stopped by police who tried to stich me up

[anonymous-user]

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

Now we are getting somewhere.

Many insurance companies will not insure anyone with a criminal conviction.

There are specialist insurers who will, but I suspect the price will be different.

http://www.gocompare.com/car-insurance/cover-for-d...

[Evolved]

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

Hang on, so not even motoring offences? What has a GBH charge got to do with car insurance?

Something fishy going on ere

[Roo]

s2bounce said:

The reason I said that was because the guy took the car without permission and was speeding in someone else's car, had it been someone who was innocent then yes I would care and try to help if I could!

He TWOC'd it but because your mate got off the speeding charge you couldn't care about the TWOC or non insurance issues.

[anonymous-user]

s2bounce said:

Greendubber said:

What was the 'bullst reason' you were stopped for out of interest?

Not wearing my seat belt!

That's not a bullst reason.

Thats a genuine reason.

[Evolved]

??? What? Is that true? The amount of people with daft convictions will be huge, and you're saying that they'll all struggle with car insurance?

NinjaPower said:

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

Now we are getting somewhere.

Many insurance companies will not insure anyone with a criminal conviction.

There are specialist insurers who will, but I suspect the price will be different.

http://www.gocompare.com/car-insurance/cover-for-d...

[s2bounce]

NinjaPower said:

Now we are getting somewhere.

Many insurance companies will not insure anyone with a criminal conviction.

There are specialist insurers who will, but I suspect the price will be different.

http://www.gocompare.com/car-insurance/cover-for-d...

Under the ROAD 1974 I do not have to disclose spent convictions

[Roo]

NinjaPower said:

s2bounce said:

Greendubber said:

What was the 'bullst reason' you were stopped for out of interest?

Not wearing my seat belt!

That's not a bullst reason.

Thats a genuine reason.

Yep. And then probably completely failed the infamous attitude test.

[s2bounce]

NinjaPower said:

That's not a bullst reason.

Thats a genuine reason.

But I was wearing my seat belt he couldn't see clearly as my top was black and he didn't fine me

[anonymous-user]

s2bounce said:

NinjaPower said:

Now we are getting somewhere.

Many insurance companies will not insure anyone with a criminal conviction.

There are specialist insurers who will, but I suspect the price will be different.

http://www.gocompare.com/car-insurance/cover-for-d...

Under the ROAD 1974 I do not have to disclose spent convictions

I think you are missing the point.

If an insurer tells you they will not do business with you unless you declare these things, then you need to declare them.

If you do not wish to do so, then simply find another insurer with different terms and conditions that suit you better.

Caveat: hopefully someone who works in insurance can assist with this case.

[anonymous-user]

s2bounce said:

NinjaPower said:

That's not a bullst reason.

Thats a genuine reason.

But I was wearing my seat belt he couldn't see clearly as my top was black and he didn't fine me

OK, fair enough then.

[anonymous-user]

According to the go compare link above that's not the case since the law changed in 2013

[s2bounce]

Roo said:

Yep. And then probably completely failed the infamous attitude test.

He stopped me I pulled over straight away, he came over asked me switch my engine off which I did, I then asked why he had stopped me he said I was not wearing my seat belt when I pulled the belt to dhow him it was on he said I shouldn't of been driving fast!

[Boshly]

I'm not an expert by a long chalk but I don't think they can make someone declare a spent conviction which it would appear this is. I guess there must be certain circumstances where this doesn't apply but can't see driving insurance and risk being one of them? I reiterate I'm no expert....

[Roo]

Some people are just monumentally unlucky when it comes to dealing with the police.

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

[PorkInsider]

Are you sure it wasn't the grammar police who pulled you?

[s2bounce]

NinjaPower said:

I think you are missing the point.

If an insurer tells you they will not do business with you unless you declare these things, then you need to declare them.

If you do not wish to do so, then simply find another insurer with different terms and conditions that suit you better.

Caveat: hopefully someone who works in insurance can assist with this case.

They asked for convictions in the last 5 years and I have no convictions in the last 5 years

[Boshly]

charltjr said:

According to the go compare link above that's not the case since the law changed in 2013

Not sure which you're referring to as "not the case" but the ggo compare link clearly says:

"Following the April 2013 law change, convictions considered spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 no longer need to be disclosed.

This means that such convictions can effectively be ignored after a certain amount of time, making it easier for people with a conviction to buy car insurance.

However, this change in law doesn't apply to persons whose conviction resulted in a prison sentence of more than four years."

As such OP shouldn't need to do anything except reassert he has no convictions to declare.

[allergictocheese]

NinjaPower said:

I think you are missing the point.

If an insurer tells you they will not do business with you unless you declare these things, then you need to declare them.

If you do not wish to do so, then simply find another insurer with different terms and conditions that suit you better.

Caveat: hopefully someone who works in insurance can assist with this case.

I think you are missing the point. Insurers are not entitled to make decisions based upon or demand details of convictions that are spent. That is why the RoOA exists.

[anonymous-user]

That conviction doesn't need to be disclosed and can't be taken into consideration by an insurance company.

No idea why they would ask for extra money - that would imply that a conviction (probably motoring) that they would normally charge more for was also disclosed.

[s2bounce]

Roo said:

Some people are just monumentally unlucky when it comes to dealing with the police.

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

If you're not going to offer any help then do 1