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

Joe_Horner

vaio wrote: »

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

Yep, hadn't seen that but I'd go along with your interpretation on a quick skim

jobdone1

Forget all the issues around points or an awareness course, If you have to apply for a driving job for example courier driver or bus driver etc then its far better to have no points on your licence as you would look more favorable in my view. Points take years to fall off as an awareness course is half a day i know which one i would choose.

kingstreet

More on the national database here;-

2.11 National Database

2.11.1. Pivotal to the development of the National Speed Awareness Course is the ability to retrieve data in relation to drivers who have already been offered or completed a course. The National Policing Improvements Agency has developed the Driver Offender Retraining System (PentiP DORS). ACPO and Road Safety Support Ltd. (RSS) on ACPO’s behalf, are the custodians of this database and before making a formal offer of a National Speed Awareness Course a check must be made with this database.

2.11.2. On completion of the course PentiP DORS must be updated by the service provider with the results of the course for the referring police force. This data is retained in DORS for three and a half years from the date of completion and for a further three and half years by ACPO and RSS for research purposes and thereafter de-personalised.

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

Lum

Oh god, RSS are running it? Why doesn't this surprise me?

vaio

Aretnap wrote: »

......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......

I suspect they are already lobbying for exemption but the other argument is that endorsements will qualify under "other penalties or orders" and have a rehab period that lasts until "they cease to have effect".

There might be arguments about when they "cease to have effect" but I'd guess the options are either the three years they count for totting or maybe the four years they stay on your licence. Either way the insurers will be happy at least as far as actual convictions go.

Frankly, if little old me has spotted this I'd be staggered if the legal beagles at the insurers hadn't both spotted it, thought it through and decided they were happy with it.

Aretnap

I'm fairly sure that endorsements aren't treated as "other penalties or orders" - they're simply a warning that future offences will be dealt with more harshly. Certainly the eleven year endorsement which comes with a drink driving conviction doesn't mean that the offence has to be declared for either ten or eleven years - the conviction's still spent within 5 years assuming you didn't go to prison for it (linky). So as things stand if/when s139 is implemented most drink-driving convictions will become spent after 1 year. I'm not sure that this would be good either for the insurance industry or for most of the motoring public (I don't fancy paying the same for my insurance as someone who's just completed a drink-driving ban) so I can see an exception of some sort being created at the same time as the section comes into force.

Quentin

Aretnap wrote: »

I'm fairly sure that endorsements aren't treated as "other penalties or orders" - they're simply a warning that future offences will be dealt with more harshly. Certainly the eleven year endorsement which comes with a drink driving conviction doesn't mean that the offence has to be declared for either ten or eleven years - the conviction's still spent within 5 years assuming you didn't go to prison for it (linky). So as things stand if/when s139 is implemented most drink-driving convictions will become spent after 1 year. I'm not sure that this would be good either for the insurance industry or for most of the motoring public (I don't fancy paying the same for my insurance as someone who's just completed a drink-driving ban) so I can see an exception of some sort being created at the same time as the section comes into force.

Currently most off the peg insurers do not take on anyone with a drink driving conviction by blanket exclusion of anyone with an endorsement that lasts longer than 5 years.

Aretnap

Quentin wrote: »

Currently most off the peg insurers do not take on anyone with a drink driving conviction by blanket exclusion of anyone with an endorsement that lasts longer than 5 years.

They can do that if they want to - but only for 5 years post conviction. After that the applicant doesn't have to tell them about it, even if they ask, and they'd be in breach of their statutory duty if they voided his policy or gave him less favourable terms because of it. At least, that's what the Financial Ombudsman seems to think.

vaio

Aretnap wrote: »

I'm fairly sure that endorsements aren't treated as "other penalties or orders" - they're simply a warning that future offences will be dealt with more harshly. Certainly the eleven year endorsement which comes with a drink driving conviction doesn't mean that the offence has to be declared for either ten or eleven years - the conviction's still spent within 5 years assuming you didn't go to prison for it (linky). So as things stand if/when s139 is implemented most drink-driving convictions will become spent after 1 year. I'm not sure that this would be good either for the insurance industry or for most of the motoring public (I don't fancy paying the same for my insurance as someone who's just completed a drink-driving ban) so I can see an exception of some sort being created at the same time as the section comes into force.

I suspect whether endorsements are a qualifying penalty and if so what is the rehab period hasn't been fully tested because there is no point as whatever the outcome (3 years for totting or 4 on licence) it's less than the current 5 years for a fine. I'm also guessing this will change once the rehab for fines drops to 1 year.

I struggle to see how a court ordered endorsement wouldn't qualify under the "relevant order" and "other penalties" provisions.

".......any order which imposes a disqualification, disability, prohibition or other penalty......."

Aretnap

I had a feeling there was case law on that point... here it is

Power -v- Provincial Insurance Plc - Driving licence endorsement not a penalty for rehabilitation/disclosure purposes.
Full judgement here - I haven't read it in detail yet, the conviction in question dated from the days before penalty points and I see that there is some discussion of whether the situation is changed by the introduction of the penalty points system.