Insurance question for a lunatic

sparkychris

AdrianC wrote: »

OK, so he was honest and told them it was a three year ban?

Yes... Apologies if I made it seem otherwise...

maddogb

sparkychris wrote: »

Where did you get the idea that he (or I, if you like!) told his insurance company he got a two year ban?

He has been completely honest, as far as I'm aware.

My initial query was about future premiums after driving into a merc.

I think we may have crossed wires...

no you didn't cross wires he is being pedantic, and wrong, if he actually bothered to read threads he would know from another discussion that his statement is not actually true.
Insurance companies can no longer fully deny claims on the basis of inadvertent non-disclosure and also must show relevance where they wish to restrict claims on that basis.

maddogb

dacouch wrote: »

If the conviction was over five years ago, the Insurer would not know about the ban as the rehabilitation period is five years (Assuming no jail sentence).

I think that is no longer true either, the revisions to the ROA act state a 1yr disclosure period from end of conviction on fines., but I think the situation regarding points is vague, maybe they have aligned that with custodial sentences where the disclosure is from end of sentence.

dacouch

maddogb wrote: »

no you didn't cross wires he is being pedantic, and wrong, if he actually bothered to read threads he would know from another discussion that his statement is not actually true.
Insurance companies can no longer fully deny claims on the basis of inadvertent non-disclosure and also must show relevance where they wish to restrict claims on that basis.

Insurers are able to fully deny claims on the basis of inadvertent non disclosure if they would not have offered cover had the correct information been disclosed.

maddogb wrote: »

I think that is no longer true either, the revisions to the ROA act state a 1yr disclosure period from end of conviction on fines., but I think the situation regarding points is vague, maybe they have aligned that with custodial sentences where the disclosure is from end of sentence.

Feel free to post definitive confirmation that the rehabilitation period is not five years for a driving conviction without a prison term

arcon5

agrinnall wrote: »

Not sure what's confusing you. A driver with 2 bans who then causes another collision isn't somebody I would want to come across on the highway. The law is far too lax on serial motoring offenders of this type.

Except theirs no indication he's a danger on the road! Millions of people have minor collisions and still fit to drive. Just because somebody historically made some mistakes, which incidentally didn't appear to have created any victims, doesn't mean they shouldn't ever be allowed to move on and certainly doesn't automatically mean they can't drive safely.

Comments like yours are simply idiotic

ryan121

Just get the insurance company to deal with it as it's really not a big deal. Hitting a parked car with no one in it which is what it sounds like is the least serious and most straightforward incident for an insurance company to deal with.

I hit a parked car and my insurance company told me it wasn't a big deal and that it wouldn't put up my insurance which it didn't. It actually went down at renewal!

£3000 isn't a lot in terms of a car insurance claim so isn't likely to put up your insurance much, if at all.

maddogb

dacouch wrote: »

Insurers are able to fully deny claims on the basis of inadvertent non disclosure if they would not have offered cover had the correct information been disclosed.



Feel free to post definitive confirmation that the rehabilitation period is not five years for a driving conviction without a prison term

how do you manage to post a load of tosh without anything to back it up AND demand "definitive confirmation" from somebody else in the same post?


The changes to the legislation haven't been included in the full text of the published act as yet although there are the notes of such amendments so feel free to wade through it
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/53


or you can read the simple summary here
http://hub.unlock.org.uk/knowledgebase/spent-now-brief-guide-changes-roa/#What%20is%20changing%20and%20when?


if you just admit you are wrong we can kiss and make up

dacouch

maddogb wrote: »

how do you manage to post a load of tosh without anything to back it up AND demand "definitive confirmation" from somebody else in the same post?


The changes to the legislation haven't been included in the full text of the published act as yet although there are the notes of such amendments so feel free to wade through it
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/53


or you can read the simple summary here
http://hub.unlock.org.uk/knowledgebase/spent-now-brief-guide-changes-roa/#What%20is%20changing%20and%20when?


if you just admit you are wrong we can kiss and make up

I understand the ROA fine thank you and clearly better than you.

Do you realise that most motoring convictions are still five years before they're spent.

The changes in the 2012 act have not been applied to Insurers.

P.S How do you manage to post a load of tosh without anything to back it up?

rs65

http://hub.unlock.org.uk/knowledgebase/motoring-convictions-and-the-rehabilitation-of-offenders-act/

maddogb

dacouch wrote: »

I understand the ROA fine thank you and clearly better than you.

Do you realise that most motoring convictions are still five years before they're spent.

The changes in the 2012 act have not been applied to Insurers.

P.S How do you manage to post a load of tosh without anything to back it up?

ooo sorry since we are being pedantic I felt the need to correct you, you said convictions, I simply pointed out that had changed, although I should let you off not specifying those with endorsements