Insurance Company Demand Photocopied Driving Licence

nottoolate

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Have another try. Year and Section you are referring to would be good - and fixing any spelling errors.

+ an example where someone was prosecuted like that for photocopying their license to send to an insurance company.

Herzlos

mikey72 wrote: »

I can see why the need it. Adding non existent drivers to reduce premiums, provisional drivers driving pretending they have a full licence, disqualified drivers, drivers claiming more years since they passed to reduce premium, and the rest. The insurer will still be liable for third party claims, and the car will show as insured to any police check. So I have to admit, I'm behind them here.

Can't all of this be done via computer look-ups, so surely all they should need is the license number (which I don't recall I've ever been asked for).

George_Michael

vax2002 wrote: »

The legislation is the Crown Copy-write act, the maximum penalty is 10 years imprisonment.

There is no such legislation as the "crown copy-write act" so the first part of your "knowledge" is rubbish.
Crown copyright is covered under the same legislation as all other copyrighting, and this is the "Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988" (section 163 to be precise).

Copying a driving licence (or any other item for that matter) is only an offence if you are doing so in the course of a business and you do not have a licence or permission of the copyright owner, or if you are doing so as a private individual and:

(e)distributes otherwise than in the course of a business to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright,

Simply photocopying any Crown copyright material is not an offence.
What you do with the copies may be illegal if they affect the copyright owner, but I fail to see how sending a copy to an insurance company will have any detrimental effect on the UK government.

What was it you stated in your earlier post?

Some are a bit too thick.

I couldn't agree more.

DVardysShadow

nottoolate wrote: »

+ an example where someone was prosecuted like that for photocopying their license to send to an insurance company.

Actually, be fair, you are raising the bar too high. Just roll the clock back to before the days of a law for murder.

A: I want to murder X
B: There is a law against it
A: Really? What law is that?
B: Statute <m> of year <n> of the reign of King <name> <roman number>
A: Have there been any prosecutions?
B: No
A: I'll be OK to go and murder X then

And the rest as they say, is precedent.

nottoolate

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Actually, be fair, you are raising the bar too high.

not really.

if there is anything applicable its not as if its just been enacted or brought into force so has not had the chance for precedence. in the most generous interpretation has been 10 - 20 years

A: I want to photocopy my license
B: There is a law against it and you can be sent to prison for 10 years
A: Really? What law is that? When did that come into force?
B: Statute <m> of 1988 allegedly
A: Have there been any prosecutions in those 15 years?
B: No
A. Anyone sent to prison in those 15 years?
B: No.
A: doesn't look like the authorities give a shit even if true then. which it is not.

paddedjohn

" Don't panic Mr Mainwaring".......

DVardysShadow

nottoolate wrote: »

not really.

if there is anything applicable its not as if its just been enacted or brought into force so has not had the chance for precedence. in the most generous interpretation has been 10 - 20 years

A: I want to photocopy my license
B: There is a law against it and you can be sent to prison for 10 years
A: Really? What law is that? When did that come into force?
B: Statute <m> of 1988 allegedly
A: Have there been any prosecutions in those 15 years?
B: No
A. Anyone sent to prison in those 15 years?
B: No.
A: doesn't look like the authorities give a shit even if true then. which it is not.

Interesting. It seems you think it possible to send people to prison for a crime without a prosecution.

nottoolate

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Interesting. It seems you think it possible to send people to prison for a crime without a prosecution.

no. :rotfl:

meant to only leave one of those 2 in the post, but forgot and left them both.

lordra

Wow, serioulsy OT here! I have been following this thread for a few days now... Quite interesting the whole conversation.

Which leads me full circle to ask again: Does a customer have to send a copy of his/her driver's license to the insurer?

londonTiger

UnconsciouS wrote: »

I think if I were them I may ask for it too (although people who check passports for CRB checks have been told to stop taking copies!). I'm all for stopping fraud, but there must be a reason why the company is not telling you this condition up front - and I suspect that it is this:

.

I'm extremely hesistant about posting any original documentation over - I have worked for several large and small companies and I know how careless they are with paperwork.

I'm all for them verifying these details but wish they had a better way of doing this than have to send original documents through the post. Maybe et it stamped and verified via post office or something.