Car insurance after disqualification

User19823

Hi,

I'm looking for some advice. I received a 2 year driving ban and a conviction 7 years ago. The conviction is now considered spent. I have not driven since the incident but am now looking to get back on the road. I am 25.

Does anyone know what the best course of action would be for getting insured? I know insurance will probably be crazy high so I'm trying to figure out what my cheapest option is.

Thanks

Grab All Association

You don’t have to tell them about a spent conviction. You’ll be treated no differently. Shop around is all you can do

User19823

Grab All Association wrote: »

You don’t have to tell them about a spent conviction. You’ll be treated no differently. Shop around is all you can do

Thanks for the reply. I know I don't have to tell them about a spent conviction but in every insurer's list of assumptions it says "have never been disqualified from driving" so surely I will have to mention my 2 year ban? And mentioning my ban will mean they will also find out about my conviction when they ask for details on the ban

Grab All Association

User19823 wrote: »

Thanks for the reply. I know I don't have to tell them about a spent conviction but in every insurer's list of assumptions it says "have never been disqualified from driving" so surely I will have to mention my 2 year ban? And mentioning my ban will mean they will also find out about my conviction when they ask for details on the ban

Provided it wasn’t dangerous driving Spent convictions are considered to have never happened. Do not tell them anything as you’re not obliged to. You’ll be fine ticking No. it’s come up here many times before.

In general, you are not required to disclose a spent conviction when supplying information on past convictions. However, you may be required to disclose a spent conviction in court proceedings and the circumstances are set out in Section 7 of the Act.

You must also disclose any spent convictions:

In a Garda interview following your arrest in connection with the investigation of an offence
When applying
- to enter, be or remain in the State
- for Irish citizenship,
In an application or during an investigation under Part 3 of the Central Bank Reform Act 2010

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057778429

User19823

Grab All Association wrote: »

Provided it wasn’t dangerous driving Spent convictions are considered to have never happened. Do not tell them anything as you’re not obliged to. You’ll be fine ticking No. it’s come up here many times before.



https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057778429

Is the ban considered part of the conviction though? My worry would be that I'd say no and end up in major trouble down the line for not disclosing it as the act says nothing about bans/disqualifications.

Also, just for anyone else reading, the Act says that dangerous driving can be considered spent but is limited to a single conviction. So if you get convicted for dangerous driving a second time it will never become spent.

thebiglad

User19823 wrote: »

Is the ban considered part of the conviction though? My worry would be that I'd say no and end up in major trouble down the line for not disclosing it as the act says nothing about bans/disqualifications.

Also, just for anyone else reading, the Act says that dangerous driving can be considered spent but is limited to a single conviction. So if you get convicted for dangerous driving a second time it will never become spent.

If the Insurer accessed the driving licence records from Shannon it would not show - therefore RSA do not consider it relevant anymore and Insurer could never be aware of it so no issue not to declare.

L1011

The ban is consequent to the conviction and hence doesn't need to be declared. No matter how the insurer phrases the question they have no entitlement to ask let alone know

Henry Ford III

L1011 wrote: »

The ban is consequent to the conviction and hence doesn't need to be declared. No matter how the insurer phrases the question they have no entitlement to ask let alone know

I'd view that slightly differently.

My view is they can ask whatever they want. The proposer is obliged then to answer correctly (disclosing the conviction/ban). Underwriting isn't standardised or legislated. Omission might well be non disclosure (a deliberate failure to properly answer a question).

What the insurer can't do is penalise the proposer for a spent conviction.

Interesting subject.

User19823

Henry Ford III wrote: »

I'd view that slightly differently.

My view is they can ask whatever they want. The proposer is obliged then to answer correctly (disclosing the conviction/ban). Underwriting isn't standardised or legislated. Omission might well be non disclosure (a deliberate failure to properly answer a question).

What the insurer can't do is penalise the proposer for a spent conviction.

Interesting subject.

The bill states that no matter how the insurer poses the question you do not have to disclose a spent conviction, under any circumstances

User19823

Thank you everyone for the advice!

Henry Ford III

User19823 wrote: »

The bill states that no matter how the insurer poses the question you do not have to disclose a spent conviction, under any circumstances

Fair enough, but have you a link to support that?

laotg

Easiest thing to do is ring the insurance company and ask them, hypothetically of course. Whilst the conviction might be spent and won't appear on a background check of you it doesn't mean you don't have to disclose it to an insurance company. If you're in an accident and need to claim they will do everything they can to invalidate your insurance before paying out, and not answering correctly, a question they asked may be grounds to invalidate the insurance.

Grab All Association

laotg wrote: »

Easiest thing to do is ring the insurance company and ask them, hypothetically of course. Whilst the conviction might be spent and won't appear on a background check of you it doesn't mean you don't have to disclose it to an insurance company. If you're in an accident and need to claim they will do everything they can to invalidate your insurance before paying out, and not answering correctly, a question they asked may be grounds to invalidate the insurance.

Clarified with the DOJ on this. Spent convictions are spent and are treated as they’ve never happened. Under no obligation to disclose. 123 I think even say do not disclose spent convictions.

User19823

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Fair enough, but have you a link to support that?

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2016/act/4/section/6/enacted/en/html#sec6

"(2) Where, otherwise than before a court, a question is put to a person purporting to seek information in relation to the person’s previous convictions or the circumstances ancillary thereto and the person has a conviction which is, in accordance with this Part, regarded as a spent conviction, then, subject to the provisions of this Part —

(a) the question shall be regarded as not applying to the spent conviction and the person may respond accordingly, and

(b) the person shall not incur any liability or be otherwise prejudiced in law because he or she did not disclose the spent conviction or the circumstances ancillary to that conviction."

User19823

Grab All Association wrote: »

Clarified with the DOJ on this. Spent convictions are spent and are treated as they’ve never happened. Under no obligation to disclose. 123 I think even say do not disclose spent convictions.

Thanks very much!

Henry Ford III

User19823 wrote:

(b) the person shall not incur any liability or be otherwise prejudiced in law because he or she did not disclose the spent conviction or the circumstances ancillary to that conviction."

User19823 wrote:

(a) the question shall be regarded as not applying to the spent conviction and the person may respond accordingly, and

User19823 wrote:

"(2) Where, otherwise than before a court, a question is put to a person purporting to seek information in relation to the person’s previous convictions or the circumstances ancillary thereto and the person has a conviction which is, in accordance with this Part, regarded as a spent conviction, then, subject to the provisions of this Part —

User19823 wrote:

(a) the question shall be regarded as not applying to the spent conviction and the person may respond accordingly, and

User19823 wrote:

(b) the person shall not incur any liability or be otherwise prejudiced in law because he or she did not disclose the spent conviction or the circumstances ancillary to that conviction."

That's great thank you. Seems solid. However if you read some contract law, particularly in relation to insurance, there would appear to be a conflict. Which then takes precedence?

L1011

Henry Ford III wrote: »

That's great thank you. Seems solid. However if you read some contract law, particularly in relation to insurance, there would appear to be a conflict. Which then takes precedence?

There is no contract law that allows an insurer to find some magic phrasing that requires you to disclose a spent conviction. It is gone. Legally it never happened anymore.

If there was, the entire legislation would be utterly pointless. Obviously insurers are itching to be able to find out regardless.

Older legislation / case law is effectively superceded here.

Henry Ford III

L1011 wrote: »

There is no contract law that allows an insurer to find some magic phrasing that requires you to disclose a spent conviction. It is gone. Legally it never happened anymore.

If there was, the entire legislation would be utterly pointless. Obviously insurers are itching to be able to find out regardless.

Older legislation / case law is effectively superceded here.

Utmost good faith. It's a principle in insurance and contract law.

If someone chooses to deliberately answer a question on a proposal form incorrectly I think it could potentially invalidate the cover.

An insurer can ask whatever questions they wish.

L1011

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Utmost good faith. It's a principle in insurance and contract law.

If someone chooses to deliberately answer a question on a proposal form incorrectly I think it could potentially invalidate the cover.

An insurer can ask whatever questions they wish.

The offence no longer exists in law. That is it. It is utmost good faith to declare the actual facts - the conviction is gone, you have nothing to declare.

The insurers are clearly upset they've lost this ability to load people for ancient history, but its the norm worldwide.

It will not invalidate the cover and you are basically making up scare stories here.

I actually expect that some of the ridiculous wording being used to try and weasel info out of people is itself illegal