Speed Awareness Courses and Insurance Disclosure

[EU_Foreigner]

Besides hearsay, has anyone actually heard of a real case where a course changed the insurance premium or had an issue with not declaring it?

[Maximum Bobs]

EU_Foreigner said:

Besides hearsay, has anyone actually heard of a real case where a course changed the insurance premium or had an issue with not declaring it?

I've definitely been asked if I'd attended any courses, if I'd answered yes I'm sure the price of my quote would have been affected.

[Mr GrimNasty]

The law says that you have a duty to disclose it, asked directly, or not - RTA 1988 c.52 p.VII section 174(5).
Would failure to do so come back to bite you - who knows?

[mmm-five]

Mr GrimNasty said:

The law says that you have a duty to disclose it, asked directly, or not - RTA 1988 c.52 p.VII section 174(5).
Would failure to do so come back to bite you - who knows?

So would you routinely tell your insurance company that you drive at a speed appropriate for the conditions, no matter what the speed limit is?

Would you also tell your insurance company when you get a ticking off (but no conviction) by a Police Officer for speeding?

I'm sure both are material facts that an insurance company would like to know, and on your reasoning is illegal not to tell them

[Observer2]

Mr GrimNasty said:

The law says that you have a duty to disclose it, asked directly, or not - RTA 1988 c.52 p.VII section 174(5).
Would failure to do so come back to bite you - who knows?

RTA 1988s.174(5)
A person who makes a false statement or withholds any material information for the purpose of obtaining the issue ...(a) of a certificate of insurance...is guilty of an offence

If the certificate of insurance has already been issued, the withholding of material information etc (e.g. relating to a subsequent motoring offence) is not "for the purpose of obtaining the issue .. of a certificate of insurance" so is NOT an offence.

The question of what disclosure is required during the term of any policy is a matter of contract that may (probably does) vary from one insurer to the next. My D/L policy requires me to tell D/L "if any of [my] details change including .... being convicted of a motoring offence". It goes on to say "This is not a full list and you should let us know if any of the details you have given us change".

I was not originally asked whether I had attended a speed awareness course so if an alleged speeding offence is dealt with by such a course I have no obligation to disclose it. Obviously other insurers may have different policy wordings that do require disclosure.

[vonhosen]

Mill Wheel said:

vonhosen said:

I believe the question is whether you have any motoring convictions or cases pending.
Answer the question truthfully, simples.

(Oh & a speed awareness course doesn't count as a conviction, but a FPN(E) does come under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act & would need disclosing).

If you are answering the question and have a SAC pending, technically you should declare it.

Because, if you fail to turn up or give the course tutor verbals, you can have the offer overturned, and still be given the three points!

Ultimately, the ins.co. is going to WISH to know about the speeding, even if you are not obliged to tell them... YET!
They may well realise the SCPs are making a buck from it and decide they want a cut too!

I've already said answer the question truthfully & that if you have cases pending it should be declared. The original question was about having done a course & if you've done the course you do not have a conviction or prosecution pending from it.

[vonhosen]

AndrewTait said:

If we are talking about convictions -v- committing an offence, then FPN's should not count as only a court can convict you of a crime. That is why insurance companies specifically ask about FPN's and points, as people can get around the conviction wording, by taking a FPN.

How it works with Speed Awareness courses I don't know - the only people I know have been on them drive company cars and so dont give a monkeys about the insurance.

Endorseable FPN's do count as a conviction for the purposes of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act & are declarable for 5 years under it.

[10 Pence Short]

ZOLLAR said:

The speed awareness course is a punishment it costs you money which is a deterrent, if you don't take the course you get points, You were caught and you're punished.

I disagree.

The NIP arrives, you send it back confirming who was driving and the letter comes through. It says you can either be prosecuted, typically choosing FPN or Court in response, or the State will let you off if you attend a course. In other words, the State is happy not to convict or punish you on this occasion, like being let off on the roadside. The fact the course costs money is incidental to the fact these things are not provided for free by the (private) company running them, rather than as punishment and deterrent by the State.

Unless specifically asked I would not disclose one of these courses to an insurer.

On a more serious note, were I an insurer, I'd be more worried about the disparity of wording around the convictions section on comparison websites versus that of the insurers own, where they participate. I remember completing the form on one comparison site where it clearly asked for date of offence when asking me to fill it in, when most insurers are interested in date of conviction. In my case, that difference is as significant as a year.

[Mr GrimNasty]

mmm-five said:

So would you routinely tell your insurance company that you drive at a speed appropriate for the conditions, no matter what the speed limit is?

Would you also tell your insurance company when you get a ticking off (but no conviction) by a Police Officer for speeding?

I'm sure both are material facts that an insurance company would like to know, and on your reasoning is illegal not to tell them

The law whether contractual or criminal isn't concerned with trifling matters. The fact that you have come to the notice of the justice system is not trifling.

[Mr GrimNasty]

Observer2 said:

Mr GrimNasty said:

The law says that you have a duty to disclose it, asked directly, or not - RTA 1988 c.52 p.VII section 174(5).
Would failure to do so come back to bite you - who knows?

RTA 1988s.174(5)
A person who makes a false statement or withholds any material information for the purpose of obtaining the issue ...(a) of a certificate of insurance...is guilty of an offence

If the certificate of insurance has already been issued, the withholding of material information etc (e.g. relating to a subsequent motoring offence) is not "for the purpose of obtaining the issue .. of a certificate of insurance" so is NOT an offence.

The question of what disclosure is required during the term of any policy is a matter of contract that may (probably does) vary from one insurer to the next. My D/L policy requires me to tell D/L "if any of [my] details change including .... being convicted of a motoring offence". It goes on to say "This is not a full list and you should let us know if any of the details you have given us change".

I was not originally asked whether I had attended a speed awareness course so if an alleged speeding offence is dealt with by such a course I have no obligation to disclose it. Obviously other insurers may have different policy wordings that do require disclosure.

Funny how people just bend THEIR INTERPRETATION of the law to suit, and how some people pick up what you post and then argue against some point never made!

Obviously you are contractually obliged to disclose. But also interesting you should pick such a conveniently narrow definition of the word obtain, it can equally mean 'secure' etc. and it does not specify 'initially obtain' or some such so could equally be interpreted as 'initially obtain or retain the issue'.... but whatever, I make no comment. Pfffft.

[saaby93]

Mr GrimNasty said:

Funny how people just bend THEIR INTERPRETATION of the law to suit, and how some people pick up what you post and then argue against some point never made!

Is your post similar
It asks for 'material information'. For that insurers have to state in advance what they consider material information otherwise as Von says they could one day ask you why you didnt say you were 5'11".

[Nigel Worc's]

vonhosen said:

Endorseable FPN's do count as a conviction for the purposes of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act & are declarable for 5 years under it.

If it is non endorseable is it still declareable (if that's a real word, and if you know) ?

If the course in truly non declareable, why do dvla hold a record of it that they can pass to an insurer ?

[saaby93]

Nigel Worc's said:

If the course in truly non declareable, why do dvla hold a record of it that they can pass to an insurer ?

That caught my eye too
How much other none declarable information does DVLA hold? How much of it is available to an insurer or anyone? Who knew DVLA kept records of who's been on a course of any type?

[Richard C]

ZOLLAR said:

davidjpowell said:

ZOLLAR said:

thinfourth2 said:

ZOLLAR said:

But there was a punishment in the case of the speed awareness course.

no you are offered punishment or the speed awareness course

The speed awareness course is a punishment it costs you money which is a deterrent, if you don't take the course you get points, You were caught and you're punished.

Edited by ZOLLAR on Monday 26th September 16:34

You many have been caught and punished, but you have not been prosecuted.

As I said an insurer doesn't just ask if you've been prosecuted, they ask

"Has any driver had any motoring offences in the last 5 years, including fixed penalty points, endorsements, convictions or disqualifications including pending convictions"

If you speed you've committed a motoring offence.

Surely the Insurance Industry is capable of defining what they mena better than this ? How does one " have" a motoring offence ? Surely they mean " been reported for ". ( actually Zollar all the enquires I've seen mnetion " has the driver had any motoring convictions...." ) Anyway, at that stage nothing is proved - simply alleged. In the gain-driven world that has replaced the justice system, the speed awareness course is simply offered; it is the alleged offender who has the prerogative to accept it or reject it. He can reject it. After that it is down to the CPS to prosecute the alleged offence. It only becomes an offence if the court convict. Then it needs reporting, not before.

[EU_Foreigner]

Nigel Worc's said:

If it is non endorseable is it still declareable (if that's a real word, and if you know) ?

If the course in truly non declareable, why do dvla hold a record of it that they can pass to an insurer ?

Because otherwise how would they know you had already been offered a course before? I think you can only do 1 every x number of years so they need a record of it somewhere.

[Cat]

EU_Foreigner said:

Because otherwise how would they know you had already been offered a course before? I think you can only do 1 every x number of years so they need a record of it somewhere.

I don't believe the DVLA keep a record of courses drivers attend. I have checked hundreds of drivers at the roadside and also obtained numerous full copies of DVLA driver records none of them has ever mentioned speed awareness courses.

http://www.aadrivetech.com/driveraware/sasfaqs.htm - suggests that it is ACPO who maintain a national database of those offered courses.

Cat

[Observer2]

Mr GrimNasty said:

Observer2 said:

Mr GrimNasty said:

The law says that you have a duty to disclose it, asked directly, or not - RTA 1988 c.52 p.VII section 174(5).
Would failure to do so come back to bite you - who knows?

RTA 1988s.174(5)
A person who makes a false statement or withholds any material information for the purpose of obtaining the issue ...(a) of a certificate of insurance...is guilty of an offence

If the certificate of insurance has already been issued, the withholding of material information etc (e.g. relating to a subsequent motoring offence) is not "for the purpose of obtaining the issue .. of a certificate of insurance" so is NOT an offence.

The question of what disclosure is required during the term of any policy is a matter of contract that may (probably does) vary from one insurer to the next. My D/L policy requires me to tell D/L "if any of [my] details change including .... being convicted of a motoring offence". It goes on to say "This is not a full list and you should let us know if any of the details you have given us change".

I was not originally asked whether I had attended a speed awareness course so if an alleged speeding offence is dealt with by such a course I have no obligation to disclose it. Obviously other insurers may have different policy wordings that do require disclosure.

Funny how people just bend THEIR INTERPRETATION of the law to suit, and how some people pick up what you post and then argue against some point never made!

Obviously you are contractually obliged to disclose. But also interesting you should pick such a conveniently narrow definition of the word obtain, it can equally mean 'secure' etc. and it does not specify 'initially obtain' or some such so could equally be interpreted as 'initially obtain or retain the issue'.... but whatever, I make no comment. Pfffft.

1. "Obtain" is not synonymous with "retain" (clue: they're spelt differently). "Obtain" means "to gain possession of" and "retain" means "to keep possession of".

2. There is very little need for "interptetation" of whether "for the purpose of obtaining the issue .. of a certificate of insurance" imposes a statutory duty on a policyholder in possession of a current, valid insurance certificate to disclose information relating to events that occur after the certificate was issued. It does not. The plain meaning of the language is clear. If I was wrong on that (I'm not) I'm sure that one of the several serving BiB (such as vonhosen, who posted immediately after me) or practising solicitors/barristers who post here would have passed comment.

3. You are also plainly wrong in stating "Obviously you are contractually obliged to disclose" (I assume you meant attendance at a speed awareness course, which is the subject of the thread). That is another bald assertion that is, on analysis, simply "begging the question". A policyholder is "contractually obliged to disclose" if the contract requires disclosure, but (axiomatically) not otherwise. I demonstrated, by reference to the policy wording of my motor policy with Direct Line, one of the largest domestic motor insurers, that (in the case of my policy) disclosure of attendance of a speed awareness course is NOT required because that information was not part of the "details" required at the policy proposal stage. Other policy wordings may be different.

4. I'm not sure what "Pfffft" means, although it seems symbolic of the fact that your preceding arguments have as much substance as the hot air escaping from a balloon.

[EU_Foreigner]

Cat said:

EU_Foreigner said:

Because otherwise how would they know you had already been offered a course before? I think you can only do 1 every x number of years so they need a record of it somewhere.

I don't believe the DVLA keep a record of courses drivers attend. I have checked hundreds of drivers at the roadside and also obtained numerous full copies of DVLA driver records none of them has ever mentioned speed awareness courses.

http://www.aadrivetech.com/driveraware/sasfaqs.htm - suggests that it is ACPO who maintain a national database of those offered courses.

Cat

Thanks for that, learn something new every day

[Gow3r]

So major bump as I am in this situation now.

I have been offered a course, which I have accepted and will take early next month. Insurance due for renewal next month but will be after date of course.

Correct me if I am wrong: but unless specifically asked about the course (if I renew with current company) or when filling in a form for a new company: I should not disclose that I will have been on a Speed Awareness course.

Noticed in the news last november that Admiral ask specifically, I am sure they are not the only company..

Thanks in advance.


BTW Zollar your responses previously gave me more questions than answers.

[ging84]

there have been many many more threads on this since this one which might have more up to date info