Getting insured after being banned
Discussion
A friend (no, really) was banned from driving for 18 months (for dangerous driving) towards the end of 2005, and that ban ends soon. He will be reapplying for his driving licence (there is some debate as to whether he'll need to retake his test) as soon as he is able, but he is making preliminary checks at present as to how difficult it is going to be to insure a car, or more specifically what car he will be able to insure?
Is it normally possible to get reasonable insurance (less than £1k a year) on any car with circumstances like these? Will his previous four years of driving count for nothing (i.e. will he have to say that he has just got his driving licence, as opposed to saying he got his first licence in 2001)? He's 25 years of age. As far as I know he was given a straight-out ban, with no penalty points.
He seems to think he will be able to insure something well within that budget, whereas I'm not so sure.
Is it normally possible to get reasonable insurance (less than £1k a year) on any car with circumstances like these? Will his previous four years of driving count for nothing (i.e. will he have to say that he has just got his driving licence, as opposed to saying he got his first licence in 2001)? He's 25 years of age. As far as I know he was given a straight-out ban, with no penalty points.
He seems to think he will be able to insure something well within that budget, whereas I'm not so sure.
Some insurers won't touch him with a bargepole. The best bet is to stick in the details to confused.com and see what comes back 
Sticking in a 3 year old Ford Focus LX, a couple of years no claims and being 25 comes up as £600ish with no points, or between £946 and £1100 with a DD10 added. 36 insurers out of 40 refused to quote!
Sticking in a 3 year old Ford Focus LX, a couple of years no claims and being 25 comes up as £600ish with no points, or between £946 and £1100 with a DD10 added. 36 insurers out of 40 refused to quote!
zcacogp said:
... which opens up a big debate. Should the insurance be high in this circumstance as he is more likely to crash (and with a history of driving dangerously, this is probably not a debatable point) or should it be the same price so as not to discourage him from buying it ...
Oli.
Oli.
So we should all subsidise him to stop him breaking the law?
esselte said:
So we should all subsidise him to stop him breaking the law?
I happen to think not, so I am with you on this one. The debate widens when you ask whether the cost of car insurance deters people from buying car insurance, therefore people shouldn't have to pay it. In a fair society, if you want more you should have to pay more. Wanting insurance for a bigger risk is 'more', therefore people wanting this must expect to pay for it.
Oli.
Would it be an idea to insure at a sensible amount of 150-200% of normal premium for a small car (say <1100cc or x bhp) but then make it prohibitive above that? (obviously could depend on exactly what the offence was)
The alternative is he ends up driving without insurance, MOT, with dodgy plates etc...
The alternative is he ends up driving without insurance, MOT, with dodgy plates etc...
before i was banned (quite a few years ago now!) for 20 months i had full no claims. at the time the insurance companies let you keep your no claims for up to 2 years if you didn't insure a car for whatever reason, including DD.
when i got my license back i bought a cheapo MK4 escort 1300, and the insurance was quite bearable as i still had my full no claims. the DD only really affected premiums for about 5 years, and is now spent.
i don't know if this still applies but if it does, his previous no claims might be useful in bringing down his premium.
when i got my license back i bought a cheapo MK4 escort 1300, and the insurance was quite bearable as i still had my full no claims. the DD only really affected premiums for about 5 years, and is now spent.
i don't know if this still applies but if it does, his previous no claims might be useful in bringing down his premium.
zcacogp said:
esselte said:
So we should all subsidise him to stop him breaking the law?
I happen to think not, so I am with you on this one. The debate widens when you ask whether the cost of car insurance deters people from buying car insurance, therefore people shouldn't have to pay it. In a fair society, if you want more you should have to pay more. Wanting insurance for a bigger risk is 'more', therefore people wanting this must expect to pay for it.
Oli.
He could always get himself a cheaper car if the insurance is expensive, rather than going the illegal route because he wants a higher rate car.
No one seems to accept the consequenses of their actions any more.
He broke the law in an obviously major way to get 18months ban
Why the hell should we now subsidise the poor soul?
I have enough trouble comming to terms with my own insurance premium without idiots like this.
Too many bloody do gooders and yellow bellied liberals.
He broke the law in an obviously major way to get 18months ban
Why the hell should we now subsidise the poor soul?
I have enough trouble comming to terms with my own insurance premium without idiots like this.
Too many bloody do gooders and yellow bellied liberals.
In early 2005 I was NIP'd for SP50 on the M6 and got 3 points and a fine. I was then banned for a year in mid 2005 for DD (DR10) and also had a careless driving charge (CD10) added, which meant that even though I got no points for the DR10 or CD10, I had 3 endorsements on my licence but only 3 points.
Prior to 2005 I'd driven for 19 years with a clean licence and had accumulated 5 years NCD and my insurance used to be in the region of £400-£450 with an excess of £100.
After attending a drink awareness course, I got my licence back after 9 months and bought a car with a similar insurance group to what I had before the ban.
Went through a broker who specialises in high performance/convicted driver insurance and my premium is now £630 but with a £250 excess. Direct Line could match the premium but their excess was £600 so I went with the broker.
You'll find that the majority of the on-line quote systems can't handle more than 2 endorsements, you have to phone the insurer to get a quote, this may be partly why confused.com couldn't quote in alot of cases.
Prior to 2005 I'd driven for 19 years with a clean licence and had accumulated 5 years NCD and my insurance used to be in the region of £400-£450 with an excess of £100.
After attending a drink awareness course, I got my licence back after 9 months and bought a car with a similar insurance group to what I had before the ban.
Went through a broker who specialises in high performance/convicted driver insurance and my premium is now £630 but with a £250 excess. Direct Line could match the premium but their excess was £600 so I went with the broker.
You'll find that the majority of the on-line quote systems can't handle more than 2 endorsements, you have to phone the insurer to get a quote, this may be partly why confused.com couldn't quote in alot of cases.
Just to clear up a few things:
The lad in question has had plenty of stick over his driving ban - and rightly so - but without going into details the incident itself was hardly the crime of the century. His crime was victimless, and in my own opinion the law came down hard on him because he was a young(ish) lad in a fancy car and they wanted to make an example of him. In any case he is not the sort of person to drive a car with no insurance, tax, etc. He previously had held a driving licence for four years - incident-free - and also had four years of no-claims to back this up. Incidentally he has never claimed on his car insurance and the car he was driving when convicted of DD was costing him in the region of £1,700 a year to insure, so I'm not sure he 'owes' anything in terms of the insurance he should pay.
Now as far as I'm aware, and please correct me if I am wrong, his 18month ban will mean he will completely lose his four years no-claims. He will also have to reapply for his driving licence, and this will essentially mean he is a new driver. So on any insurance quote he will have to classify himself as a new driver with 0 years experience, 0 years no-claims and a previous dangerous driving conviction (I don't know the code).
His plan was to buy a brand-new but sensible small car (something like a Ford Focus) expecting the insurance to be fairly manageable (£1k or thereabouts), but I'm just not sure he's going to be able to insure anything like that.
Insurance companies will see him as a greater risk (fair enough) and yet so far he hasn't cost the insurers a penny, despite the thousands of pounds he has paid them over the past four years. Hiking up his premium is to be expected and probably the right thing to do, but I don't think it should be hiked up too much or they do risk the possibility of him driving without insurance - he would never do that and would simply take the higher insurance premium on the chin, but the insurers don't know that, do they?
The lad in question has had plenty of stick over his driving ban - and rightly so - but without going into details the incident itself was hardly the crime of the century. His crime was victimless, and in my own opinion the law came down hard on him because he was a young(ish) lad in a fancy car and they wanted to make an example of him. In any case he is not the sort of person to drive a car with no insurance, tax, etc. He previously had held a driving licence for four years - incident-free - and also had four years of no-claims to back this up. Incidentally he has never claimed on his car insurance and the car he was driving when convicted of DD was costing him in the region of £1,700 a year to insure, so I'm not sure he 'owes' anything in terms of the insurance he should pay.
Now as far as I'm aware, and please correct me if I am wrong, his 18month ban will mean he will completely lose his four years no-claims. He will also have to reapply for his driving licence, and this will essentially mean he is a new driver. So on any insurance quote he will have to classify himself as a new driver with 0 years experience, 0 years no-claims and a previous dangerous driving conviction (I don't know the code).
His plan was to buy a brand-new but sensible small car (something like a Ford Focus) expecting the insurance to be fairly manageable (£1k or thereabouts), but I'm just not sure he's going to be able to insure anything like that.
Insurance companies will see him as a greater risk (fair enough) and yet so far he hasn't cost the insurers a penny, despite the thousands of pounds he has paid them over the past four years. Hiking up his premium is to be expected and probably the right thing to do, but I don't think it should be hiked up too much or they do risk the possibility of him driving without insurance - he would never do that and would simply take the higher insurance premium on the chin, but the insurers don't know that, do they?
Off the top of my head, I don't think he'll lose the 4 years NCD just because of the 18 month ban. He should be able to get a letter from his last insurer stating how much NCD he had at the time he lost his licence, and this should be accepted by an insurance company as proof of NCD (I think the limit they have is that the insurance must have been held within the last 2 years?).
This is what I did, got a letter from my insurers stating I had 5 years NCD, once my disqualification period ended, it was accepted as proof of NCD with the new insurer.
After a period of disqualification, the driver will have to apply for a new licence, the DVLA should send out the relevant forms 56 days before the disqualification period ends. This does not mean he is a new driver, just that he has been disqualified from driving for a period of time. I think one exception is a driver who is disqualified within the first 2 years of driving and who has to retake the test (not sure about this since it didn't affect me).
My licence still shows the start date as 1986 (when I passed my test) even though I had to apply for a new licence once my period of disqualification was up.
Dangerous driving code is DD40, lists of codes are available on the DVLA website, and is a good source of information about disqualifications, endorsements etc.
This is what I did, got a letter from my insurers stating I had 5 years NCD, once my disqualification period ended, it was accepted as proof of NCD with the new insurer.
After a period of disqualification, the driver will have to apply for a new licence, the DVLA should send out the relevant forms 56 days before the disqualification period ends. This does not mean he is a new driver, just that he has been disqualified from driving for a period of time. I think one exception is a driver who is disqualified within the first 2 years of driving and who has to retake the test (not sure about this since it didn't affect me).
My licence still shows the start date as 1986 (when I passed my test) even though I had to apply for a new licence once my period of disqualification was up.
Dangerous driving code is DD40, lists of codes are available on the DVLA website, and is a good source of information about disqualifications, endorsements etc.
It will depend on what he actually did as to weather or not insurers will offer him a quote. ie if hes been done for going the wrong way up a dual carriage way or 100 in a 30 or something then that may be looked upon differently than if hes wiped out a bus stop of people for example. As long as his ncb is still within 2 years he can use it. He'll find it a lot easier to insure a small engine and lower group car than a sports car.
ehyouwhat said:
Just to clear up a few things:
The lad in question has had plenty of stick over his driving ban - and rightly so - but without going into details the incident itself was hardly the crime of the century. His crime was victimless, and in my own opinion the law came down hard on him because he was a young(ish) lad in a fancy car and they wanted to make an example of him. In any case he is not the sort of person to drive a car with no insurance, tax, etc. He previously had held a driving licence for four years - incident-free - and also had four years of no-claims to back this up. Incidentally he has never claimed on his car insurance and the car he was driving when convicted of DD was costing him in the region of £1,700 a year to insure, so I'm not sure he 'owes' anything in terms of the insurance he should pay.
Now as far as I'm aware, and please correct me if I am wrong, his 18month ban will mean he will completely lose his four years no-claims. He will also have to reapply for his driving licence, and this will essentially mean he is a new driver. So on any insurance quote he will have to classify himself as a new driver with 0 years experience, 0 years no-claims and a previous dangerous driving conviction (I don't know the code).
His plan was to buy a brand-new but sensible small car (something like a Ford Focus) expecting the insurance to be fairly manageable (£1k or thereabouts), but I'm just not sure he's going to be able to insure anything like that.
Insurance companies will see him as a greater risk (fair enough) and yet so far he hasn't cost the insurers a penny, despite the thousands of pounds he has paid them over the past four years. Hiking up his premium is to be expected and probably the right thing to do, but I don't think it should be hiked up too much or they do risk the possibility of him driving without insurance - he would never do that and would simply take the higher insurance premium on the chin, but the insurers don't know that, do they?
The lad in question has had plenty of stick over his driving ban - and rightly so - but without going into details the incident itself was hardly the crime of the century. His crime was victimless, and in my own opinion the law came down hard on him because he was a young(ish) lad in a fancy car and they wanted to make an example of him. In any case he is not the sort of person to drive a car with no insurance, tax, etc. He previously had held a driving licence for four years - incident-free - and also had four years of no-claims to back this up. Incidentally he has never claimed on his car insurance and the car he was driving when convicted of DD was costing him in the region of £1,700 a year to insure, so I'm not sure he 'owes' anything in terms of the insurance he should pay.
Now as far as I'm aware, and please correct me if I am wrong, his 18month ban will mean he will completely lose his four years no-claims. He will also have to reapply for his driving licence, and this will essentially mean he is a new driver. So on any insurance quote he will have to classify himself as a new driver with 0 years experience, 0 years no-claims and a previous dangerous driving conviction (I don't know the code).
His plan was to buy a brand-new but sensible small car (something like a Ford Focus) expecting the insurance to be fairly manageable (£1k or thereabouts), but I'm just not sure he's going to be able to insure anything like that.
Insurance companies will see him as a greater risk (fair enough) and yet so far he hasn't cost the insurers a penny, despite the thousands of pounds he has paid them over the past four years. Hiking up his premium is to be expected and probably the right thing to do, but I don't think it should be hiked up too much or they do risk the possibility of him driving without insurance - he would never do that and would simply take the higher insurance premium on the chin, but the insurers don't know that, do they?
the simple answer would be for him to phone round a few insurance companies to get quotes, before he buys a car. that way he'll have an idea how much its going to cost him to get covered.
if its going to be outside his budget, he may well have to drive around in a cheapo, low insurance group car until the premium comes down to an acceptable level.
The confusion arises because the so-called 'No Claims Bonus' is, in fact, a 'No Claims Discount'. The qualification for this discount applies notwithstanding any convictions or disqualifications. What actually happens when you've been banned is that the insurance company first calculate the full premium from their actuarial tables with any disquals, points, etc, factored in. This will tell them whether they are prepared to offer cover, then, assuming they will, what the basic premium will be. From that premium, whatever it is, is then deducted the no claims discount to give the figure payable for cover.
With 'direct line' type companies there is no ability to discuss the situation, which is why a good broker is the best choice, even if it does cost a bit more. My company have used the same broker in Bishops Stortford for almost 20 years. We could possibly save a few quid by goig direct, but the pesonal service, courtesy and knowledge from them really makes it worth that bit extra. If anyone wants my broker's phone number, PM me and I'll email it back.
With 'direct line' type companies there is no ability to discuss the situation, which is why a good broker is the best choice, even if it does cost a bit more. My company have used the same broker in Bishops Stortford for almost 20 years. We could possibly save a few quid by goig direct, but the pesonal service, courtesy and knowledge from them really makes it worth that bit extra. If anyone wants my broker's phone number, PM me and I'll email it back.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff