Discussion
Is there any way that this person should have been on the road after three previous drink driving convictions? Would anyone insure her under those circumstances?
Drink driver who killed had been caught three times previously
Drink driver who killed had been caught three times previously
guindilias said:
Of course they would - they'd just charge her huge premiums. There are companies who specialise in in insuring drink drivers, and profit handsomely from it!
A friend of mine (yes really), got his licence back after being banned for 3 times. He got a 12 month, 3 year and 10 year driving ban for each offence.
As the third ban was 10 years, when he got his licence back, the length of the ban meant it predated the insurance company's questions around claims and convictions in the last 5 years.
He did declare it, but they weren't interested, so his premium simply didn't have any NCB for the first year.
guindilias said:
Aye, that's quite common - but some insurance companies now ask specifically about drink driving over the last 10 years, not 5 - as it's wiped off the books after 10 years. They'll always get more money off you in the end!
The reverse is actually true - insurers have by and large stopped asking about drink-driving convictions over a period of more than 5 years. This is because of various court cases relating to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, and Ombudsman rulings.It doesn't matter how long the endorsement stays on your licence (or nowadays your electronic driver record) for. Unless you go to prison, the conviction becomes spent after 5 years or when the ban expires, whichever is longer. Once it is spent insurers shouldn't be asking about it, and if even if they do ask you have a right not to tell them about it.
The courts can still take previous convictions over a longer period into account, and ultimately it's the courts' job, not insurance companies' jobs, to keep dangerous drivers off the roads.(How good a job of it they do is open to debate).
Aretnap said:
The reverse is actually true - insurers have by and large stopped asking about drink-driving convictions over a period of more than 5 years. This is because of various court cases relating to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, and Ombudsman rulings.
It doesn't matter how long the endorsement stays on your licence (or nowadays your electronic driver record) for. Unless you go to prison, the conviction becomes spent after 5 years or when the ban expires, whichever is longer. Once it is spent insurers shouldn't be asking about it, and if even if they do ask you have a right not to tell them about it.
The courts can still take previous convictions over a longer period into account, and ultimately it's the courts' job, not insurance companies' jobs, to keep dangerous drivers off the roads.(How good a job of it they do is open to debate).
That's interesting stuff, there seems to be a lot of conflicting information one way or another on the net. So if an insurance company do ask about convictions from 9 years ago or whatever, are you allowed to just say "no, none", or do you have to say something along the lines of "I'm not obliged to answer that"?It doesn't matter how long the endorsement stays on your licence (or nowadays your electronic driver record) for. Unless you go to prison, the conviction becomes spent after 5 years or when the ban expires, whichever is longer. Once it is spent insurers shouldn't be asking about it, and if even if they do ask you have a right not to tell them about it.
The courts can still take previous convictions over a longer period into account, and ultimately it's the courts' job, not insurance companies' jobs, to keep dangerous drivers off the roads.(How good a job of it they do is open to debate).
As the second would make it pretty obvious that you have had a conviction - is there anything to stop the insurer loading the premium on the sly?
In the same way that I've been told that if you have 3 points for speeding, insurers will assume you would have had 6 points, but have taken a SAC?
guindilias said:
Of course they would - they'd just charge her huge premiums. There are companies who specialise in in insuring drink drivers, and profit handsomely from it!
I assume they make the profit from those who subsequently behave themselves, not the unreformed like this woman.In response to another post, I don't think motor insurers are allowed to "drive you off the road " by refusing cover. They can of course quote astronomical premiums and you can take it or leave it. Similarly with teenage drivers whose business that insurer would happily do without.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff