Speeding Offence RR84061

Habib2342

Does anyone have the link to the new speeding limit and regulations that came into effect this year ?

AdrianC

Habib2342 wrote: »

Does anyone have the link to the new speeding limit and regulations that came into effect this year ?

The only real change is that the most serious offences - the final column in that "offence seriousness" table - are now band C instead of B.

phillw

Habib2342 wrote: »

To pay a surcharge to fund victim services of £35.00 - I would understand if I had injured someone.

It's like the NHS prescription charge where sometimes the drugs cost more but more often they cost less.

You were lucky that there wasn't a victim, but there could have been. So you get to contribute to victims of other crimes.

FWIW I think it is excessive. I find the way speeding is dealt with to be a bit passive aggressive. They issue a fine because it's dangerous, but it's obviously not that dangerous as you don't receive the letter for another couple of weeks.

Car_54

Tarambor wrote: »

3 years and yes it will especially being that far over.

4 years actually. The points count for possible "totting" for 3 years, but stay on your licence for 4. And most insurers require you to declare any offences for 5 years ....

As for " especially being that far over", AFAIK all the insurer will see is an SP30 endorsement, not the speed.

Car_54

Habib2342 wrote: »

Well it seems the gods are conspiring against me and are teaching me a very expensive lesson. I just phoned the insurance company and told them the details of the offence and now I have to pay them an extra £240 or risk having my insurance cancelled. There is no point in lying as if I had an accident, they will do their checks and find out I was lying and my policy would be cancelled ...

the motoring and UK law have well and truly spanked yours truly...

But you said in post #17 that you renewed the day before you got the fine. Didn't you tell the insurer you had a pending conviction?

Otherwise, I've never heard of a premuim being increased mid-term.

AdrianC

[quote=[Deleted User];73080176]As for " especially being that far over", AFAIK all the insurer will see is an SP30 endorsement, not the speed.[/QUOTE]
They'll see that it was SP30/6pt/court, rather than SP30/3pt/FP.

phillw

[quote=[Deleted User];73080176]4 years actually. The points count for possible "totting" for 3 years, but stay on your licence for 4. And most insurers require you to declare any offences for 5 years ....[/QUOTE]

Insurers ask, I'm pretty sure you don't have to tell them once spent.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/insurance/motorinsurance/11809352/Why-over-declaring-penalty-points-lets-car-insurers-overcharge-2.8-million-drivers.html

"If firms insist on asking questions about spent convictions, then they must effectively ignore the answers they receive. Otherwise we are likely to consider they have breached their statutory duty," the Ombudsman said.
Similarly, if an insurer cancels someone's policy because they have a spent conviction they didn't disclose, a complaint will be upheld."

The stupid thing is that we shouldn't have to declare them at all, because they know it.

First off they charge you based on how many points you say you have, then after the 14 days cooling off period they say you didn't declare something and charge you extra.

shaun_from_Africa

phillw wrote: »

Insurers ask, I'm pretty sure you don't have to tell them once spent.

The majority of traffic related convictions only become spent after 5 years so insurers have the right to ask for any convictions in the previous 5 years.

andygb

Warwick_Hunt wrote: »

They are valid for totting up purposes for three years but stay on for four.

Six points will probably see an increase in your premium.

It's good to see a criminal paying the price.

The insurance companies will also ask if you have had any points or convictions in the last five years.
I totally agree, that 50 in a 30 limit deserves a harsh fine, because the 30 limits are where you find most pedestrians, who would be killed outright by a car hitting them at that speed.

AdrianC

andygb wrote: »

I totally agree, that 50 in a 30 limit deserves a harsh fine, because the 30 limits are where you find most pedestrians, who would be killed outright by a car hitting them at that speed.

Just as well he didn't kill a pedestrian on that motorway sliproad, eh?