Spent motoring convictions

Aretnap

sammir1618 wrote: »

Sorry I forgot to mention my offence code! It is ms60 (miscellaneous offence code) which for some reason makes my insurance sky high.

The problem is that MS60 means "offences not covered by other codes", so the insurer can't tell from the code what you were actually convicted of, or whether it was a minor offence or a serious one. Hence the fact that many insurers will either not quote, or quote sky high prices. It seems to be a fairly common problem.

The most common reason people used to get that code was not being in proper control of the vehicle (eg by eating at the wheel, or fiddling with a gadget). I believe the DVLA have now changed their endorsement codes so not in proper control now gets a CU80 code - same as a mobile phone offence - which should make life easier for people convicted of it in future - but that doesn't help you much as you're still stuck with the old endorsement code.

I was going to suggest that you speak to a broker, explain exactly what you were convicted of and see if he can find an insurer willing to treat it in the same way as a mobile phone offence, but it sounds like you've already done that. You could always try another broker I suppose. If you do manage to find insurance at a sensible price please let us know how as it will be helpful to other people in your situation.

antrobus

Aretnap wrote: »

But the conviction doesn't become spent for 5 years. That's the point.

No it isn't. I wasn't disputing that at all.

You said that failure to disclose an unspent conviction could "invalidate your policy", I was simply pointing out that the FOS have stated that insurers cannot invalidate a policy for that reason.

It is only logical, after all. Insurers are entitled to ask for details of any convictions within the last 5 years. But as you yourself have acknowledged, insurers are not supposed to take that into account when fixing the premium, and thus failure to disclose information that has no effect on the premium is no reason to cancel the policy.

Quentin

marlot wrote: »

I seem to recall that Aviva only asked for three.

No. Aviva ask for convictions in last 5 years

Crazy_Jamie

I had a friend who had the same MS60 issue in that he was not in proper control of the vehicle whilst using a phone. He had it in his hand but not to his ear, hence why he was done for not being in proper control rather than use of a mobile phone. He thought little of it until his insurance came round for renewal and he was faced with absolutely rocketed premiums, at which point he realised he had an MS60 endorsement and not a CU80. I became involved at that point trying to get to the bottom of why this code was having this effect, and the short answer is that it can also be used for offences that you are considerably more serious than using a mobile phone. Of course such offences would not result in 3 points, but nevertheless it seems that the insurance industry as a whole takes a wide berth of MS60 codes.

If it helps, I believe that his premiums have come down steadily year on year since he received the MS60. He may now be approaching is five years at which point it won't be an issue at all anymore (can't remember the timescales exactly), but I'm pretty sure he mentioned a quite notable reduction between years three and four (so to speak), which is possibly linked to the fact that the conviction no longer counts towards totting up. Whether that is a general thing or something that he got lucky with I don't know, but hopefully you should see a bit of a reduction by the time of your next renewal.

It's good to hear that not in proper control offences will now be given a CU80 code, incidentally. I wasn't aware of that, but it certainly seems to address what I expect was a quite sizeable hole in the net.

dacouch

antrobus wrote: »

No it isn't. I wasn't disputing that at all.

You said that failure to disclose an unspent conviction could "invalidate your policy", I was simply pointing out that the FOS have stated that insurers cannot invalidate a policy for that reason.

It is only logical, after all. Insurers are entitled to ask for details of any convictions within the last 5 years. But as you yourself have acknowledged, insurers are not supposed to take that into account when fixing the premium, and thus failure to disclose information that has no effect on the premium is no reason to cancel the policy.

There was nothing wrong with Aretnaps post, it explains an Insurer cannot rate using spent convictions and correctly states that if you do not declare an unspent conviction you run the risk of invalidating your policy.

Although your post I've quoted is incorrect as (I assume you've mixed your spent and unspent) you're in effect saying that an Insurer cannot invalidate a policy due to an undeclared UNSPENT eg live conviction when in reality they can.

Your final paragraph does not make any sense as Insurers can and do ask for details of (Unspect) convictions within the last five years and can and usually do load for such convictions.


Cue arguement over the ROA and the difference between convictions, endorsements and fines

magpiecottage

dacouch wrote: »

Your final paragraph does not make any sense as Insurers can and do ask for details of (Unspect) convictions within the last five years

This is correct - and a complaint to FOS in that regard will normally be dismissed as a legitimate exercise of the insurer's commercial judgement.

On the other hand, whilst the consumer must answer any questions the insurer asks honestly, if the insurer doesn't ask then they are not obliged to disclose it.

It therefore follows that if the insurer asks DVLA but not the consumer and it transpires that DVLA has deleted any record of any points then even if the offence was not spent, the insurer would not be able to invalidate the policy on that basis.