Driving License records to go online
Discussion
davepoth said:
Oh, and what a palaver that was. 
I went with the insurance company named after a town where there was a famous battle. It took around three months before I managed to argue them into the ground on a point which is settled in law and in their own trade body's guidance.
The rehabilitation period that stands at the moment for most motoring offences is the fine, which has a period of five years. That's how they can ask about five years. The three years is how long speeding points stay on the licence.
For a drink driving offence, where the points stay on the licence for eleven years (I think) the ruling rehabilitation period is usually still the five years for a fine, and the rehabilitation period is king.
I thought it was 4 years??I went with the insurance company named after a town where there was a famous battle. It took around three months before I managed to argue them into the ground on a point which is settled in law and in their own trade body's guidance.
The rehabilitation period that stands at the moment for most motoring offences is the fine, which has a period of five years. That's how they can ask about five years. The three years is how long speeding points stay on the licence.
For a drink driving offence, where the points stay on the licence for eleven years (I think) the ruling rehabilitation period is usually still the five years for a fine, and the rehabilitation period is king.
https://www.gov.uk/penalty-points-endorsements/how...
Dr Jekyll said:
I know perfectly well why insurance companies want this information. The question I am asking is whether on line access includes convictions which do not currently have to be disclosed. It isn't a question about insurance companies it's a question about rehabilitation periods.
We'll feel free to share then, as you clearly have an insight into this. DoubleSix said:
You're confusing the 5 year rehab period for a fine with 4 years points are on a licence. agtlaw said:
DoubleSix said:
You're confusing the 5 year rehab period for a fine with the 4 year period points are on a licence. LoonR1 said:
Hypothetically speaking (and simplistically) I'm an insurer and I know that there is a 90% chance that someone with 3 SP30s gathered over a 5 year period is likely to make a claim.
Surely that logic can be completely turned around, i.e. someone with 3 SP30s is only one more conviction away from a ban, and is therefore likely to be driving more carefully than someone with a clean licence, and hence is a lower risk?agtlaw said:
LoonR1 said:
Because insurers want to know if you're a risk or not to price appropriately. If you have a load of convictions within the period they ask about then you are considered a higher risk than those with fewer or none. They won't see details of convictions that are not on your licence.
What about spent drink driving convictions? On licence for 11 years, spent after 5. Surely the question is "How can the Government apply a greater sanction for. Drink driving offence committed in years 5.1 to 10 of a minimum 3 year ban when the original offence is spent?"
Insurers will only get info that they ask for or that is on a licence AFAICS. There is no reason for further data to be shared with us and equally we are pretty good at panicking when we get info that we shouldn't have had shared with us and calling it out.
gshughes said:
Surely that logic can be completely turned around, i.e. someone with 3 SP30s is only one more conviction away from a ban, and is therefore likely to be driving more carefully than someone with a clean licence, and hence is a lower risk?
You might think so anecdotally, but as the stats and experience of claims say otherwise then you're arguing a losing point. gshughes said:
LoonR1 said:
Hypothetically speaking (and simplistically) I'm an insurer and I know that there is a 90% chance that someone with 3 SP30s gathered over a 5 year period is likely to make a claim.
Surely that logic can be completely turned around, i.e. someone with 3 SP30s is only one more conviction away from a ban, and is therefore likely to be driving more carefully than someone with a clean licence, and hence is a lower risk?If people with 9 points really were less likely to claim an enterprising insurer would be able to make a tidy profit by offering them a discount and snapping up all those low risk customers. If none of them do, that would tend to suggest that they're not lower risk.
LoonR1 said:
Insurers will only get info that they ask for or that is on a licence AFAICS. There is no reason for further data to be shared with us and equally we are pretty good at panicking when we get info that we shouldn't have had shared with us and calling it out.
But in my case the record on the licence was not an accurate representation of the offences they could use to calculate the premium; however they saw no problem with that. As I have mentioned before on this forum there is an interesting situation to look forward to in the near future with the rehabilitation period for fines set to drop to 12 months. that's going to have an interesting impact.davepoth said:
But in my case the record on the licence was not an accurate representation of the offences they could use to calculate the premium; however they saw no problem with that. As I have mentioned before on this forum there is an interesting situation to look forward to in the near future with the rehabilitation period for fines set to drop to 12 months. that's going to have an interesting impact.
If it goes the way you think it will then it won't be good for those without points. Here's an (overly simplistic) example:An insurer expectes to pay out £1m this year in claims. It has 1000 customers all of whom are identical except for the points on their licences.
400 of them have no points, 300 have one set of FPNs each, 200 have 2 sets of FPNs and 100 have 3 sets of FPNs each. All FPNs are over 12 months old
At the moment the insurer charges the former the least and the latter the most. Lets say the split is:
No points: £725
3 points: £1100
6 points: £1500
9 points: £2000
Total: £1.1m to give a 10% surplus to pay operating costs and a small profit
Al that can happen now if this has to be discounted as a rating factor is that everyone pays £1100, as the change in the rule doesn't mean nobody crashes anymore. Basically all the drivers with points get to have a reduced premium and the safer drivers (experience based so lets avoif the anecdotes) get to subsidise them.
In reality there's now no penalty (or a very small one) for gathering points on your licence from an insurance premium perspective, so I may as well speed a bit more and drive like a t
t a bot more often too. Of course that increases my chances of a claim, so the £1m payout might become £1.5m and premiums go up to compensate.LoonR1 said:
Al that can happen now if this has to be discounted as a rating factor is that everyone pays £1100, as the change in the rule doesn't mean nobody crashes anymore. Basically all the drivers with points get to have a reduced premium and the safer drivers (experience based so lets avoif the anecdotes) get to subsidise them.
I guess from your posts that you're in "the trade". Is there a concern about this change, or is it the same sort of thing as we went through for the gender issue?davepoth said:
I guess from your posts that you're in "the trade". Is there a concern about this change, or is it the same sort of thing as we went through for the gender issue?
No real concern, after all we're going to force everyone to be microchipped and have a black box in the car that not only feeds us data on your driving, but also sexual preferences and all other personal information. No concern for us. We are asking questions about your driving record and will continue. If you don't want to docs lose then we'll decline to offer cover and you can try your luck elsewhere.
If ratings factors are removed then flat premiums for all are the only option, so those with more than one vehicle / car and those with a good driving record are going to suffer as they subsidise the worse drivers even more than currently.
LoonR1 said:
No concern for us. We are asking questions about your driving record and will continue. If you don't want to docs lose then we'll decline to offer cover and you can try your luck elsewhere.
Really? I thought the Ombudsman had already stated that he would automatically find in favour of anyone in this position several years ago, in a ruling regarding drink driving that will be the future position for any offence dealt with by way of a fine (rehabilitation period much shorter than the time the endorsement stays on the licence).http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications...
davepoth said:
LoonR1 said:
No concern for us. We are asking questions about your driving record and will continue. If you don't want to docs lose then we'll decline to offer cover and you can try your luck elsewhere.
Really? I thought the Ombudsman had already stated that he would automatically find in favour of anyone in this position several years ago, in a ruling regarding drink driving that will be the future position for any offence dealt with by way of a fine (rehabilitation period much shorter than the time the endorsement stays on the licence).http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications...
Whilst everyone bangs on about insurance why aren't you more focuses don't hints like the automatic 3 year ban if caught within 10 years again when the conviction is spent in 5 years. Surely that's more unlawful.
LoonR1 said:
Dr Jekyll said:
I know perfectly well why insurance companies want this information. The question I am asking is whether on line access includes convictions which do not currently have to be disclosed. It isn't a question about insurance companies it's a question about rehabilitation periods.
We'll feel free to share then, as you clearly have an insight into this. Dr Jekyll said:
LoonR1 said:
Dr Jekyll said:
I know perfectly well why insurance companies want this information. The question I am asking is whether on line access includes convictions which do not currently have to be disclosed. It isn't a question about insurance companies it's a question about rehabilitation periods.
We'll feel free to share then, as you clearly have an insight into this. Explain why we do.
And no we won't get information that we're not supposed to have and we won't ask for it either.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff