stopped by police who tried to stich me up
Discussion
Pcot said:
ging84 said:
Pcot said:
I'm no expert on this, but my take on convictions is.....
Motoring convictions, points on licence etc, stay on you licence for 3 years. After this time, they are 'spent'.
Criminal convictions stay with you for life, so never 'spent'.
If the OP's insurance Co asked if he had any criminal convictions, and he said no, here lies the problem, and he's in the s
te.
wrong on all countsMotoring convictions, points on licence etc, stay on you licence for 3 years. After this time, they are 'spent'.
Criminal convictions stay with you for life, so never 'spent'.
If the OP's insurance Co asked if he had any criminal convictions, and he said no, here lies the problem, and he's in the s
te.My 2P (and I know this ignored the ROA and DPA concerns, but from a 'do you have to pay your insurers' stance: in the past, you had to be up front with your insurer about everything they might like to know, whether or not they asked, but not any more.
In a simple way, if they don't ask, they don't get to know (assuming this is consumer insurance and you don't use your car for business).
So unless the convictions aren't spent, you didn't have to tell you insurer and they can't do anything.
In a simple way, if they don't ask, they don't get to know (assuming this is consumer insurance and you don't use your car for business).
So unless the convictions aren't spent, you didn't have to tell you insurer and they can't do anything.
Edited by Twin1 on Friday 17th April 21:34
It really isn't difficult
The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act is very straightforward and a simple google will give a summary.
Doesn't matter who asks what - a spent conviction doesn't need to be disclosed and even if it is it cannot be taken into consideration in any way.
so even if you disclose that you are a drug dealing gbh inflicting drink driving kitten fker - if the convictions are spent they cannot do anything about it.
The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act is very straightforward and a simple google will give a summary.
Doesn't matter who asks what - a spent conviction doesn't need to be disclosed and even if it is it cannot be taken into consideration in any way.
so even if you disclose that you are a drug dealing gbh inflicting drink driving kitten f
ker - if the convictions are spent they cannot do anything about it.Twin1 said:
My 2P: in the past, you had to be up front with your insurer about everything they might like to know, whether or not they asked, but not any more.
How long in the past. The original rehabilitation of offenders act came into force in 1974 and has applied to insurance contracts since ...1974.That means that no one born since 1957 has ever had to tell their insurance everything, even if they specifically asked. If your offence was spent, you haven't had to tell them for the last 41 years.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
How long in the past. The original rehabilitation of offenders act came into force in 1974 and has applied to insurance contracts since ...1974.
That means that no one born since 1957 has ever had to tell their insurance everything, even if they specifically asked. If your offence was spent, you haven't had to tell them for the last 41 years.
Aside from the ROA, and I'm sure various other minor exceptions, under April 2014. For clarity, this is a purely contractual stance e.g. when arranging insurance if the insurer didn't ask anything about convictions, in any context, you would have had to tell them. That means that no one born since 1957 has ever had to tell their insurance everything, even if they specifically asked. If your offence was spent, you haven't had to tell them for the last 41 years.
But you don't any more, which is swell!
GC8 said:
Id be writing to the force's Professional Standards department, probably making a complaint in person at a local station and Id also write to the Chief Constable expressing your dismay at his officers' disgraceful (and possibly criminal) behaviour and also requesting that he confirm that your convictions are spent under the RoOA, which for starters is the least that he can do.
It's up to the OP of course, as it's his time and effort, but to complain to PSD, visit a nick and write to the Chief Constable is effectively doing the same thing three times. If the OP wants to make a complaint, his best route would be either direct to PSD (details of which will probably be on the force website) OR in person at his local police station (or by phone if he prefers, but get an incident/log number). Depending on the "level" of the allegation (criminal or "just" discipline), a complaint to PSD will either get sent to the officer's supervisor to (initially) deal with. If the complaint made in person/on the phone becomes "criminal", it'd go to PSD.Anything that goes from the OP to the Chief will either get sent to PSD and/or local supervision, so he's probably (IMHO) wasting his time with that approach. If the OP does write to the chief, he will in all probability get an acknowledgment, and advised the complaint has been forwarded to PSD/local supervision to be investigated/dealt with.
Bigyoke said:
carinaman said:
Police Comms centres record their calls.
So do Insurance companies.
It'll all be on that recording between the police and the OP's insurers. How does the OP or their legal team secure that audio recording?
Without much difficulty it appears!So do Insurance companies.
It'll all be on that recording between the police and the OP's insurers. How does the OP or their legal team secure that audio recording?
But Carinaman you might be right, the second call has "gone missing", clearly evidence of a HUGE conspiracy!!
That wouldn't make sense given how call recording systems are connected to telephony systems.
I am saying they're conspiring to do the OP over?
Well several people on the thread have posted that it's a serious matter. If they're in risk of a severe telling off or a possible offence are they going to put their hands up and say 'It's a fair cop, you got me bang to rights' or could they be tempted to change their story or cover it up?
What about the reputation of the insurance company? Would it be newsworthy? Would the recording of the first call make news websites or insurance and/or IT trade news websites?
The police officer that told the OP's insurer he is an idiot came to that conclusion from the OP not wearing his seatbelt?
Or the police officer came to the conclusion that the OP is an idiot as they've not told their insurer of spent convictions?
s2bounce well done on getting the recording of the call! I am impressed.
s2bounce said:
The convictions were for gbh and I was given a fine and community service, all these were when I was under 17 years old now I'm 28
so NOT motoring convictions, but still "spent". I think a visit to a solicitor will be needed as YOU don't have to answer "have you ever been convicted of......" with a "yes" if your convictions are spent...unless it's for a CRB check for working in a school, or Defence Vetting check. 
carinaman said:
s2bounce, I'd find it useful to know how long it took them to get the recording of the call to you after you first requested it. Thanks.
I asked for the recording to be played to me whilst on the phone, (call centres can do this) they found it straight away, I made a mistake as I should of recorded the call myself oh well will just have to wait for a copy of the recording which they say could take up to 40 days!"Under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (ROA), ‘spent’ convictions do not have to be disclosed to insurers, irrespective of what questions are asked. However, depending on the sentence, convictions remain ‘unspent’ for many years (sometimes forever). The ROA is very complex, making it difficult for consumers (and insurers) to know what is protected by the Act. However, there are a number of ways to establish whether a conviction is spent."
Spent convictions do not need to be disclosed to your insurer even if they were to ask you to disclose them as the ROA 1974 would protect you
Spent convictions do not need to be disclosed to your insurer even if they were to ask you to disclose them as the ROA 1974 would protect you
carinaman said:
Why would they have one recording and not the other?
No idea, but you do realise it's the insurance co. and not the Police who can't find it don't you?
That wouldn't make sense given how call recording systems are connected to telephony systems.
Maybe it was from/to a line that isn't connected to a recording system?
I am saying they're conspiring to do the OP over?
Question or statement?
Well several people on the thread have posted that it's a serious matter. If they're in risk of a severe telling off or a possible offence are they going to put their hands up and say 'It's a fair cop, you got me bang to rights' or could they be tempted to change their story or cover it up?
It is a serious matter & if the op complains I would expect it to be referred to the CPS/PF/PPS for a direction on whether prosecution was appropriate. Although I don't think they would prosecute in this case, if convicted the officer could potentially lose their job, so it's about as serious as it gets for him. Does that mean he'll attempt to cover it up, maybe, maybe not. Are some officers dumb enough to try it, probably, but anyone who knows anything about PSD will tell you that's it the attempt to cover up your mistake that will hang you more certainly than the original act. In this case he'd have to convince a complete stranger to PtCJ, which seems unlikely. Whats more likely is a "no comment" interview ( as per numerous PH threads ) & then see what way the dice roll.
What about the reputation of the insurance company? Would it be newsworthy? Would the recording of the first call make news websites or insurance and/or IT trade news websites?
Reputation of the Insurance co. 😆😆😆
The police officer that told the OP's insurer he is an idiot came to that conclusion from the OP not wearing his seatbelt?
Or the police officer came to the conclusion that the OP is an idiot as they've not told their insurer of spent convictions?
Reading this and other threads by the OP it seems that he is one of those individuals that, fairly or unfairly, has an above average involvement with the Police in his area. Perhaps he was known to the officer before, perhaps he's well known to lots of officers in the area, irrespective of how he came to that opinion it's not one he should have shared with the Insurance Co.
s2bounce well done on getting the recording of the call! I am impressed.
No idea, but you do realise it's the insurance co. and not the Police who can't find it don't you?
That wouldn't make sense given how call recording systems are connected to telephony systems.
Maybe it was from/to a line that isn't connected to a recording system?
I am saying they're conspiring to do the OP over?
Question or statement?
Well several people on the thread have posted that it's a serious matter. If they're in risk of a severe telling off or a possible offence are they going to put their hands up and say 'It's a fair cop, you got me bang to rights' or could they be tempted to change their story or cover it up?
It is a serious matter & if the op complains I would expect it to be referred to the CPS/PF/PPS for a direction on whether prosecution was appropriate. Although I don't think they would prosecute in this case, if convicted the officer could potentially lose their job, so it's about as serious as it gets for him. Does that mean he'll attempt to cover it up, maybe, maybe not. Are some officers dumb enough to try it, probably, but anyone who knows anything about PSD will tell you that's it the attempt to cover up your mistake that will hang you more certainly than the original act. In this case he'd have to convince a complete stranger to PtCJ, which seems unlikely. Whats more likely is a "no comment" interview ( as per numerous PH threads ) & then see what way the dice roll.
What about the reputation of the insurance company? Would it be newsworthy? Would the recording of the first call make news websites or insurance and/or IT trade news websites?
Reputation of the Insurance co. 😆😆😆
The police officer that told the OP's insurer he is an idiot came to that conclusion from the OP not wearing his seatbelt?
Or the police officer came to the conclusion that the OP is an idiot as they've not told their insurer of spent convictions?
Reading this and other threads by the OP it seems that he is one of those individuals that, fairly or unfairly, has an above average involvement with the Police in his area. Perhaps he was known to the officer before, perhaps he's well known to lots of officers in the area, irrespective of how he came to that opinion it's not one he should have shared with the Insurance Co.
s2bounce well done on getting the recording of the call! I am impressed.I think it is a concern given that Chris Grayling sneaked new laws through before parliament closed meaning that it's cheaper to plead guilty even if the accused may not be.
When Grayling's made it more expensive for people to get justice in court I think it is important that any incident involving the police trying it on, or making it up as they go along should be challenged.
It's not the OP's fault if the police officers involved and their insurer are ignorant of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.
When Grayling's made it more expensive for people to get justice in court I think it is important that any incident involving the police trying it on, or making it up as they go along should be challenged.
It's not the OP's fault if the police officers involved and their insurer are ignorant of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.
mikal83 said:
Of course cops know all about the ROA. Its pretty basic. BUT OP, did you ask why the cops felt they had to call the insurer.
I'm guessing the police rang the Insurer mainly due to motor trade policies for part time traders having a tendency to be abused eg people who are not bonafide traders taking out motortrade policies thinking it covers them to drive any car. In reality there are a number of restrictions on the policy the main ones being you need to be a genuine motor trader.If you also throw in there being requirements to inform the MID or the Insurer of most of your stock vehicles within a certain amount of time but not neccessarily immediately. Here's a link to an MID leaflet on a traders responsibility to notify vehicles to the database and in what circumstances http://www.mib.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/E5BCBA75-D5CE-4...
Traffic Officers frequently check with Insurers for part time motor traders to check everything is in order as the system is frequently abused by p/t traders and people pretending to be p/t traders.
When I had the miss fortune to have dealings in these types of policies we would frequently receive calls from traffic officers and / or the Insurers. One of the most common causes were the p/t trader adding their friend who had no connection with the business as a named driver so they could drive any vehicle. (This was often done as a way for the trader to make £500 off their friend for an any vehicle cover. The reality was the named driver was generally only covered to drive vehicles (Genuinely) owned or in the custody of the actual trader and being used in connection with the traders motor trade business. The Traf Pol would stop the drivers on a Saturday night where the named driver was clearly driving for private use (Which was not covered) and the police suspected the car belonged to the named driver and not the motor trader.
You also have the attitude test
carinaman said:
Being a car trader isn't illegal
Correct. However pretending to an insurer that you are a motor trader so that you can obtain cheap any vehicle cover could well be depending on the exact circumstances.
carinaman said:
just as being an idiot isn't.
Which is fortunate for a good many people. Cat
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff