Points "expired" but still on licence - declare?
Discussion
Not sure about hire car, but AFAIK you have to declare points upto 5 years to an insurance company.
Now with it all being online with the DVLA and no paper counterpart, when the insurance company ring up to check with the DVLA (which they I've had done when making a claim) they will ask if there are any points on the licence. If DVLA say no after 3 years, where do we now stand?
Now with it all being online with the DVLA and no paper counterpart, when the insurance company ring up to check with the DVLA (which they I've had done when making a claim) they will ask if there are any points on the licence. If DVLA say no after 3 years, where do we now stand?
trowelhead said:
Sorry if this has been asked before...
I had 3 points on my licence from 2012 that "expired" earlier this year, but are still on my licence until next year.
When i hire a car or get car insurance, do i need to declare them, or is my licence now clean with 0 points?
Yes to both.I had 3 points on my licence from 2012 that "expired" earlier this year, but are still on my licence until next year.
When i hire a car or get car insurance, do i need to declare them, or is my licence now clean with 0 points?
Points valid for totting up for three years.
Stay on your licence for four years.
Insurers ask for five years - don't lie to them.
Ok that's pretty clear - declare for 5 years.
I did read something along the lines that if the points are "spent" then in theory insurance company shouldn't be able to penalise...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance...
I did read something along the lines that if the points are "spent" then in theory insurance company shouldn't be able to penalise...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance...
Telegraph said:
The Financial Ombudsman, the dispute resolution body, has said it will side with the customer if an insurer unfairly uses unspent convictions to give them less favourable terms than other policyholders, such as higher premiums.
"If firms insist on asking questions about spent convictions, then they must effectively ignore the answers they receive. Otherwise we are likely to consider they have breached their statutory duty," the Ombudsman said.
Similarly, if an insurer cancels someone's policy because they have a spent conviction they didn't disclose, a complaint will be upheld.
Thanks - i'll make sure i put them down for 5 years! "If firms insist on asking questions about spent convictions, then they must effectively ignore the answers they receive. Otherwise we are likely to consider they have breached their statutory duty," the Ombudsman said.
Similarly, if an insurer cancels someone's policy because they have a spent conviction they didn't disclose, a complaint will be upheld.
trowelhead said:
Ok that's pretty clear - declare for 5 years.
I did read something along the lines that if the points are "spent" then in theory insurance company shouldn't be able to penalise...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance...
Badly written article by someone who does not understand the subject and who has mixed quotes to achieve a story.I did read something along the lines that if the points are "spent" then in theory insurance company shouldn't be able to penalise...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance...
Telegraph said:
The Financial Ombudsman, the dispute resolution body, has said it will side with the customer if an insurer unfairly uses unspent convictions to give them less favourable terms than other policyholders, such as higher premiums.
"If firms insist on asking questions about spent convictions, then they must effectively ignore the answers they receive. Otherwise we are likely to consider they have breached their statutory duty," the Ombudsman said.
Similarly, if an insurer cancels someone's policy because they have a spent conviction they didn't disclose, a complaint will be upheld.
Thanks - i'll make sure i put them down for 5 years! "If firms insist on asking questions about spent convictions, then they must effectively ignore the answers they receive. Otherwise we are likely to consider they have breached their statutory duty," the Ombudsman said.
Similarly, if an insurer cancels someone's policy because they have a spent conviction they didn't disclose, a complaint will be upheld.
I'm not sure her quote from the Ombudsman is not something she has rehashed from an Ombudsman's publication that gives a different conclusion to what the Ombudsman actually said.
The "Adds £57 to premiums" is miss leading as well as the £57 will only apply to the drivers whose convictions are aged between 4 and 5 years.
dacouch said:
Badly written article by someone who does not understand the subject and who has mixed quotes to achieve a story.
I'm not sure her quote from the Ombudsman is not something she has rehashed from an Ombudsman's publication that gives a different conclusion to what the Ombudsman actually said.
The "Adds £57 to premiums" is miss leading as well as the £57 will only apply to the drivers whose convictions are aged between 4 and 5 years.
No, that's what they said.I'm not sure her quote from the Ombudsman is not something she has rehashed from an Ombudsman's publication that gives a different conclusion to what the Ombudsman actually said.
The "Adds £57 to premiums" is miss leading as well as the £57 will only apply to the drivers whose convictions are aged between 4 and 5 years.
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications...
On the basis of that I've had an agreement with my insurer which means that the points on my licence have not been used to calculate my premium for the last three years (long story), but the situation is quite confused.
The recent Legal Aid, Sentencing, and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 reduced the rehabilitation period for a fine to one year. It states that endorsements must be declared for five years, but as far as anyone can tell (from FOI requests) there is nowhere that holds a record of the endorsement once the DVLA have removed it from their computer - the police don't put endorsements into the PNC, but the fine does go in there - which is removed after 12 months now.
As I say, a bit of a muddle, and there's not been any test of the new rules in a binding court yet as far as I'm aware. If the government really did intend a 5 year rehabilitation period for motoring offences we're in a slightly odd situation where a conviction with a custodial sentence for violent crime becomes spent before a speeding ticket.
davepoth said:
No, that's what they said.
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications...
On the basis of that I've had an agreement with my insurer which means that the points on my licence have not been used to calculate my premium for the last three years (long story), but the situation is quite confused.
The recent Legal Aid, Sentencing, and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 reduced the rehabilitation period for a fine to one year. It states that endorsements must be declared for five years, but as far as anyone can tell (from FOI requests) there is nowhere that holds a record of the endorsement once the DVLA have removed it from their computer - the police don't put endorsements into the PNC, but the fine does go in there - which is removed after 12 months now.
As I say, a bit of a muddle, and there's not been any test of the new rules in a binding court yet as far as I'm aware. If the government really did intend a 5 year rehabilitation period for motoring offences we're in a slightly odd situation where a conviction with a custodial sentence for violent crime becomes spent before a speeding ticket.
She has added text to a passage from the Ombudsman to make it appear the Ombudsman is referring to "Unspent" convictions when the FOS is referring to convictions that are "Spent" under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications...
On the basis of that I've had an agreement with my insurer which means that the points on my licence have not been used to calculate my premium for the last three years (long story), but the situation is quite confused.
The recent Legal Aid, Sentencing, and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 reduced the rehabilitation period for a fine to one year. It states that endorsements must be declared for five years, but as far as anyone can tell (from FOI requests) there is nowhere that holds a record of the endorsement once the DVLA have removed it from their computer - the police don't put endorsements into the PNC, but the fine does go in there - which is removed after 12 months now.
As I say, a bit of a muddle, and there's not been any test of the new rules in a binding court yet as far as I'm aware. If the government really did intend a 5 year rehabilitation period for motoring offences we're in a slightly odd situation where a conviction with a custodial sentence for violent crime becomes spent before a speeding ticket.
They did say the part she quoted eg " If firms insist on asking questions about spent convictions, then they must effectively ignore the answers they receive. Otherwise, we are likely to consider they have breached their statutory duty."
The paragraph she has taken it from relates to Insurers applying loads / terms to Rehabilitated Drivers, in fact the entire publication from the Ombudsman is regarding Insurers loading for "spent" convictions under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.
The paragraph she quoted from and then added her own text and the word "Unspent" is thus...
"By way of analogy, there seems no reason why a rehabilitated drink-driver, if he had evidence, would not have an equally strong case if he was refused insurance or was given less favourable terms and conditions than other policyholders, simply because of his spent conviction. If firms insist on asking questions about spent convictions, then they must effectively ignore the answers they receive. Otherwise, we are likely to consider they have breached their statutory duty."
Compare that to the Telegraph...
"The Financial Ombudsman, the dispute resolution body, has said it will side with the customer if an insurer unfairly uses UNSPENT convictions to give them less favourable terms than other policyholders, such as higher premiums.
"If firms insist on asking questions about spent convictions, then they must effectively ignore the answers they receive. Otherwise we are likely to consider they have breached their statutory duty," the Ombudsman said.
Similarly, if an insurer cancels someone's policy because they have a spent conviction they didn't disclose, a complaint will be upheld."
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications...
The whole article mixes quotes and information to fit the writer's agenda.
If Insurers are forced to only be able to apply terms / loads for a three year period after conviction, they will simply increase the percentage of the loading they apply in those three years so they in effect collect the same level of premium as they would if they loaded for five years. The same would apply if it was brought down to one year
Rumor has it that this is all about to change very significantly during the course of next year.
Furnishing the details of claims & convictions will be no longer the duty of the insured and the onus will be shifted to the insurer to make their own inquiries. They have the capability to do this right now, but need you to give them permission so it's likely there will be hybrid period that you can opt into in the first instance. (I think this might already be the case - I know it is for convictions)
Regarding the OP's specific question, if the DVAL were asked about a license that had SP30/50 convictions more than 48 months old, they would not be aware of any spent convictions and confirm the license to be clean.
Furnishing the details of claims & convictions will be no longer the duty of the insured and the onus will be shifted to the insurer to make their own inquiries. They have the capability to do this right now, but need you to give them permission so it's likely there will be hybrid period that you can opt into in the first instance. (I think this might already be the case - I know it is for convictions)
Regarding the OP's specific question, if the DVAL were asked about a license that had SP30/50 convictions more than 48 months old, they would not be aware of any spent convictions and confirm the license to be clean.
davepoth said:
As I say, a bit of a muddle, and there's not been any test of the new rules in a binding court yet as far as I'm aware. If the government really did intend a 5 year rehabilitation period for motoring offences we're in a slightly odd situation where a conviction with a custodial sentence for violent crime becomes spent before a speeding ticket.
I think the intention is fairly clear - the commencement order specifically excluded a "road traffic endorsement" from the changes to the ROA, this exception only makes sense if the endorsement has a rehabilitation period in its own right, previous case law (Power v Provincial Insurance) has indicated that the rehabilitation period was 5 years under the old legislation.I agree that the result is slightly paradoxical in that now a speeding ticket has a longer rehabilitation period than most serious crimes. But I don't think it's necessarily a ridiculous outcome. The main reason the ROA exists is to make sure that former criminals can get jobs and reintegrate themselves into society - not to keep their insurance premiums down. And I think there's a public interest in allowing insurers to use the information for a reasonable length of time... or at least, I can't say that I fancy paying the same for my car insurance as someone who's just finished a drink-driving ban. So I think there can be a justification for offences which are only really of interest to insurance companies to have longer rehabilitation periods than those which might seriously blight your chances of getting a job.
The alternative would be to give insurance companies a blanket exemption from the act, but I'm not sure if that would work in practice. If a conviction could be spent for all purposes except insurance it would lead to situations like an employer not being able to turn down someone for a driving job, even though their conviction might make it difficult or impossible for them to get the insurance necessary to do the job.
cashmax said:
Regarding the OP's specific question, if the DVAL were asked about a license that had SP30/50 convictions more than 48 months old, they would not be aware of any spent convictions and confirm the license to be clean.
Though if you failed to declare a 4 year old conviction insurers would have other ways of finding out about it. You've been declaring it to them for the last 4 years of course (and probably broadcasting it to every other insurer in the country by putting it into price comparison sites), so they only have to cross-check their own records to catch you out.I did read somewhere (so it must be true) that when when the system by which insurers get access to the DVLA database is finally finished, most of the insurers who participate will stop asking about convictions in the last 5 years, and switch to only asking about the last 4 years (ie the period they can easily verify). I'm not sure how accurate this is, but it would make a certain amount of sense - but if an insurer did want to keep asking about convictions for the last 5 years there'd be nothing to stop them.
Aretnap said:
Though if you failed to declare a 4 year old conviction insurers would have other ways of finding out about it. You've been declaring it to them for the last 4 years of course (and probably broadcasting it to every other insurer in the country by putting it into price comparison sites), so they only have to cross-check their own records to catch you out.
http://www.experian.co.uk/identity-and-fraud/fraud-prevention/hunter.htmldavepoth said:
If the government really did intend a 5 year rehabilitation period for motoring offences we're in a slightly odd situation where a conviction with a custodial sentence for violent crime becomes spent before a speeding ticket.
Of course that's intention.With a violent crime, you have simply injured another person, someone who is utterly insignificant to the authorities and thus they will pay only token attention to it.
If you are caught breaking the speed limit, you have failed to do as the government told you, and accordingly you must be punished harshly and made an example of, in order to show you, and others, who's boss.
Aretnap said:
I think the intention is fairly clear - the commencement order specifically excluded a "road traffic endorsement" from the changes to the ROA, this exception only makes sense if the endorsement has a rehabilitation period in its own right, previous case law (Power v Provincial Insurance) has indicated that the rehabilitation period was 5 years under the old legislation.
Now, there's an interesting argument. Prior to LAPSO the ABI were saying that endorsements didn't have a rehabilitation period:http://www.scribd.com/doc/159814215/ABI-Good-Pract...
(Page 27)
"It has been held in law (reference provided) that a driving licence endorsement is not a penalty and would not, therefore, feature for the purpose of establishing the rehabilitation period. Prior to this decision the duration of the rehabilitation for endorsements had the effect of extending it from typically 5 years (the spent period for fines) to 11 years for certain endorsements, including excess alcohol."
And the reference they provide is Power v Provincial!
That's how I managed to swing it with my insurer. I guess I'm lucky I needed to be insured before LAPSO came in because the current guidance says otherwise.
Aretnap said:
So I think there can be a justification for offences which are only really of interest to insurance companies to have longer rehabilitation periods than those which might seriously blight your chances of getting a job.
The alternative would be to give insurance companies a blanket exemption from the act, but I'm not sure if that would work in practice. If a conviction could be spent for all purposes except insurance it would lead to situations like an employer not being able to turn down someone for a driving job, even though their conviction might make it difficult or impossible for them to get the insurance necessary to do the job.
We hold the points on the licence for a quite a long time compared to other places.The alternative would be to give insurance companies a blanket exemption from the act, but I'm not sure if that would work in practice. If a conviction could be spent for all purposes except insurance it would lead to situations like an employer not being able to turn down someone for a driving job, even though their conviction might make it difficult or impossible for them to get the insurance necessary to do the job.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_system_%28driv...
It seems three years is the norm, but it's anywhere between 12 months and 7 years by the looks of it. It just seems that we have a very messy system right now, and motor insurers in every other developed nation don't seem to be going bust.
davepoth said:
If the government really did intend a 5 year rehabilitation period for motoring offences we're in a slightly odd situation where a conviction with a custodial sentence for violent crime becomes spent before a speeding ticket.
Can you give an example of a violent crime with a custodial sentence that has a rehabilitation period of under 5 years. The custodial sentence would need to be under 6 months, because IFAIK, a sentence of 6 months or more is never rehabilitated, and is on your record for ever.TwigtheWonderkid said:
Can you give an example of a violent crime with a custodial sentence that has a rehabilitation period of under 5 years. The custodial sentence would need to be under 6 months, because IFAIK, a sentence of 6 months or more is never rehabilitated, and is on your record for ever.
Nope, that changed with LAPSO in 2012. The new periods are as follows:
So any prison sentence of less than 12 months for, for example, biting two police officers:
http://www.buteman.co.uk/news/local-headlines/cour...
Will apparently be rehabilitated before someone who jumps a red light.
I recently re-newed my insurance and it's all changed.
I had to go on a website and type in my driving license details along with a code they gave me to give them an authorization code.
This then allows them to check my license digitally so that they can then compare the information I gave them to what is in the system. Presumably to make sure I wasn't lying..?
I had to go on a website and type in my driving license details along with a code they gave me to give them an authorization code.
This then allows them to check my license digitally so that they can then compare the information I gave them to what is in the system. Presumably to make sure I wasn't lying..?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff