Speed awareness course = Higher premiums!

dggar

kingstreet wrote: »

Invariably, the offences could be considered equally, if not more serious, than a SAC for (within) limit + 10% + 9mph.

Where does this come from?

kingstreet

Under the admittedly now-defunct ACPO guidelines, prosecution for a speeding offence started at limit + 10% + 2mph, or 35 in a 30, 46 in a 40 etc. Many police forces and SCPs still adhere to this.

The safety camera partnerships then adopted a similar formula for offering speed awareness courses, taking limit + 10% + 6mph, or 39 in a 30, 50 in a 40.

Since the Government started squeezing the partnerships' budgets, their reaction has been to extend the course threshold, dragging in motorists who would have been offered a Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty (3 points/£60) as these fines pass directly to the treasury.

SAC fees are shared between the course provider, Police etc. So, at 42 in a 30, 53 in a 40, more "offenders" are now offered a course in lieu of prosecution, increasing the revenue of the SCPs, reducing the amount paid to the Treasury.

I'm not sure where the information originally came from, but it's accepted on sites like Pepipoo that the SAC parameters are as stated above;-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showforum=5

kingstreet

Aretnap wrote: »

That or they just haven't thought of it yet.

That's what I said to myself, just as I pressed the "submit" button.

ontimedeparture

Just phoned Admiral after the news on the weekend to let them know about me attending a course back in Feb 2010. Tried to charge me £200, I refused and refusal was accepted on the basis that:

- no where on their website or T&Cs does it mention about speed awareness course etc. - confirmed by their customer service rep as she could not point to me any documentation about this
- the question was not specifically asked to me when signing up with them, only asked about convictions resulting in points / disqualification
- the text quoted from their schedule is: "Have you or any driver been involved in any motoring offences in the last 5 years resulting in a fixed penalty, conviction or disqualification or have any pending prosecution, other than those listed?" - which cannot apply to the course

Was told that they will not be able to charge me on the basis that they have no Ts & Cs they can point me to and the fact that I was not asked about the course specifically only about convictions which are not applicable to a course. They will judge me at time of next renewal so we'll get some quotes then but result for NOW!

The rep advised that they will look to update their Ts & Cs in the meantime to reflect speed awareness courses

DO NOT PAY THESE PEOPLE OR GET ON THE PHONE IF YOU ALREADY HAVE!

custardy

hareng wrote: »

If you were 'caning it' you wouldnt get offered the chance of a SAC.

Also dont tell me you have never ever gone over the speed limit! So in effect your no better than anyone else thats been done, just you havent been caught!

For the record most of the peope were 35 plus to about 60, with four clean records from 30 to 37 years. I was surprised to see one person 20 ish with full licence held for two months.

Thats quite a statement
so everyones doing it,so its fine?

So your speed awareness course has taught you everyone does it,even in basic cars
so its all good

TrickyWicky

Well if you ask me its about time that speeders were made to face the consequences. For too long they've been able to get away with taking the mick and putting other people in danger. Then taking a SAC which officially tells the insurer that they are a danger risk and the insurers ignoring it? - Madness.

I don't speed, I value my licence and money so I choose to drive carefully and respectfully. Sadly there are too many others out there who are more than happy to risk YOUR LIFE because they feel safe cocooned inside their car.

SAC was always useless and just about raising revenue. Everyone who speeds knows the dangers, they know they're doing it and they choose to do so. You can't honestly tell me that people accidentally ignore speed limits on a daily basis on their well known route to work?

Idiophreak

beeb wrote:

The insurance group says its statistics show that drivers who have attended a course, pose a higher risk.

OMG, what are they teaching people!?

Lum

kingstreet wrote: »

SAC fees are shared between the course provider, Police etc. So, at 42 in a 30, 53 in a 40, more "offenders" are now offered a course in lieu of prosecution, increasing the revenue of the SCPs, reducing the amount paid to the Treasury.

Close. SAC fees go to the council, who will often be paying a course provider (e.g. AA DriveSafe).

Councils are responsible for the camera partnership budgets now.

While there is no official incentive for the camera partnership to favour SAC over prosecution, it is highly likely that the council will be more likely to keep funding a profitable camera partnership than an unprofitable one.

As for the thresholds you quote. These vary in every police force area, people would be best to not rely on them.

kingstreet

As noted earlier, they do vary. Here's the section from the current ACPO guidelines, which of course, police forces adhere to, or not, as they see fit;-

The thresholds under which the courses will operate have been laid down by ACPO and are at the prosecution threshold of 10% +2 mph to a maximum of 10% +9 mph over the statutory limit.

However it is a bandwidth within which a police force may consider diverting an offender and this does not remove local decision-making using the attendant circumstances which may well warrant an alternative method of disposal, such as taking no further action, a warning letter, conditional offer a fixed penalty, or summons.

Page 4 of the pdf;-

http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/uniformed/2011/20111018%20UOBA%20Abbreviated%20Speed%20Awareness%20v1%209%20_DORS%20Compliant_.pdf

artbaron

IANAL but legally I believe you are obliged to tell insurers any fact that is 'material' to the insurance policy, whether asked specifically or not. Failure to do so is non-disclosure and can result in the policy being cancelled or rendered void. In practice, however, the issue of whether the insurer asked specific questions regarding material facts is taken into account in the event of a dispute, so failure to disclose something material that wasn't directly requested might not result in a negative outcome. The key words being 'might not'.