Driving no insurance

[R1 Loon]

saaby93 said:

I think that's the type of thing the OP was looking for before going to court.

However unless you know of some instruction given to magistrates in these circumstances which can be quoted it's still in the lap of the gods which way they will go. (It still feels as though you've had to prove your innocence)
There's also the minor matter of what happens if you have an accident meantime. I think Noger's said there will be RTA cover but isn't that still dependent on convincing the insurer that they should have insured you? - can they still say no?
(And why not full cover?)

Except once again, this is completely different

This was an error by the insurer as clearly stated by this poster. In all honesty, I'm amazed that a letter of indemnity wasn;t provided, which would've then give the way out, as per the RTA.

Saaby, you really, really, need to read posts and understand them before posting.

Edited by R1 Loon on Tuesday 14th December 18:55

[saaby93]

saaby93 said:

mel said:

I have an IN10 conviction and have cars insured with Direct Line & Admiral plus bikes with Bennetts ( underwritten by Norwich Union from memory) I'd say those three are pretty "mainstream" and happily take my money in exchange for insurance with no inflated premium. The reason I was convicted was due to a clerical error by Direct Line which was proven in court, the conviction was due to the offence being an absolute offence where you are either insured or not, blame is not questioned just yes or no, in my case the answer was no I wasn't insured so I was convicted. However I was given an absolute discharge (but still a conviction) this means that under the magistrates sentencing act it is illegal for anybody to take this conviction into account for any reason other than the sentencing court at the time of conviction, so if an insurer declines to offer me insurance or inflates my premium due to my IN10 conviction then they commit an offence, as does anybody else who takes it into consideration.

I think that's the type of thing the OP was looking for before going to court.

However unless you know of some instruction given to magistrates in these circumstances which can be quoted it's still in the lap of the gods which way they will go. (It still feels as though you've had to prove your innocence)
There's also the minor matter of what happens if you have an accident meantime. I think Noger's said there will be RTA cover but isn't that still dependent on convincing the insurer that they should have insured you? - can they still say no?
(And why not full cover?)

Although it's the most helpful post so far
It's not as useful as being able to reinstate insurance as if no mistake had been made

R1 Loon said:

I'm amazed that a letter of indemnity wasn;t provided,

Is anyone else?

[TVR1]

Jesus TF Christ said:

R1 Loon said:

Car ownership remains a privilege not a right

bks.
Car ownership is open to the vast majority of people, therefore not a privilege.
It irks me when people say that (on here, I've never heard a "normal" person describe car ownership as a privilege).

Being allowed to drive however, is. In exchange for a driving licence, the Government and 'the people' expect you to take some very simple steps in regard to the car you are driving, such as;

Insure it.

Sabby93, I have followed this thread for a while. Please stop. Your comments are somewhat uneccesary and arguementative. Especially as you have nothing productive to say anymore.

Edited by TVR1 on Tuesday 14th December 02:11

[TVR1]

mel said:

ZOLLAR said:

saaby93 said:

ZOLLAR said:

It means most mainstream insurers won't touch him with a bargepole.

so what does he do?
What's the usual defence when this happens after a mistake by the insurer?

Well as i said if the insurer is at fault they will provide indemnity but if the courts ignore that and still give an IN10 he will have to still declare it, perhaps the insurer he is with would pay a certain amount of compensation perhaps it will go to the FSO or FSA not really sure TBH i've never come across that occurance as its pretty rare.

I have an IN10 conviction and have cars insured with Direct Line & Admiral plus bikes with Bennetts ( underwritten by Norwich Union from memory) I'd say those three are pretty "mainstream" and happily take my money in exchange for insurance with no inflated premium. The reason I was convicted was due to a clerical error by Direct Line which was proven in court, the conviction was due to the offence being an absolute offence where you are either insured or not, blame is not questioned just yes or no, in my case the answer was no I wasn't insured so I was convicted. However I was given an absolute discharge (but still a conviction) this means that under the magistrates sentencing act it is illegal for anybody to take this conviction into account for any reason other than the sentencing court at the time of conviction, so if an insurer declines to offer me insurance or inflates my premium due to my IN10 conviction then they commit an offence, as does anybody else who takes it into consideration.

Not quite correct. Whilst you may now have passed the 6 months from the date of conviction and no longer need to disclose that conviction, as it is deemed 'spent' (Rehabilitation of offenders Act) your conviction will be there, for ever. Some circumstances will require you to declare that conviction, however long ago it was.

[ZOLLAR]

mel said:

ZOLLAR said:

saaby93 said:

ZOLLAR said:

It means most mainstream insurers won't touch him with a bargepole.

so what does he do?
What's the usual defence when this happens after a mistake by the insurer?

Well as i said if the insurer is at fault they will provide indemnity but if the courts ignore that and still give an IN10 he will have to still declare it, perhaps the insurer he is with would pay a certain amount of compensation perhaps it will go to the FSO or FSA not really sure TBH i've never come across that occurance as its pretty rare.

I have an IN10 conviction and have cars insured with Direct Line & Admiral plus bikes with Bennetts ( underwritten by Norwich Union from memory) I'd say those three are pretty "mainstream" and happily take my money in exchange for insurance with no inflated premium. The reason I was convicted was due to a clerical error by Direct Line which was proven in court, the conviction was due to the offence being an absolute offence where you are either insured or not, blame is not questioned just yes or no, in my case the answer was no I wasn't insured so I was convicted. However I was given an absolute discharge (but still a conviction) this means that under the magistrates sentencing act it is illegal for anybody to take this conviction into account for any reason other than the sentencing court at the time of conviction, so if an insurer declines to offer me insurance or inflates my premium due to my IN10 conviction then they commit an offence, as does anybody else who takes it into consideration.

Well i'd be very interested to see your policy mel to see whether it actually says you have an IN10 under the driver convictions as i work for admiral and in all the years i've worked there i have never known them to insure sn IN10 driver, also i don't quite believe the statement that if they won't quote or accept a policy for you they are commiting an offence,an insurer can cover who they choose and can't be forced to take on a risk.
When you set up the policy with Admiral what did they say when you told them you had an IN10?.

[mel]

My policy does not show an IN10 conviction as Admiral (and the other insurers I mentioned) are legally obliged to treat me as if I didn't have it.

[b]Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000

Effect of discharge.

(1)Subject to subsection (2) below, a conviction of an offence for which an order is made under section 12 above discharging the offender absolutely or conditionally shall be deemed not to be a conviction for any purpose other than the purposes of the proceedings in which the order is made and of any subsequent proceedings which may be taken against the offender under section 13 above.[\b]


However I have been meticulous in making sure that every insurer has been informed of the conviction as they say "once bitten twice shy" to the degree that I record the conversations with them. In Admirals case it came about at renewal, I had informed them the day after the conviction and they had made no change to the policy, at renewal my premium nearly doubled, on questioning this and by getting a comparative quote but without the conviction it was clear that the policy was being loaded because of it. I can assure you that I kicked up merry hell over this and and by quoting the above Act my "case" was referred to as Admiral told me "the underwriters" I don't know if these people are in house to Admiral or external but the next day I got a call back saying that they were going to disregard the conviction and my premium actually dropped from the previous year. It has been a very similar story with Direct Line (who actually made the error that resulted in the offence) and Bennetts but both insurers have agreed to disregard it (as they are legally obliged to)

On a further twist when I had a no fault accident with the vehicle that Admiral insure (it was parked, a neighbour drove into it & it was witnessed by a Police Officer so it was a pretty certain "no fault" case) they involved Albany Assist (part of Admiral I believe?) to provide like for like hire car etc, part of this process involved a conference call with DVLA to check my driving history, I said I had a conviction for Driving with no insurance and gave the date, DVLA said they had no record of it! It raised a few eyebrows at the time and took some explaining but it appears that DVLA treat an Absolute Discharge as a non offence (correctly) and do not record it on your driving history. At the time of conviction even the Clerk to the Courts didn't know what to do with my licence and if it should go to DVLA to have the conviction recorded, he erred on the side of caution and said "I'll send it off and let DVLA sort it out" it came back a week of so later with nothing recorded.

There is no doubt that I have the conviction, I pleaded guilty so I must have. The extraordinary circumstances confirmed however that the reason and fault for the offence was due to a clerical error by Direct Line and due to this the court convicted but sentenced an absolute discharge.

I guess that even people who work in insurance can learn what happens from this and in your case Zollar you can even learn how your employers handle a conviction of this sort, not every thing is as cut and dried as it first may seem. Oh and Zollar I didn't actually say that they can be forced to take me on as a risk, I simply said that if they declined to insure me because of a conviction resulting in an absolute discharge then they commit an offence, in exactly the same way as they would if they declined to cover me because I was black due to race discrimination laws.

Edited by mel on Tuesday 14th December 08:49

[ZOLLAR]

mel said:

My policy does not show an IN10 conviction as Admiral (and the other insurers I mentioned) are legally obliged to treat me as if I didn't have it.

[b]Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000

Effect of discharge.

(1)Subject to subsection (2) below, a conviction of an offence for which an order is made under section 12 above discharging the offender absolutely or conditionally shall be deemed not to be a conviction for any purpose other than the purposes of the proceedings in which the order is made and of any subsequent proceedings which may be taken against the offender under section 13 above.[/b]


However I have been meticulous in making sure that every insurer has been informed of the conviction as they say "once bitten twice shy" to the degree that I record the conversations with them. In Admirals case it came about at renewal, I had informed them the day after the conviction and they had made no change to the policy, at renewal my premium nearly doubled, on questioning this and by getting a comparative quote but without the conviction it was clear that the policy was being loaded because of it. I can assure you that I kicked up merry hell over this and and by quoting the above Act my "case" was referred to as Admiral told me "the underwriters" I don't know if these people are in house to Admiral or external but the next day I got a call back saying that they were going to disregard the conviction and my premium actually dropped from the previous year. It has been a very similar story with Direct Line (who actually made the error that resulted in the offence) and Bennetts but both insurers have agreed to disregard it (as they are legally obliged to)

On a further twist when I had a no fault accident with the vehicle that Admiral insure (it was parked, a neighbour drove into it & it was witnessed by a Police Officer so it was a pretty certain "no fault" case) they involved Albany Assist (part of Admiral I believe?) to provide like for like hire car etc, part of this process involved a conference call with DVLA to check my driving history, I said I had a conviction for Driving with no insurance and gave the date, DVLA said they had no record of it! It raised a few eyebrows at the time and took some explaining but it appears that DVLA treat an Absolute Discharge as a non offence (correctly) and do not record it on your driving history. At the time of conviction even the Clerk to the Courts didn't know what to do with my licence and if it should go to DVLA to have the conviction recorded, he erred on the side of caution and said "I'll send it off and let DVLA sort it out" it came back a week of so later with nothing recorded.

There is no doubt that I have the conviction, I pleaded guilty so I must have. The extraordinary circumstances confirmed however that the reason and fault for the offence was due to a clerical error by Direct Line and due to this the court convicted but sentenced an absolute discharge.

I guess that even people who work in insurance can learn what happens from this and in your case Zollar you can even learn how your employers handle a conviction of this sort, not every thing is as cut and dried as it first may seem.

Personally then i would say your the exception to the rule rather than the Norm, your situation is vastly different to the Op's due to an insurer's error being the reason for your IN10 so there can be flexability, the post i orignally made was aimed at people like the OP who have no recourse and who are liable for their actions i.e. they do have an endorsed IN10 which they must declare and which most main insurers won't insure.
Your case is very rare and in those situations the underwriters (with admiral they are in house) can make a decision because there as extenuating circumstances.
But again i'm not sure about the "offence commited" if they don't quote they may not be able to load your premium but they certaintly can't be forced to take on a risk if they don't want too.

[Jesus TF Christ]

TVR1 said:

Jesus TF Christ said:

R1 Loon said:

Car ownership remains a privilege not a right

bks.
Car ownership is open to the vast majority of people, therefore not a privilege.
It irks me when people say that (on here, I've never heard a "normal" person describe car ownership as a privilege).

Being allowed to drive however, is.

Toilet.
It's open to the vast majority so is not a privilege.

[mel]

[b]Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000

Effect of discharge.

(1)Subject to subsection (2) below, a conviction of an offence for which an order is made under section 12 above discharging the offender absolutely or conditionally shall be deemed not to be a conviction for any purpose other than the purposes of the proceedings in which the order is made and of any subsequent proceedings which may be taken against the offender under section 13 above.[/b]

By my understanding the Act of Parliament quoted above makes it law, it clearly says that a conviction resulting in an Absolute Discharge has to be treated as a non conviction by everyone else apart from the court giving the sentence or any related offences. So by my understanding if an insurer did not abide by this and treated the conviction as a conviction then their actions would be illegal.

Yes my circumstances were somewhat different to the OP's but it is not entirely beyond the realms of posibility that he may get an Absolute Discharge. In my case put briefly the policy was cancelled for non payment, it hadn't been paid because I'd closed the account it was paid from and it had been missed by me when changing over the direct debits to the new account, and I'd never looked at my bank statements to check it was being paid. From Direct Lines point of view they had updated my address on the policy as it was shown on my certificate as the new address, but for whatever reason their accounts department had not updated their side of the system and had been sending the letters to my old address.

Add into the equation a divorce, joint accounts becoming personal accounts, and an ex that refused to forward any mail and you get the explanation as to why they cancelled my policy but I never knew. As it was my error that meant payment wasn't being made which resulted is the policy being cancelled and as it is an absolute offence I went Guilty at court, the clerk actually pushed for an extraordinary circumstances hearing which resulted in the discharge being given. In reality and as I saw it I had made as much of a mistake as the insurance company and really it was my fault which was why I was prepared to take it on the chin, I was just lucky I guess with the magistrates I got on the day. But it can happen.

[saaby93]

TVR1 said:

Being allowed to drive however, is. In exchange for a driving licence, the Government and 'the people' expect you to take some very simple steps in regard to the car you are driving, such as;

Insure it.

That's just what various posters in this thread and others have assumed theyve done.
It's only when they get a letter a few weeks after a supposed renewal, an ANPR pull or an accident that they've discovered they're not covered and due for 6 points ( plus anything else).
Surely it's not helpful to have anyone uninsured on the road? Mistakes are leading to this and a we all need a better response than 'tough, youre uninsured' or 'stop posting about it, it'll go away'

Edited by saaby93 on Tuesday 14th December 09:12

[ZOLLAR]

saaby93 said:

TVR1 said:

Being allowed to drive however, is. In exchange for a driving licence, the Government and 'the people' expect you to take some very simple steps in regard to the car you are driving, such as;

Insure it.

That's just what various posters in this thread and others have assumed theyve done.
It's only when they get a letter a few weeks after a supposed renewal or an ANPR pull that they've discovered theyre not covered and due for 6 points.
As far as I'm concerned it's not helpful to have anyone uninsured on the road. Mistakes are leading to this and a we all need a better response than 'tough, youre uninsured' or 'stop posting about it, it'll go away'

Then get onto the governemt to change the Law, as the insurer can't backdate the cover just indemnify.

[saaby93]

ZOLLAR said:

Then get onto the governemt to change the Law, as the insurer can't backdate the cover just indemnify.

Was that also in response to this

saaby93 said:

Noger said:

You can't reinstate the cover either (hence the letter). That is still backdating. You can "gap reinstate" which restarts the cover from the date you requested, not back to inception.

Show me where the law says that Noger
If it does say that mistakes can't be undone - someone needs to raise it.
I cant see why someone should pick up 6 points due to an insurer's typo ( or similar)

[Noger]

saaby93 said:

TVR1 said:

Being allowed to drive however, is. In exchange for a driving licence, the Government and 'the people' expect you to take some very simple steps in regard to the car you are driving, such as;

Insure it.

That's just what various posters in this thread and others have assumed theyve done.
It's only when they get a letter a few weeks after a supposed renewal, an ANPR pull or an accident that they've discovered they're not covered and due for 6 points ( plus anything else).
Surely it's not helpful to have anyone uninsured on the road? Mistakes are leading to this and a we all need a better response than 'tough, youre uninsured' or 'stop posting about it, it'll go away'

Edited by saaby93 on Tuesday 14th December 09:12

Then they assumed wrong didn't they. Change the assumptions.

It isn't hard. Do I have a certificate that covers me for this journey at this time ?

"Er, well, I think I autorenewed but I haven't had the certificate yet" is not the answer you are looking for by the way.

Yes, it is "easy" to forget (been there, done that - or at least a family member has) but that isn't an excuse.

The cancellation when the insurer has the wrong address is a different matter. Again, it can be difficult to work out if something has been paid or not. But that is a fact of life, mortgage, mobile phone....all need to be paid.

Edited by Noger on Tuesday 14th December 11:59

[saaby93]

Noger said:

Again, it can be difficult to work out if something has been paid or not. But that is a fact of life, mortgage, mobile phone....all need to be paid.

Does their mistake's procedure leave you without a house or phone, or 6 points on a piece of paper?

Noger where does it say insurers are not allowed to correct mistakes, and instead are forced by law to leave people uninsured?

[Noger]

saaby93 said:

Noger said:

Again, it can be difficult to work out if something has been paid or not. But that is a fact of life, mortgage, mobile phone....all need to be paid.

Does their mistake's procedure leave you without a house or phone, or 6 points on a piece of paper?

Failure to pay your mortgage, whatever the "excuse", might. Phone company will cut you off quite happily. As we have seen, if it is their mistake with insurance, then there you can have a discharge. As I have repeatedly pointed out, the insurer is still liable, so as far as the wider society is concerned you still get paid for their negligence.

saaby93 said:

Noger where does it say insurers are not allowed to correct mistakes, and instead are forced by law to leave people uninsured?

The intranet.

Edited by Noger on Wednesday 15th December 07:56

[saaby93]

Noger said:

saaby93 said:

Noger where does it say insurers are not allowed to correct mistakes, and instead are forced by law to leave people uninsured?

The intranet.

Thanks Noger - does that mean it's an internal opinion?

[Noger]

saaby93 said:

Noger said:

saaby93 said:

Noger where does it say insurers are not allowed to correct mistakes, and instead are forced by law to leave people uninsured?

The intranet.

Thanks Noger - does that mean it's an internal opinion?

No, that was "a joke"

[saaby93]

Noger said:

No, that was "a joke"

It was a pretty good stab at what's happening though

I cant find anywhere that it says theyre not allowed to correct mistakes, only where they're instead using the backdating rule to pull cover.

[Noger]

Have you looked at the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Regulations 1972 ?

You won't find "thou shalt not backdate insurance even for a mistake" but you should find something along the lines of not providing a certificate for a period when the was no cover. Or something like that. Wearing flares, probably.

[R1 Loon]

Noger said:

Have you looked at the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Regulations 1972 ?

You won't find "thou shalt not backdate insurance even for a mistake" but you should find something along the lines of not providing a certificate for a period when the was no cover. Or something like that. Wearing flares, probably.

You do know he's going to claim that there was insurance because you paid for it after the fact. I wonder if he's just had some training on ATE insurance for No Win, No Fee referals and thinks this is now OK on all insurances.

I might wait until I die then apply for £100million worth of life cover, what do you think?