Insurance Disclosure of Spent Convictions

wirralite

It is that time of year again when I need to renew my insurance.

I had a conviction (MS90 Failure to Identify the Driver) which was 6 points, from 2013. The conviction is now spent and my licence is showing 0 points however it is still listed on my licence, apparently until later in 2017.

When I apply for insurance the insurers ask, and motoring conviction in the past 5 years. However what I have read is that this is unlawful. It makes a difference to my insurance premium of £180.

I have looked at several websites, even some that identify court cases that claim it to be unlawful to consider a spent conviction against a driver. And others which state that you do not have to declare a spent conviction, even if directly asked.

Does anyone know the facts?

Thanks.

debtdebt

If it's unlawful, challenge the insurer and take them all the way to judicial review then.

The insurers set the terms of their policies, if you're not happy, go to an insurer that asks for convictions within a shorter history.

wirralite

debtdebt wrote: »

The insurers set the terms of their policies, if you're not happy, go to an insurer that asks for convictions within a shorter history.

That's not a particularly helpful answer. Sure "go somewhere else" is a possibility, but that was not the question. For starters EVERY comparison website asks this question.

What I am wondering, and perhaps it needs people with more professional experience, than the money saving expert forum (who knows), is "If I do not declare a spent conviction and they later refuse to pay out or cancel my insurance is there an argument there?" I think there is.

...After all, I have suffered my decision for 3 years, and I have stayed within the law. Why should my premiums continue to be nearly £200 higher, AFTER the points are removed.

Any factual answers on the question at hand?

debtdebt

Where did you read that it was unlawful for insurers to ask for 5 years of previous convictions then? If your source says it was unlawful, they should have some legal precedence to back it up?

Stop being cheap to avoid a £75 hike in your premium. Surely if you crash into someone, cause them to be a paraplegic and face a compensation claim in the hundreds of thousands of pounds, are you going to face the risk of your insurer not paying out or pursuing you for their outlay for the rest of your life?

wirralite

debtdebt wrote: »

Where did you read that it was unlawful for insurers to ask for 5 years of previous convictions then? If your source says it was unlawful, they should have some legal precedence to back it up?

Stop being cheap to avoid a £75 hike in your premium. Surely if you crash into someone, cause them to be a paraplegic and face a compensation claim in the hundreds of thousands of pounds, are you going to face the risk of your insurer not paying out or pursuing you for their outlay for the rest of your life?

Don't think I said £75. The difference in premium is £180. I have a clean licence with no points. The spent conviction remains until September.

That was the point of my question, and one, which you, all due respect, are not qualified to answer. CAN they not pay out for failing to declare it? I don't think they can. Sure it is not unlawful for them to ASK; I might have worded that wrong. They can ask what they like, but the question is do I have to answer?

GingerBob_3

wirralite wrote: »

Don't think I said £75. The difference in premium is £180. I have a clean licence with no points. The spent conviction remains until September.

That was the point of my question, and one, which you, all due respect, are not qualified to answer. CAN they not pay out for failing to declare it? I don't think they can. Sure it is not unlawful for them to ASK; I might have worded that wrong. They can ask what they like, but the question is do I have to answer?

Unfortunately you are unlikely to get a definitive answer on this board; it's choc full of finger-wagging know-nothings who take great delight in castigating people for not being perfect (you know the sort of thing - someone asks about a speeding ticket and they get loads of responses along the lines of "don't speed, simple as that").


I did read somewhere about the illegality of the question about spent convictions. Might be worth Googling it.

neilmcl

wirralite wrote: »

Don't think I said £75.

wirralite wrote: »

It makes a difference of about £75 to my insurance premium is £180.

It is not unlawful for an insurer to ask for this information. You need to declare it else you could find your insurance void, and even worse you may find it difficult/very expensive getting insurance in the future.

DoaM

Insurance is a contract. If they require notification of previous convictions in the last 5 years then they are allowed to have such a term in the contract. There is nothing unlawful whatsoever.

If you fail to declare something which they have made a term of the contract then you have breached the contract and the insurer is no longer liable for your losses in the event of an incident. (The insurer would still be liable to the 3rd party, but could then pursue you for those losses).

unforeseen

All you need to know about when a conviction is spent and no longer needs to be declared can be found in http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/53

wirralite

wirralite wrote: »

Don't think I said £75. The difference in premium is £180. I have a clean licence with no points. The spent conviction remains until September.

Oops. It would seem I did say £75. I typed it and then double checked ....It is £180. Then I forgot to delete the original.

unforeseen

An endorsement is spent after 5 years (2.5 if under 18) therefore the insurance company has the right to ask for up to 5years