Insurance void IN10

ladylorraine

Hi my son was convicted of drink driving with no insurance 2 years ago.(which he deserved) He was told by the court he was getting a ban anyway so the no insurance made no difference. He was given a D10, ban and course but was never issued a IN10. He has taken insurance out on a new car and disclosed the D10 but not the IN10 as he was never issued one.. His car has been subject to an arson attack but the insurance have been informed by DVLA of a IN10 and voided the insurance. My question is if my son has had no written confirmation of any IN10 to confirm (ie never issued one) to the insurance company then how can the insurance be void? Please help

FlameCloud

Is the IN10 on his online license?

societys_child

I don't think you've found a loophole to be honest.

csgohan4

IN10 : https://www.gov.uk/penalty-points-endorsements/endorsement-codes-and-penalty-points


so he would have had this anyways, because he was driving uninsured.


Your son should have declared EVERYTHING, now he will likely be uninsurable as he now has to declare he now has had insurance cancelled.


Another thing for your son to learn from

paddyandstumpy

Given the drink drive conviction and ban, the driving without insurance conviction and ban, and the arson attack; luck would appear to be against your son when it comes to motoring.

Best for all if he hangs up his driving gloves.

Aretnap

There's no "written confirmation" of endorsements anymore because the paper driving licence counterpart has been abolished.* The definitive record of endorsements is held electronically and can be accessed here.

When you're convicted of more than one offence committed on the same occasion, you usually only get the points/ban for the more serious one, so he may not have got any points for the driving without insurance offence. However AIUI he would still have an endorsement which would show on is driving record (if he didn't, the DVLA would not have known about the conviction), and in any event it's still a matter of fact that he was convicted of the offence, so if he was asked about his convictions he should have declared it.

Have a read at the Financial Ombudsman's guidance on non-disclosure here. He might argue that his failure to disclose the conviction stemmed from confusion about what he was required to disclose rather than a deliberate attempt to conceal information, (especially if he got no points) and therefore that it should be treated as careless rather than deliberate non-disclosure. However if the insurer would not have offered him cover had they known about the no insurance conviction as well then that doesn't help him much, as the end result would be the same - a declined claim and a cancelled policy.

*Someone will probably jump in to proudly say that they still have an old-style paper licence which is 30 years old and falling to pieces and still has written endorsements on it. Bully for them, but for normal people there's no written record.

ciderboy2009

I assume he pleaded guilty? If so then he will have had both charges read out to him in court so would have been fully aware that both applied.

adam0303

Have you checked his licence online on the DVLA website as it will say on there current convictions

[Deleted User]

paddyandstumpy wrote: »

Given the drink drive conviction and ban, the driving without insurance conviction and ban, and the arson attack; luck would appear to be against your son when it comes to motoring.

Best for all if he hangs up his driving gloves.

Some cynical people would think insurance fraud will be added to list of things to happen....

EdGasketTheSecond

ladylorraine wrote: »

Hi my son was convicted of drink driving with no insurance 2 years ago.(which he deserved) His car has been subject to an arson attack but the insurance have been informed by DVLA of a IN10 and voided the insurance.

karma.........

Deewm76

Drink driving usually carries a 12-18 month ban (while insured), as your son had 2 convictions he received a longer ban (hence relevance of insurance being nil in void). His insurance premium would been far more with disclosures.