Speeding ticked (39 in a 30), offer of driver awareness course

vaio

Aretnap wrote: »

No it isn't. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act allows you to answer "no" to questions about some convictions where otherwise you would have to answer "yes". But it only applies to convictions (and nowadays formal cautions). But a speed awareness course is neither a conviction nor a caution, so it isn't covered by the ROA at all.

How about the argument that to do a speed awareness course you have to admit the offence so the course qualifies under ROA in the "other penalties" category just like formal cautions?

Joe_Horner

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

They told you wrong then. If the insurance company ask you have to disclose it.

Or find a different insurer.

Whether or not these would come under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act isn't cut & dried (it could be argued that it's essentially the same as a conditional discharge and the only reason they're not included is because they didn't exist when the Act was drafted). But settling the question would require someone to not declare, get found out, then take the insurers to court,, risking a driving without insurance charge if it went the wrong way.

The practical situation is that they' can't find out and asking is really no different than asking "have you ever exceeded the speed limit?" - how many people would answer that honestly, knowing that they can't possibly know?

"Utmost faith" cuts both ways - if they expect it from you then you should also be able to expect that they won't try to wriggle out of their side on meaningless technicalities!

sarahg1969

kingstreet wrote: »

There must be a record kept by national course providers, otherwise they would be risking offering courses to those who have attended one within the previous three years.

That does happen. If you've attended one, you're supposed to tell them and not accept another.

Aretnap

vaio wrote: »

How about the argument that to do a speed awareness course you have to admit the offence so the course qualifies under ROA in the "other penalties" category just like formal cautions?

"Other penalties" comes under Section 5(8) and includes things like driving bans - but it still only applies to sentences imposed by a court after conviction.

Originally the ROA didn't apply to cautions at all as they weren't convictions. That was changed by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 so that cautions were included. I suppose there might be an argument that a SAC could be covered by Section 8A (2)(b) - "any other caution given to a person in England and Wales in respect of an offence which, at the time the caution is given, that person has admitted" but I'm not sure I'd want to rely on it - apart from anything else AFAIK attending a SAC doesn't require a formal admission of the offence.*

*Other than an admission of driving the car at the time, but that's not the same as admitting exceeding the limit of course.

SLITHER99

This is why I stay with Zurich. None of this ninnying about. You pay more, but you get what you pay for!

phill99

Surely the main benefit is that YOU DON'T GET POINTS ON YOUR LICENCE.

Which means if you do something stupid in the future and get 9points, you won't loose your licence, but if you prefer to accept the points and do something stupid to get 9 points, you will loose your licence.

Bit of a no brainer really.

Aretnap

phill99 wrote: »

Surely the main benefit is that YOU DON'T GET POINTS ON YOUR LICENCE.

Which means if you do something stupid in the future and get 9points, you won't loose your licence, but if you prefer to accept the points and do something stupid to get 9 points, you will loose your licence.

You have to do something pretty stupid to get 9 points though. Careless driving which borders on dangerous driving, drunk in charge or fleeing the scene of a serious accident might be enough, but if you don't think you're likely to do any of those it's still going to take more than one moment of foolishness to push you up to 12 points. And if you're caught speeding again you can always take the course next time, assuming you're not too far over the limit. Ultimately there's no right or wrong answer - it's a personal decision for each person to make based on how much they value a day off work, what the effect on their insurance would be, how likely they think they are to be caught again, whether they think they'll learn anything useful, and any other factors they want to consider.

Lum

It's not always that serious to get 9 points.

Consider the situation where a 40mph road on your daily commute is reduced to 30mph by simply removing the 40 signs and putting up a camera (this does happen). You could easily rack up 4 offences (12 points) before the first ticket arrives, simply assuming that the local vandals have taken the signs.

vaio

vaio wrote: »

How about the argument that to do a speed awareness course you have to admit the offence so the course qualifies under ROA in the "other penalties" category just like formal cautions?

Aretnap wrote: »

"Other penalties" comes under Section 5(8) and includes things like driving bans - but it still only applies to sentences imposed by a court after conviction.

Originally the ROA didn't apply to cautions at all as they weren't convictions. That was changed by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 so that cautions were included. I suppose there might be an argument that a SAC could be covered by Section 8A (2)(b) - "any other caution given to a person in England and Wales in respect of an offence which, at the time the caution is given, that person has admitted" but I'm not sure I'd want to rely on it - apart from anything else AFAIK attending a SAC doesn't require a formal admission of the offence.*

*Other than an admission of driving the car at the time, but that's not the same as admitting exceeding the limit of course.

Yep, but to my reading it seems that The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 Section 139(6) creates a new Section 8AA for ROA which puts "alternatives to prosecution" on the same footing as "cautions" and seems to give them the same three month rehab period

Aretnap

That's a good point and you might well be right. Only snag is that Section 139 hasn't come into force yet (at least, I can't find it in any commencement order). It will certainly stir things up a bit when it does because it will reduce the rehabilitation period for most motoring offences to 12 months, which would prevent insurers from asking about convictions or loading premiums for them for more than a year. I wouldn't be surprised if insurers got an exemption when it does come in.

Added - looks like commencement may be scheduled for this spring, though with the commencement order not having been laid yet this could always change.

Also added - It seems (Section 141(6)) that it will only apply to alternatives to prosecution given after the commencement date, which could mean people who've already done a SAC will still have to declare it, though I imagine in practice insurers would just stop asking about them altogether soon enough.