18 year old son had insurance cancelled following motoring offence and 28 day ban

Tilt

FlameCloud wrote: »

In order for parents to be held vicariously liable there invariably needs to be an element of negligence on the part of the parent in allowing the child to Commit the act.

That's why I said "in certain circumstances".

xbrenx

My son has a 1973 Triumph Herald he's going to sell in the next few months

vekma

in my opinion should never be allowed to drive ever again.

~Chameleon~

vekma wrote: »

in my opinion should never be allowed to drive ever again.

Don't be so ridiculous!!

Joe_Horner

vekma wrote: »

in my opinion should never be allowed to drive ever again.

Fortunately your opinion doesn't count for much in the real world

Aretnap

vekma wrote: »

in my opinion should never be allowed to drive ever again.

In my opinion he should be flogged. Then jailed. Or better still, executed. Preferably by hanging, drawing and quartering. Then his family should be sold into slavery to pay for the damage and as an example to others.

Do I win?

Aretnap

On a more useful note, can the insurers really require him to declare the cancellation for the rest of his life? If the policy was cancelled solely because he was convicted of an offence then the cancellation would seem to be a circumstance ancillary to the conviction and if so it would be subject to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and would become non-discolosable when the conviction becomes spent. Insurers can't require disclosure of spent convictions or increase premiums because of them, and using a cancellation as a proxy for a spent conviction strikes me as subverting that principle.

I'm not sure if there's any case law around this. Perhaps it's a question for te Financial Ombudsman.

londonTiger

good luck, wuth that conviction, and now having to disclose that an insurer has cancelled a policy on him is going to make it harder.

Mrs_Imp

How big is your driveway? Has he looked at tractors and tractor insurance?
http://metro.co.uk/2011/05/26/teen-chris-berry-resorts-to-driving-old-tractor-after-17k-car-insurance-quote-23829/

Joe_Horner

Aretnap wrote: »

On a more useful note, can the insurers really require him to declare the cancellation for the rest of his life? If the policy was cancelled solely because he was convicted of an offence then the cancellation would seem to be a circumstance ancillary to the conviction and if so it would be subject to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and would become non-discolosable when the conviction becomes spent. Insurers can't require disclosure of spent convictions or increase premiums because of them, and using a cancellation as a proxy for a spent conviction strikes me as subverting that principle.

I'm not sure if there's any case law around this. Perhaps it's a question for te Financial Ombudsman.

I'd tend to agree that's a point worth arguing. It would be a bit like replacing a "have you ever been convicted" question with "have you ever been fined or jailed?" on the basis that they're not specifically asking about a conviction.

They would probably argue that the cancellation may not have been as a result of a conviction and they're not asking why it happened, but it'd be an interesting one to test.

Simple fairness would also suggest that, say, 10 years from now, the fact he made one silly mistake before he was even an adult shouldn't weigh against him even in contract matters.