No longer have to delcare DR10 to insurance company.

Aretnap

AdrianC wrote: »

And make sure you give them your driving licence number, so they discover the offence on your record sooner rather than later.

No need - the insurer does not need to be informed of the offence now, even if they ask, and if they do find out about it (later or sooner) they have no right to disadvantage the OP in any way because of it. That's sort of the point of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act - see the link in post 8.

Zero. You accepted that was the premium for the full year's policy, calculated knowing that was the offence date.

That part's correct - the provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act apply at the time the policy is incepted - not midway through it. If the offence is unspent at the time of inception the insurer is allowed to take it into account when setting the premium for the whole year (or however long the policy lasts) if they like - even if it becomes spent during the course of the policy.

So if you've got a conviction which is which is 4 year 11 months old you might choose to (a) accept whatever the insurer offers for an annual premium (and maybe consider cancelling after a month), (b) look for short term one month policy, then take out an annual policy once the conviction is spent or (c) go without insurance (and presumably a car) for a month, then take out an annual policy once the conviction is spent. What you can't do is insist that an insurer gives you an annual policy and only applies one twelfth of their normal loading for that conviction. It's either spent at the time of inception or it isn't; there's no in-between.

foxy-stoat

Aretnap wrote: »

No need - the insurer does not need to be informed of the offence now, even if they ask, and if they do find out about it (later or sooner) they have no right to disadvantage the OP in any way because of it. That's sort of the point of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act - see the link in post 8.

I would tread a bit carefully and read each question on the application form very carefully before making an incorrect answer.

"Have you ever been disqualified from driving?" you cannot answer no even if the conviction has been spent, the fact that you have been disqualified is relevant - although the reason for being banned would be due to a spent conviction. I would also call and check, getting the time/date and person you spoke to, just incase you make a non-disclosure and have to fight them to pay a claim.

Car_54

foxy-stoat wrote: »

I would tread a bit carefully and read each question on the application form very carefully before making an incorrect answer.

"Have you ever been disqualified from driving?" you cannot answer no even if the conviction has been spent, the fact that you have been disqualified is relevant - although the reason for being banned would be due to a spent conviction.

Are you sure about that? Isn't the whole point of the rehab law that you can wipe the slate clean and do NOT have to admit to past disqualifications.

The Act (section 4) says "... a person who has become a rehabilitated person for the purposes of this Act in respect of a conviction shall be treated for all purposes in law as a person who has not committed or been charged with or prosecuted for or convicted of or sentenced for the offence or offences which were the subject of that conviction"

twhitehousescat

thought the usual question wording was "have you had any accidents , claims or CONVICTIONS in the last "x" years" , NOT have you ever been banned from driving

sheramber

JoeyJoe wrote: »

I mentioned in my post it's around 60%. My documents say the following:

Length of time cover in force - Percentage of premium payable
Up to 1 month - 25%
Up to 2 months - 40%
Up to 3 months - 50%
Up to 4 months - 65%
Up to 5 months - 70%
Up to 6 months - 75%
Up to 7 months - 90%
Up to 8 months - 90%
Over 8 months - 100%

How do you arrive at 60% refund?

Policy in force for 3 months you pay 50% of th premium so refund 50%

Policy in force for 4 months you pay 65% of the premium so refund 35%

Aretnap

Car_54 wrote: »

Are you sure about that? Isn't the whole point of the rehab law that you can wipe the slate clean and do NOT have to admit to past disqualifications.

The Act (section 4) says "... a person who has become a rehabilitated person for the purposes of this Act in respect of a conviction shall be treated for all purposes in law as a person who has not committed or been charged with or prosecuted for or convicted of or sentenced for the offence or offences which were the subject of that conviction"

Indeed, and more specifically (link)

Subject to the provisions of any order made under subsection (4) below, where a question seeking information with respect to a person’s previous convictions, offences, conduct or circumstances is put to him or to any other person otherwise than in proceedings before a judicial authority—
(a)the question shall be treated as not relating to spent convictions or to any circumstances ancillary to spent convictions, and the answer thereto may be framed accordingly; and
(b)the person questioned shall not be subjected to any liability or otherwise prejudiced in law by reason of any failure to acknowledge or disclose a spent conviction or any circumstances ancillary to a spent conviction in his answer to the question.

The law is quite clear - insurers, employers, etc can ask if you have ever been disqualified from driving all they like, but if the conviction that the disqualification relates to is spent then you have an absolute right to answer "no".

There are exceptions which relate to applications for certain jobs which require a high degree of trust, such as the police, accountancy, or jobs which involve working with children, but there is no exception for insurance companies.

Billy_Bullocks

Aretnap wrote: »

Indeed, and more specifically (link)

Subject to the provisions of any order made under subsection (4) below, where a question seeking information with respect to a person’s previous convictions, offences, conduct or circumstances is put to him or to any other person otherwise than in proceedings before a judicial authority—
(a)the question shall be treated as not relating to spent convictions or to any circumstances ancillary to spent convictions, and the answer thereto may be framed accordingly; and
(b)the person questioned shall not be subjected to any liability or otherwise prejudiced in law by reason of any failure to acknowledge or disclose a spent conviction or any circumstances ancillary to a spent conviction in his answer to the question.

The law is quite clear - insurers, employers, etc can ask if you have ever been disqualified from driving all they like, but if the conviction that the disqualification relates to is spent then you have an absolute right to answer "no".

There are exceptions which relate to applications for certain jobs which require a high degree of trust, such as the police, accountancy, or jobs which involve working with children, but there is no exception for insurance companies.

Are you sure you can lie and answer no?

Aretnap

Billy_Bullocks wrote: »

Are you sure you can lie and answer no?

Yes, of course you can - that's what the act says. The question may be interpreted as not applying to spent convictions or circumstances related to them - which makes the correct answer "no".

If you weren't allowed to "lie" the law would be pretty pointless. If you only had the right to refuse to answer the question, or something like that, every job interview a rehabilitated offender went to would go something like this

"Have you ever been convicted of a criminal offence?"
"I refuse to answer that question on account of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act"
"Next!"

Billy_Bullocks

Aretnap wrote: »

Yes, of course you can - that's what the act says. The question may be interpreted as not applying to spent convictions or circumstances related to them - which makes the correct answer "no".

If you weren't allowed to "lie" the law would be pretty pointless. If you only had the right to refuse to answer the question, or something like that, every job interview a rehabilitated offender went to would go something like this

"Have you ever been convicted of a criminal offence?"
"I refuse to answer that question on account of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act"
"Next!"

You can refuse to answer and the act states you shall not be asked, I don't think it states you can lie.

Car_54

Billy_Bullocks wrote: »

You can refuse to answer and the act states you shall not be asked, I don't think it states you can lie.

There's no need to lie. As stated already, the Act (section 4) says "... a person who has become a rehabilitated person for the purposes of this Act in respect of a conviction shall be treated for all purposes in law as a person who has not committed or been charged with or prosecuted for or convicted of or sentenced for the offence or offences which were the subject of that conviction"

In other words, the law says you have not been convicted etc, so you can truthfully answer "No".