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

jonesMUFCforever

This thread is 14 months old!

glowdawn

Doesn't matter, still relevant today. The laws are the same.

Norman_Castle

Dec 2012

Quentin wrote: »

Or changed his name!!!!

glowdawn
Today, 1:59 PM MoneySaving Newbie


Join Date: Dec 2012

glowdawn

Doesn't matter who said what either, it's about what is more credible and reliable information.

System

Edelman wrote: »

My license is CLEAN.
It should not be stung after it becomes clean. Simple!

It's got nothing to do with being "clean", it's about risk.

It's so simple most people can understand that.

jonesMUFCforever

They don't ask whether your licence is 'clean' they ask whetther you have had any convictions or claims in the last five years.

glowdawn

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

They don't ask whether your licence is 'clean' they ask whetther you have had any convictions or claims in the last five years.

And getting an FPN and 3 associated points is neither a conviction nor a claim, as shown above.

System

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

They don't ask whether your licence is 'clean' they ask whetther you have had any convictions or claims in the last five years.

That's what I said. Thay don't ask questions for the fun of it, but because the answers indicate risk.

jonesMUFCforever

glowdawn wrote: »

And getting an FPN and 3 associated points is neither a conviction nor a claim, as shown above.

We will have to agree to disagree on this.
OP drove too fast - was caught and decided to accept points and fine.This in my opinion was a self accepting conviction.
He could have gone to court if he chose to fight it.

magpiecottage

Strictly, the OED defines conviction as

"The proving or finding a person guilty of an offence with which he is charged before a legal tribunal; legal proof or declaration of guilt; the fact or condition of being convicted: sometimes including the passing of sentence".

There is no legal tribunal with an FPN - so it does not seem to meet that definition.

FOS has historically considered whether the non-disclosure was the resul in a flaw in the insurer's questions. See here.

This seems to indicate that if an insurer did not make clear that it meant FPNs to be included when it asked about "convictions", FOS would interpret a dispute that they were not disclosed in favour of the policyholder.

This is now superseded by new leglislation in the form of the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012 but that seems consistent with the historic FOS position anyway.

However the OP's complaint is that his insurer do include FPNs for five years - and clearly he knows that or he would never have been whingeing here.