information.

If you don't believe me, have a look at the first example on this page which deals with precisely the situation of someone who failed to declare five years worth of motoring convictions: http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/25/25-insurance-casestudies-non-disclosure.htm

But I suspect that you would rather believe two friends and a front-line Police Officer than the information already provided about the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act or the Financial Ombudsman's published advice and case studies :rotfl::rotfl:

Just_Some_Guy

There is a difference between having no points showing on your licence and having no unspent driving convictions. You might think they are the same thing. But they are not. Thank the Home Office for their joined up legislation

TwittersPVFC

There's a simple lesson in all this. If you don't like how insurers deal with speeding convictions, don't break the law!

I've no sympathy for anyone who breaks the law regardless of the offence. Speed kills.

LynnF

I'm also in the same position as Edelman although I actually have 9 points on my licence. They are both now in their 4th year and I did think that it would be the case that they 'expired' in total this year.

I've read the comments in this thread and accept the advice everyone has provided as this seems fair enough.

However, does anyone know of specific insurers who would only ask for 4yrs points history (instead of the big companies who ask for 5yrs)? If so, then that would be the answer. If not, then i guess I'm going to have to lump it!

This to me would be far more helpful (sorry Edelman - see what you're saying but if there are companies that don't ask for 5yrs I would take the advice and run with it!).

forgotmyname

Whether they ask for 3 instead of 5 wont always make them cheaper.

Mate got 6 points and his insurance is now cheaper. Work that one out???

Trebor16

Edelman wrote: »

Where is the proof of the offence?
As far as I know, it is with the police, tho not a "criminal record", and it is within the SP30.

The SP30 has expired.
So I want to know where the 5 year thing is recorded? If I rang my Police station, would they confirm that my offence "remains" for 5 years?

When you get caught speeding, you know you get the points etc....
And if you do a bit of reading, you see it lasts about 3-4 years. What you do see, is what you are eluding to, and it comes across as slightly con-like for the insurers to make use of it. You sound like you know what you are talking about, however, even my neighbour went through the same thing, and was also appauled that even after it has expired, you still get stung.

My friends are only telling me what happened with them.

In simple terms. The endorsement has gone, but the conviction is not spent until after 5 years. The endorsement is totally seperate to the conviction. That is why insurance companies ask for details of convictions within the last 5 years, not endorsements.

You also mention "being stung" for a single SP30 conviction. Most insurance companies don't charge extra for one speeding conviction so your talk of being stung doesn't stack up. Why not go on to a comparison site and see what difference it makes when you get a quote with and without the SP30.