Legal for Police to tell insurers about points/convictions?
Discussion
Just a hypothetical question really.
Joey scrote has a full licence with 10 points and a raft of previous convictions in the last 5 years. Lets say, some drugs posssesion, assaults, bit of car crime and theft. Maybe had a drink drive 8 or 9 years ago.
However, he buys a car, insures it and drives it legally. Stopped by the Police who find nothing wrong. However, Joey scrote has told the insurer he has 0 points and has never so much as even been given a parking ticket before in order to swindle the lowest priced premium going.
Would the Police legally be able to phone the insurer and simply disclose these penalty points and/or criminal convictions, in order to get the insurance revoked? Or would this breach some sort of human rights data protection nonsense?
On top of that, lets say the Police go to a crash where a drink driver has binned his car into the wall. It's a £40k BMW M3. He is arrested at scene. Could the Police phone the insurer to tell them of the arrest of the driver? My understanding would be the insurer would refuse to pay out for the M3 and would probably only pay out 3rd party for the repair of the wall.
Otherwise, the driver could phone the insurer and tell them he swerved to miss a deer and hit the wall. The insurer will repair the car (obviously with a minor financial impact for the driver) and then he has his fully repaired M3, because nobody told the insurance company he was totally rendered at the time of the crash. Why should the insurer fix his car, especially if in their T&C's it states they will only cover you for your own damages if you arent smashed.
Just a thought, i'm not asking for a friend!
Joey scrote has a full licence with 10 points and a raft of previous convictions in the last 5 years. Lets say, some drugs posssesion, assaults, bit of car crime and theft. Maybe had a drink drive 8 or 9 years ago.
However, he buys a car, insures it and drives it legally. Stopped by the Police who find nothing wrong. However, Joey scrote has told the insurer he has 0 points and has never so much as even been given a parking ticket before in order to swindle the lowest priced premium going.
Would the Police legally be able to phone the insurer and simply disclose these penalty points and/or criminal convictions, in order to get the insurance revoked? Or would this breach some sort of human rights data protection nonsense?
On top of that, lets say the Police go to a crash where a drink driver has binned his car into the wall. It's a £40k BMW M3. He is arrested at scene. Could the Police phone the insurer to tell them of the arrest of the driver? My understanding would be the insurer would refuse to pay out for the M3 and would probably only pay out 3rd party for the repair of the wall.
Otherwise, the driver could phone the insurer and tell them he swerved to miss a deer and hit the wall. The insurer will repair the car (obviously with a minor financial impact for the driver) and then he has his fully repaired M3, because nobody told the insurance company he was totally rendered at the time of the crash. Why should the insurer fix his car, especially if in their T&C's it states they will only cover you for your own damages if you arent smashed.
Just a thought, i'm not asking for a friend!
Edited by un1corn on Tuesday 5th May 16:10
un1corn said:
Just a hypothetical question really.
Joey scrote has a full licence with 10 points and a raft of previous convictions in the last 5 years. Lets say, some drugs posssesion, assaults, bit of car crime and theft. Maybe had a drink drive 8 or 9 years ago.
However, he buys a car, insures it and drives it legally. Stopped by the Police who find nothing wrong. However, Joey scrote has told the insurer he has 0 points and has never so much as even been given a parking ticket before in order to swindle the lowest priced premium going.
Would the Police legally be able to phone the insurer and simply disclose these penalty points and/or criminal convictions, in order to get the insurance revoked? Or would this breach some sort of human rights data protection nonsense?
Just a thought, i'm not asking for a friend!
On what grounds would the be making this phone call?Joey scrote has a full licence with 10 points and a raft of previous convictions in the last 5 years. Lets say, some drugs posssesion, assaults, bit of car crime and theft. Maybe had a drink drive 8 or 9 years ago.
However, he buys a car, insures it and drives it legally. Stopped by the Police who find nothing wrong. However, Joey scrote has told the insurer he has 0 points and has never so much as even been given a parking ticket before in order to swindle the lowest priced premium going.
Would the Police legally be able to phone the insurer and simply disclose these penalty points and/or criminal convictions, in order to get the insurance revoked? Or would this breach some sort of human rights data protection nonsense?
Just a thought, i'm not asking for a friend!
When it comes to non-motoring convictions I find it difficult to see how somebody would ever get caught not declaring these for insurance purposes.
Lets say I have a criminal conviction for whatever, but on applying for car insurance I say "none" to the question on non-motoring convictions.
The probability says I'll never need to use my insurance anyway, but let's say I do.
How do the insurance company know I lied to them? It's not as if there is a database that anyone can go access to see what criminal convictions someone has. I'm sure you could Google someone's name, but I'd say the vast minority of people have their name in the paper when convicted of anything.
Has anyone or does anyone know of an insurance company asking for a DBS certificate to prove they don't have any convictions for example?
It just seems that if you're a criminal, so long as you aren't a "publicised criminal" you may just as well say "no" to the question as I don't see how the insurance company find out.
Lets say I have a criminal conviction for whatever, but on applying for car insurance I say "none" to the question on non-motoring convictions.
The probability says I'll never need to use my insurance anyway, but let's say I do.
How do the insurance company know I lied to them? It's not as if there is a database that anyone can go access to see what criminal convictions someone has. I'm sure you could Google someone's name, but I'd say the vast minority of people have their name in the paper when convicted of anything.
Has anyone or does anyone know of an insurance company asking for a DBS certificate to prove they don't have any convictions for example?
It just seems that if you're a criminal, so long as you aren't a "publicised criminal" you may just as well say "no" to the question as I don't see how the insurance company find out.
Breadvan72 said:
Neither human rights law nor data protection law operate to prevent the transmission of information where such transmission is in the public interest.
Insurance companies are often reasonably adept at investigating substantial claims.
I was thinking more in terms of his hypothetical traffic stop. I don't know if it's common practice for trafpol to ask an insurer on the phone if the insured has declared his naughtiness but I highly doubt it. Most of the time if insurance is in place it shows on PNC and the comms op in the control room will just confirm who is insured to drive AFAIK.Insurance companies are often reasonably adept at investigating substantial claims.
sunbeam alpine said:
How could they possibly know that the points/convictions weren't declared?
That would be the point of the phone call....Pothole said:
I was thinking more in terms of his hypothetical traffic stop. I don't know if it's common practice for trafpol to ask an insurer on the phone if the insured has declared his naughtiness but I highly doubt it. Most of the time if insurance is in place it shows on PNC and the comms op in the control room will just confirm who is insured to drive AFAIK.
Well this is the point. Can the police legally speak to an insurer and disclose information. Otherwise, why isn't every single one of us telling our insurers that we are a Vicar who parks in a secure garage at night and drives 600 miles a year. I appreciate a lot of people may be a little bit liberal with where they park or how many miles they do, but when someone is clearly taking the piss and is paying £400 for insurance when they should be paying £4000 because they abuse laws/their right to have a licence, surely it's in the interests of the Police to deal with this person from an insurance perspective. otherwise, whats the point of insurers caring about motoring convictions at all?
Edited by un1corn on Tuesday 5th May 17:16
If the Police phoned an insurance company to verify cover and in the course of that conversation material facts about the vehicle or driver came to light that would mean the insurer would never have taken on the risk in the first place, then the policy would be declared void from inception and the driver would not have been insured.
I find it hard to believe that they would go through a list of things they thought the insurers might not know about, but if a hypothetical driver had 10 points and failed the attitude test massively then I can see them making a speculative enquiry. I would imagine them asking about a heavily modified car and a young driver, for example.
Don't know why that would be any kind of abuse of process though? They need to work out if the driver is and was insured to drive the vehicle. If they aren't, then an offence has been committed.
I find it hard to believe that they would go through a list of things they thought the insurers might not know about, but if a hypothetical driver had 10 points and failed the attitude test massively then I can see them making a speculative enquiry. I would imagine them asking about a heavily modified car and a young driver, for example.
Don't know why that would be any kind of abuse of process though? They need to work out if the driver is and was insured to drive the vehicle. If they aren't, then an offence has been committed.
un1corn said:
I appreciate a lot of people may be a little bit liberal with where they park or how many miles they do
Do they? I don't. I don't see the point of paying any money for a worthless bit of paper. If I have insurance I want it to cover me for what my use is, without ambiguity or deception, otherwise what's the point? I want to be able to rely on that policy if it comes to it.Otherwise, as you say, you might as well just make it all up.
As it happens I once knew a Sgt who made it a sort of work hobby to prosecute insurance fraud. If he stopped someone with loads of convictions he required them to produce insurance. This was back in the 90s before the police could access the insurance database.
Once he had the info he contacted the insurance co and asked them if Joe McSoap had declared any convictions. When the answer was no (which it frequently was) a case was submitted for no insurance and insurance fraud. Of course he also checked the local files to find any other instances the guy had been stopped locally. Every previous incident also resulted in a case for no insurance and fraud. so he would send a report with 10 15 or 20 charges to the local PF.
Of course he only had time to do this because as a Sgt he didn't carry the same workload as the cops on the shift.
And I never heard of any instance of anyone complaining he had no right to contact insurance companies.
Once he had the info he contacted the insurance co and asked them if Joe McSoap had declared any convictions. When the answer was no (which it frequently was) a case was submitted for no insurance and insurance fraud. Of course he also checked the local files to find any other instances the guy had been stopped locally. Every previous incident also resulted in a case for no insurance and fraud. so he would send a report with 10 15 or 20 charges to the local PF.
Of course he only had time to do this because as a Sgt he didn't carry the same workload as the cops on the shift.
And I never heard of any instance of anyone complaining he had no right to contact insurance companies.
It happens often, officers contact to make enquiries, share their concerns, check to make sure the policy is valid etc
This can be following roadside stops or after an accident/theft where the officer feels dubious actions have or are going to take place (even calling before the claim has even been registered!)
As mentioned above, there are officers which take insurance fraud more seriously than others and perform more stringent checks.
This can be following roadside stops or after an accident/theft where the officer feels dubious actions have or are going to take place (even calling before the claim has even been registered!)
As mentioned above, there are officers which take insurance fraud more seriously than others and perform more stringent checks.
irc said:
As it happens I once knew a Sgt who made it a sort of work hobby to prosecute insurance fraud. If he stopped someone with loads of convictions he required them to produce insurance. This was back in the 90s before the police could access the insurance database.
Once he had the info he contacted the insurance co and asked them if Joe McSoap had declared any convictions. When the answer was no (which it frequently was) a case was submitted for no insurance and insurance fraud. Of course he also checked the local files to find any other instances the guy had been stopped locally. Every previous incident also resulted in a case for no insurance and fraud. so he would send a report with 10 15 or 20 charges to the local PF.
Of course he only had time to do this because as a Sgt he didn't carry the same workload as the cops on the shift.
And I never heard of any instance of anyone complaining he had no right to contact insurance companies.
what a idotOnce he had the info he contacted the insurance co and asked them if Joe McSoap had declared any convictions. When the answer was no (which it frequently was) a case was submitted for no insurance and insurance fraud. Of course he also checked the local files to find any other instances the guy had been stopped locally. Every previous incident also resulted in a case for no insurance and fraud. so he would send a report with 10 15 or 20 charges to the local PF.
Of course he only had time to do this because as a Sgt he didn't carry the same workload as the cops on the shift.
And I never heard of any instance of anyone complaining he had no right to contact insurance companies.
Durzel said:
Do they? I don't. I don't see the point of paying any money for a worthless bit of paper. If I have insurance I want it to cover me for what my use is, without ambiguity or deception, otherwise what's the point? I want to be able to rely on that policy if it comes to it.
Otherwise, as you say, you might as well just make it all up.
I remember selling a mk2 cavalier to a bloke from toxteth. It had 6 months tax on it worth about 70 quid. I had priced it at £370 including the tax. In the negotiation, he told me he could get Tax in any pub in Liverpool for £15. Otherwise, as you say, you might as well just make it all up.
I think he paid £250 for the car, and I sent the tax disc back. I'm sure the address and name he gave was false. Can't be certain. It was never taxed again.
Lawless people live lawlessly. The rest of us don't. The lawful outnumber the lawless by a large margin, so society works, mostly. The lawful get frustrated when they see the lawless appearing to get away with stuff, but the lawless don't always get away with stuff, and even when they do most of us would not trade our lives for theirs.
Pit Pony said:
I remember selling a mk2 cavalier to a bloke from toxteth. It had 6 months tax on it worth about 70 quid. I had priced it at £370 including the tax. In the negotiation, he told me he could get Tax in any pub in Liverpool for £15.
I think he paid £250 for the car, and I sent the tax disc back. I'm sure the address and name he gave was false. Can't be certain. It was never taxed again.
This will get people frothing with indignation on here - but back in the '80s when I was a student I used to leave my car for months and months (like six) between tax running out and getting a new tax disc, I used to just tick the box that said I'd not used it. I think it was quite common then. Having said that the police never seemed to care either.I think he paid £250 for the car, and I sent the tax disc back. I'm sure the address and name he gave was false. Can't be certain. It was never taxed again.
A student in the 80s who had a car - there's posh!
I was a student in the 80s. I had a pushbike.
Then when I got a driving licence in 1989, aged 26, no longer a student, I could go straight out, buy and insure an E30 BMW 325i, a famously tail-happy car. I scared the Hell out of myself and my passengers for a few months, and then went and did a driving course.
I was a student in the 80s. I had a pushbike.
Then when I got a driving licence in 1989, aged 26, no longer a student, I could go straight out, buy and insure an E30 BMW 325i, a famously tail-happy car. I scared the Hell out of myself and my passengers for a few months, and then went and did a driving course.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 6th May 09:17
Breadvan72 said:
A student in the 80s who had a car - there's posh!
I was a student in the 80s. I had a pushbike.
I had a motorbike as well I was a student in the 80s. I had a pushbike.
My landlord was properly outraged! It drove him mad.[The car I bought for a tax write off sum of £600 (for a three year old Fiesta) from my dad's firm, and the motorbike I bought from the proceeds of my Saturday job at Tesco when I was at school. My girlfrend (older, working) paid my general running epenses].
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff