Discussion
A bit of advice if you would be so kind.
I was recently very naughty and am waiting for my day in court. I am expecting a ban and large fine, but hoping for a conditional discharge or even dismissal as there were no witnesses.
My insurance are aware of the matter and have paid out for the third party.
After several phonecalls to my insurer I understand that if convicted I will be on the hook for all of their costs. I will take this on the chin although I have no idea how much that will be.
My question is this:
They have stated that if convicted, I will have been driving not in accordance with the terms of insurance, and my policy will be cancelled.
In the interests of damage control, I asked what would would happen if I chose to terminate the policy in advance of the court date. Would they still be able to "Cancel" the policy retrospectively? I asked twice and both times was told that it's ok for me to cancel the policy as long as I continue to pay the premiums and of course still liable for their costs. No "Cancelled" policy on my record. I'm not 100% convinced the call handlers understood the "retrospective" part...
I can't find this situation in the T&C's.
They have been quite helpful in reducing my premiums as I'm no longer using the car. If it's SORN'd and on private land (allocated parking adjacent to a road) is that still subject to the continued insurance? There is no gate and I share the parking area with a few other cars. I'm thinking the safe bet is to get rid of the car but I do have an attachment to it.
I was recently very naughty and am waiting for my day in court. I am expecting a ban and large fine, but hoping for a conditional discharge or even dismissal as there were no witnesses.
My insurance are aware of the matter and have paid out for the third party.
After several phonecalls to my insurer I understand that if convicted I will be on the hook for all of their costs. I will take this on the chin although I have no idea how much that will be.
My question is this:
They have stated that if convicted, I will have been driving not in accordance with the terms of insurance, and my policy will be cancelled.
In the interests of damage control, I asked what would would happen if I chose to terminate the policy in advance of the court date. Would they still be able to "Cancel" the policy retrospectively? I asked twice and both times was told that it's ok for me to cancel the policy as long as I continue to pay the premiums and of course still liable for their costs. No "Cancelled" policy on my record. I'm not 100% convinced the call handlers understood the "retrospective" part...
I can't find this situation in the T&C's.
They have been quite helpful in reducing my premiums as I'm no longer using the car. If it's SORN'd and on private land (allocated parking adjacent to a road) is that still subject to the continued insurance? There is no gate and I share the parking area with a few other cars. I'm thinking the safe bet is to get rid of the car but I do have an attachment to it.
I'm assuming possible drink/drive, and a policy with Admiral group or some other bucket shop that refuse to pick up claim costs in that event.
Anyway, to the question at hand, yes, definitely take control of the situation by cancelling the policy yourself. Insurers usually ask if you've ever had your insurer cancel your policy. If the answer is yes, it's a world of pain. I've never seen them ask if you've ever been told you were going to have a policy cancelled, but you got in first and cancelled it yourself.
If you cancel your policy, then you've never had a policy cancelled by an insurer. Insurance will be bad enough with an accident and a DR10 conviction (if I've guessed right) without the added hassle of a cancelled policy.
Anyway, to the question at hand, yes, definitely take control of the situation by cancelling the policy yourself. Insurers usually ask if you've ever had your insurer cancel your policy. If the answer is yes, it's a world of pain. I've never seen them ask if you've ever been told you were going to have a policy cancelled, but you got in first and cancelled it yourself.
If you cancel your policy, then you've never had a policy cancelled by an insurer. Insurance will be bad enough with an accident and a DR10 conviction (if I've guessed right) without the added hassle of a cancelled policy.
I knew that would be the first question! Rest assured there will be some juicy details in the not too distant future. Not quite 10 Pence Short scale but normally law-abiding person gets hit in the face by justice. For now let's just say nobody was hurt. There was a bit of property damage (not deliberate).
Sorry, just saw Twig's response, I was busy changing my username but that doesn't seem to affect previous posts. Thank you for confirming what the call centre said. That is actually a bigger worry than the actual conviction - I can live with a ban and a large fine, but a cancelled policy would probably stop me from driving again. At all.
The guesses above are in the ballpark. I do have mitigation but obviously don't want to make it public when there is a case looming.
Sorry, just saw Twig's response, I was busy changing my username but that doesn't seem to affect previous posts. Thank you for confirming what the call centre said. That is actually a bigger worry than the actual conviction - I can live with a ban and a large fine, but a cancelled policy would probably stop me from driving again. At all.
The guesses above are in the ballpark. I do have mitigation but obviously don't want to make it public when there is a case looming.
Edited by matt.77 on Saturday 24th April 16:41
There was a big discussion on the drink drive exclusions on here a few months ago
There was a reference to an ombudsman case where an insurer refused to pay out on the car to someone who failed a breath test but successfully contested the charge in court, i think it was on the basis that the police didn't follow the procedure which required they turn off thier radios while the test is being done.
Insurer still refused to pay out, on the basis that they still failed the breath test and that was in the wording of the policy.
It was take to the ombudsman and they sided with the insurer on the basis that the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt might not have been met, but on the balance of probabilities needed for a civil case it was good enough.
So even if you win in court be prepared for the insurance industry to bend you over.
There was a reference to an ombudsman case where an insurer refused to pay out on the car to someone who failed a breath test but successfully contested the charge in court, i think it was on the basis that the police didn't follow the procedure which required they turn off thier radios while the test is being done.
Insurer still refused to pay out, on the basis that they still failed the breath test and that was in the wording of the policy.
It was take to the ombudsman and they sided with the insurer on the basis that the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt might not have been met, but on the balance of probabilities needed for a civil case it was good enough.
So even if you win in court be prepared for the insurance industry to bend you over.
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
I think 10 Pence Short was insured by elephant when he had his accident and I believe they still honoured both his third party (£1m+) claim and that for his written off car, despite the conviction for dangerous driving.
They would have no choice in honouring the 3rd party claim, whether they then try to pursue their insured for reimbursement is another mattermartinbiz said:
They would have no choice in honouring the 3rd party claim, whether they then try to pursue their insured for reimbursement is another matter
My insurer has told me a few times they'll be coming after me for their costs if I'm convicted. They're otherwise good - no change in the cost of insurance and no admin fees when I moved house twice, from a nice area with a drive and a garage, into a fairly dodgy area with on-street parking, then back into a nice area with off-street parking. They've also adjusted my mileage down to 0 while I'm not using the car which is not a huge saving but a nice token.I also get Clubcard points for it
BertBert said:
I'm just curious about that. A ban and a large fine feels worse to me than cancelled insurance.
My current state of health has resulted in me not needing to work for now. The system is very complex but I have been assessed by numerous medical professionals and am lined up for further tests starting tomorrow and continuing with neurophysiology in a couple of weeks.I live in a town with good rail and bus routes. I don't "need" a car. It does feel like having a limb chopped off but I have not driven for 6 months voluntarily and it has not been a huge deal.
I believe insurers ask if you've EVER had a policy cancelled, whereas convictions are spent after a certain time. That's why I think the latter is preferable and I think Twig agreed by saying to take the bull by the horns.
martinbiz said:
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
I think 10 Pence Short was insured by elephant when he had his accident and I believe they still honoured both his third party (£1m+) claim and that for his written off car, despite the conviction for dangerous driving.
They would have no choice in honouring the 3rd party claim, whether they then try to pursue their insured for reimbursement is another matterI've never seen a mainstream policy which would allow the insurer to pursue the policyholder for costs simply because he was convicted of dangerous driving. Protecting you when you drive badly, carelessly or even dangerously is pretty much the point of car insurance, the third party element at any rate.
The two reasonably common exclusions which would allow an insurer to reclaim third party costs from the policyholder relate to drink/drugs and unroadworthy vehicles. The OP doesn't say exactly what he's accused of, but I'm guessing it involves drink and/or drugs, and I note that the insurer where every little helps does have that exclusion (so that particular little thing doesn't help much).
matt.77 said:
They have been quite helpful in reducing my premiums as I'm no longer using the car. If it's SORN'd and on private land (allocated parking adjacent to a road) is that still subject to the continued insurance? There is no gate and I share the parking area with a few other cars. I'm thinking the safe bet is to get rid of the car but I do have an attachment to it.
You can store the SORNed car anywhere which is not "a road maintained at public expense".The insurance situation is a little more complicated as strictly speaking it still needs to be insured, even if SORNed, in a "public place", which means anywhere which is actually used by the general public, regardless of who owns it. If it's a parking area for residents of a few flats/houses and their visitors, and signposted as such, then it's unlikely to be classed as a public place, even if there's no gate. If it's actually used by all and sundry (shoppers, commuters etc) then it might get a bit more complicated.
BertBert said:
matt.77 said:
I can live with a ban and a large fine, but a cancelled policy would probably stop me from driving again. At all.
I'm just curious about that. A ban and a large fine feels worse to me than cancelled insurance.wrong_turn said:
My insurer has told me a few times they'll be coming after me for their costs if I'm convicted. They're otherwise good
Just out of interest, have they told you this personally because you've previously been facing drink / drug / dangerous driving charges or have you just read your policy small print a few times? Edited by PH_77 on Sunday 25th April 22:43
Aretnap said:
You can store the SORNed car anywhere which is not "a road maintained at public expense".
The insurance situation is a little more complicated as strictly speaking it still needs to be insured, even if SORNed, in a "public place", which means anywhere which is actually used by the general public, regardless of who owns it. If it's a parking area for residents of a few flats/houses and their visitors, and signposted as such, then it's unlikely to be classed as a public place, even if there's no gate. If it's actually used by all and sundry (shoppers, commuters etc) then it might get a bit more complicated.
Yes, the whole damage control aspect of this is to avoid a "cancelled" policy as not much else is in my control. A conviction has to be declared for x amount of time, but insurers apparently ask if you've "ever" had a policy cancelled. And I believe they do share this information.The insurance situation is a little more complicated as strictly speaking it still needs to be insured, even if SORNed, in a "public place", which means anywhere which is actually used by the general public, regardless of who owns it. If it's a parking area for residents of a few flats/houses and their visitors, and signposted as such, then it's unlikely to be classed as a public place, even if there's no gate. If it's actually used by all and sundry (shoppers, commuters etc) then it might get a bit more complicated.
We have the road which is a quiet cul-de-sac, then a pavement, then the parking area - several spaces perpendicular to the road plus one for visitors. No signage. I thought that counted as "public access" but I've never noticed anybody park here except residents or people on business. The only access across the parking area is to my front door and one of the neighbours.
I appreciate the advice and will update the thread with more details when I can.
PH_77 said:
Just out of interest, have they told you this personally because you've previously been facing drink / drug / dangerous driving charges or have you just read your policy small print a few times?
They have told me personally (although that may be a call-centre script) and I have not had any previous. It is also in the terms.Edited by PH_77 on Sunday 25th April 22:43
wrong_turn said:
Yes, the whole damage control aspect of this is to avoid a "cancelled" policy as not much else is in my control. A conviction has to be declared for x amount of time, but insurers apparently ask if you've "ever" had a policy cancelled. And I believe they do share this information.
You are correct that convictions and bans have rehabilitation periods, after which they are non disclosable. Cancelled insurances are forever (worst Bond film ever).
The share the info re cancelled insurance between others in their group, but I'm not aware of any database for logging that info.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff