informing insurers?
Discussion
work colleague recently got his photo taken by a speed camera, but due to the fact he was such a miniscule amount over the limit they said he could either accept 3 points and a £60 fine, or go on a course for a few hours that the local police were holding, which is what he did.
His insurance is now due and he's filling in the details - does he need to declare this as a speeding conviction, or not?!
His insurance is now due and he's filling in the details - does he need to declare this as a speeding conviction, or not?!
Edited by Davi on Tuesday 26th September 13:52
Yep. I'm not an expert on private type insurance business but the fundamental rule is that his insurers would regard it material to the risk. If it's he's first one he probably won't get charged any additional premium, just an admin cost (My first SP30 was £15 extra). Not declaring things is fine until as long as you don't get a large claim against you or have your car nicked etc. If this happens the insurers could refuse coverage on the basis of non disclosure - and would probably succeed at law. Also, I was told by a policr officer when I got my first ticket that it was an offence not to tell my insurers. I'm not entirely sure about that as I would consider the contractual relationship is a civil one albeit it as a result of statute, but generally, if you think you possibly should declare, then you should.
Edited by Tegriffic on Tuesday 26th September 13:48
If he has gone on a course & completed it to the satisfaction of the Police/SCP so that they have not prosecuted, it is not a conviction.
If proceedings are being considered against you, then you should inform them at renewal when asked.
If you are taken to court & convicted you would have to inform them.
If you are offered a FPN, the prosecution aspect is effectively suspended for the offer. If you accept the offer an FPN isn't strictly speaking a conviction (you haven't been fined by a court), but under the Reahbilitation of Offenders Act it is specifically mentioned as counting as a conviction for disclosure purposes (for 5 years).
When the offer of training is given, the prosecution is temporarily suspended. If you accept & complete that training then the official action taken in respect of the speeding offence is NFA. (No action, no conviction).
Your details will be held by DVLA (because you are only allowed to be offered the training course once in a set time frame, but it is not a recorded conviction.)
If proceedings are being considered against you, then you should inform them at renewal when asked.
If you are taken to court & convicted you would have to inform them.
If you are offered a FPN, the prosecution aspect is effectively suspended for the offer. If you accept the offer an FPN isn't strictly speaking a conviction (you haven't been fined by a court), but under the Reahbilitation of Offenders Act it is specifically mentioned as counting as a conviction for disclosure purposes (for 5 years).
When the offer of training is given, the prosecution is temporarily suspended. If you accept & complete that training then the official action taken in respect of the speeding offence is NFA. (No action, no conviction).
Your details will be held by DVLA (because you are only allowed to be offered the training course once in a set time frame, but it is not a recorded conviction.)
vonhosen said:
Davi said:
Many Thanks for that VH - from that, he has successfully completed the course and no further action is being taken, so he has no conviction...
so in your opinion he doesn't need to inform his insurers?
so in your opinion he doesn't need to inform his insurers?
That's my reading of the situation.
That sounds like a good way forward if you are offered the 'training'.
Often the increase in insurance for the next five years far far outways the cost of the fine or the points to a clean licence.
I just have a horribly sneaking suspicion that if you were involved in an expensive write off incident they would pull out all the stops to ask more questions. What may be focussed on is that I believe that you are under a duty to inform your insurers of facts that may affect their decision to insure you or mitigate their risk through your premium. This is often in the small print on insurance documents.
However, I personally have the belief that exceeding the limit by such a small amount to be offered training that this has no relevance to your chances of crashing. Also in a tongue-in-cheek way shouldnt you be a *better driver* and a *safer driver* after going on the training course, so shouldnt your premium go down!!!???
Tell insurers everything. Tell them a bit more. Tell them till their ears bleed and they beg you to stop. Then tell them the details. Once they are a dribbling comatose wreck, you might consider your duty to inform discharged.
That way, when you drive into car carrying Tom Cruise, and stop him from working and the lawyers start looking, you'll find yourself still covered.
That way, when you drive into car carrying Tom Cruise, and stop him from working and the lawyers start looking, you'll find yourself still covered.
vonhosen said:
You have to tell them about any "material facts".
Perhaps you may consider telling them about a speed awareness course you went on. Maybe a positive material fact, unlike a conviction which would be a negative one.
Perhaps you may consider telling them about a speed awareness course you went on. Maybe a positive material fact, unlike a conviction which would be a negative one.
Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 26th September 21:03
Actually I think that's a damn fine idea - you have informed them of the incident, you have no conviction to tell them of, your arse is covered
Nice one.vonhosen said:
You have to tell them about any "material facts".
Perhaps you may consider telling them about a speed awareness course you went on. Maybe a positive material fact, unlike a conviction which would be a negative one.
Perhaps you may consider telling them about a speed awareness course you went on. Maybe a positive material fact, unlike a conviction which would be a negative one.
Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 26th September 21:03
Which is all very well, but why do material facts like: "member of the IAM", "taken several car handling skills courses", etc. make b*gger all difference to your premium, but "got scammed once in 25 years for a few mph over the limit" cause it to go up?
Major Bloodnok said:
why do material facts like: "member of the IAM", "taken several car handling skills courses", etc. make b*gger all difference to your premium, but "got scammed once in 25 years for a few mph over the limit" cause it to go up?
Some insurance company executives, yesterday:
vonhosen said:
Davi said:
Many Thanks for that VH - from that, he has successfully completed the course and no further action is being taken, so he has no conviction...
so in your opinion he doesn't need to inform his insurers?
so in your opinion he doesn't need to inform his insurers?
That's my reading of the situation.
You have tell of any material facts not just convictions. I would suggest the fact that you have been stopped, found "guilty" of exceeding the speed limit by Judge Dreed and been on a course to "mend your ways" is a material fact.
However, a minor transgression of on arbitary number so favoured by the scameraships doesn't rate on the insurance risk register and shouldn't increase your premiums.
Quinny said:
simpo two said:
I shudder to think how patronising those 'courses' must be.
'Did you know that if you hit a child at.... but if you... then only...'
I bet the foyer is plastered with posters of toy bunnies lying in the roadside, no?
'Did you know that if you hit a child at.... but if you... then only...'
I bet the foyer is plastered with posters of toy bunnies lying in the roadside, no?
I've wondered about this too.
I don't think I'd be able to do it so would just take the 3 points.
Well, to save you getting unnecessary points on your licence should you ever be offered the course, I asked my colleague for a quick run down of the event.
Firstly, there weren't any toy bunnies etc by the roadside, just a non descript cricket club! The course lasted about 3 hours.
They started off with everyone showing their licence, and stating the details of the offence such as exact location. Each case was then discussed with specific info on hazards in the area given.
2 people from some organisation (he's not sure which, wasn't the police though) then gave a talk on the highway code, hazard perception (using photo's to see if the participants could identify them) and discussed the possible outcomes of ignoring the speed limits (
) Statistics of road deaths / accidents etc were used, but no photo's, shocking images or indeed anything which could cause any psychological distress to the attendees were shown.
Personally, given a choice of 3 points on my precious licence or 3 hours sleeping - sorry listening - to a couple of suits.... !
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff