stopped by police who tried to stich me up

[ZOLLAR]

Sheepshanks said:

ZOLLAR said:

Dave Hedgehog said:

Xtravia9 said:

Why not just give them the proof they are asking for?

i thought they could just look it up online now?

Still need driver number to get access, quicker to call the DVLA.

I wouldn't normally reply to someone who hasn't read the thread but as you're in insurance - he has convictions that aren't related to driving.

Ah yes, I see it was his next post down.
Interesting, some Motor insurers do still ask for non motoring convictions but it's not very common these days I believe.
As the insurer I work for doesn't need to know I'm unsure how this is proven then.

[anonymous-user]

Could it possibly be a case of: "you aren't legally obliged to tell us about spent convictions but now that we know about them we will cancel your policy unless you pay us more"?

[PAULJ5555]

s2bounce said:

I have a motor trade policy and brought the car this morning it takes 24 hours sometimes for it show on the database but it was still showing as insured when I brought it from the previous owner

How have you got a trade policy? Did you say you worked in claims management - office work. Just wanted to know how you qualify as I was looking at getting one.

[selym]

NinjaPower said:

selym said:

NinjaPower said:

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

Oh God; really?

Yep, really.

Straight up.

I can see how this one'll end up if we get an expert!

[anonymous-user]

Eclassy said:

carinaman said:

So the OP should seek some proper independent legal advice before complaining directly to the police?

Definitely.

You dont want them knowing your plans/full details of case as they will magic up a defence to suit.

What difference does it make? If there's a misconduct matter to be answered then they'll have time to prepare a "defence" whether or not the OP takes legal advice or not.

What do you think is going to happen? The OP comes in with a solicitor and it magically alters things? All the data and potential evidence is held by the police and insurance company in an electronic format anyway.

If he should seek legal advice (for the really clear cut circumstances he's describing ) then it shouldn't be for your fictional reasons.

[StottyEvo]

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...

You do realise the OP is most likely in the right? You're letting your prejudices get in the way.

[anonymous-user]

StottyEvo said:

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...

You do realise the OP is most likely in the right? You're letting your prejudices get in the way.

To be fair to Roo, the OP and his friends do seem to be..... how should I put this ..... very unlucky based on recent posts

[TwigtheWonderkid]

ZOLLAR said:

Interesting, some Motor insurers do still ask for non motoring convictions but it's not very common these days I believe.

Any motor insurance I have taken out has always asked about criminal convictions, and if I'd EVER had any.

But as said, the Rehabilitation of Offenders act overrides their request for information and if a conviction is spent, then it's as if it never happened, so no need to disclose it.

The fact that the OP was 17 at the time means he was a minor, so the rehabilitation period is halved anyway.

Insurance companies hate the rehabilitation act, and will charge people for spent offences on a regular basis unless the individual is clued up enough to challenge it. Then they back down immediately. Take note anyone aged 18-22 paying extra for motoring offences incurred when 17. You may not need to be paying extra.

[Bradley1500]

s2bounce said:

I have a motor trade policy and brought the car this morning it takes 24 hours sometimes for it show on the database

I imagine it will vary from insurer to insurer, but my cousin was refused to be added to my dad's motor trade policy due to a non-motoring conviction which was over five years old, yet he never had any issues when insuring his regular car himself.

[mikal83]

I just cant get my head around the ......Cops called my insurer and told them about my past record. Isn't that illegal?

[GC8]

If true its enough to jeopardise their jobs.

[Dog Star]

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.

No you don't have to tell them. Rehabilitation of offenders act. They have no right to such information.

[dogzilla]

NinjaPower said:

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

NinjaPower said:

Could it possibly be a case of: "you aren't legally obliged to tell us about spent convictions but now that we know about them we will cancel your policy unless you pay us more"?

I think it's time you stop posting in this thread. You clearly haven't got the slightest clue what you are talking about. You got pulled up on page 2 for talking crap and yet it's page 5 and you are still here talking more bks.

If he doesn't have to disclose convictions then they have no right to ask him to provide any information on them. Nor can they penalize him for it.

Let me quote from the legislation:

ROA 1974 said:

a conviction which has become spent or any circumstances ancillary thereto, or any failure to disclose a spent conviction or any such circumstances, shall not be a proper ground for dismissing or excluding a person from any office, profession, occupation or employment, or for prejudicing him in any way in any occupation or employment.

And some more relevent information from the Financial Ombudsman:

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications...

fos said:

A recent High Court decision (in the case, R v DVLA & Another, ex parte Pearson [2002]) indicates that it is an unlawful breach of statutory duty for firms to rely on endorsements relating to spent convictions in order to disadvantage a driver.

Case fkin closed. Will you sad acts do something useful instead of cluttering up these threads with your useless commentary.

Someone comes asking for genuine advice and all he gets is saddo's jumping down their neck talking rubbish, digging up old post history, making digs at his circumstances. I have no idea who the guy is but I'm grown up enough not to start stereotyping someone and making asumptions. It's pointless and it's only because your lives are so sad that you feel the need to sht on others misfortune to such an extent.

Edited by dogzilla on Friday 17th April 16:17

[Xtravia9]

Dog Star said:

No you don't have to tell them. Rehabilitation of offenders act. They have no right to such information.

His problem is that the police have told them he has an outstanding conviction, and he says that he doesn't. At the moment its his word against that of the police.

Even if he shows them that this conviction is spent, they might not believe its the same conviction.

[GC8]

Dog Star said:

No you don't have to tell them. Rehabilitation of offenders act. They have no right to such information.

Further to this: the RoOA makes the correct and honest answer 'no', after the conviction becomes spent.

There are some prescribed circumstances where spent convictions have to be declared (Enhanced CRB checks and firearms licencing applications), but for the most part a persons spent conviction is no ones business but theirs.

[thelawnet]

So how long was your sentence, when were you sentenced, and when did you get out of jail?

Also were you by any chance driving a flashy car?

Edited by thelawnet on Friday 17th April 17:12

[Rovinghawk]

dogzilla said:

Will you sad acts do something useful instead of cluttering up these threads with your useless commentary.

Someone comes asking for genuine advice and all he gets is saddo's jumping down their neck talking rubbish, digging up old post history, making digs at his circumstances. I have no idea who the guy is but I'm grown up enough not to start stereotyping someone and making asumptions. It's pointless and it's only because your lives are so sad that you feel the need to sht on others misfortune to such an extent.

Well said.

[eldar]

thelawnet said:

So how long was your sentence, when were you sentenced, and when did you get out of jail?

Also were you by any chance driving a flashy car?

Edited by thelawnet on Friday 17th April 17:12

He got 12 years for assault for assault with a dead goldfish, as you'd you'd know if you'd read the thread.

[GC8]

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.

[anonymous-user]

Did you serve time are they really spent as it is complicated to what is deemed spent convictions.