RTA - conviction for no insurance

JELY

Hi,

I have previously been convicted for traffic offence for no insurance. How long this will stay?
How can I find that now its clear from my record?How can I obtained court verdict.?

Regards,
Jelly

GM228

JELY wrote: »

Hi,

I have previously been convicted for traffic offence for no insurance. How long this will stay?
How can I find that now its clear from my record?How can I obtained court verdict.?

Regards,
Jelly

Note that a conviction is never cleared from your record, rather 7 years later it is regarded as spent (subject to certain conditions and requirements) and so you are not required to disclose it (again this is not absolute), but it remains (and always will) on your criminal record.

For example, 7 years after conviction assuming you complied with any sentence then you would not be required to disclose for an insurance policy proposal, but you would if you were looking for certain categories of work.

Also Garda vetting may show it depending on the circumstances, but if you request your criminal record yourself or a police clearance certificate for example it will show up irrespective of weather it is considered spent or not.

4ensic15

Insurance companies themselves do not take into account convictions which predate the proposal for insurance by 5 years or more. That is just a policy decision and may vary from one insurer to another and over time.

Victor

4ensic15 wrote: »

Insurance companies themselves do not take into account convictions which predate the proposal for insurance by 5 years or more.

Won't that depend on what the conviction is for? For example, they would likely not forget serious insurance fraud.

4ensic15

Victor wrote: »

Won't that depend on what the conviction is for? For example, they would likely not forget serious insurance fraud.

I am referring to Road traffic convictions.

NUTLEY BOY

Victor wrote: »

Won't that depend on what the conviction is for? For example, they would likely not forget serious insurance fraud.

There is a lurking catch there.

If you answer the specific proposal form questions accurately and truthfully, within their terms, there should be no problem. Same thinking applies to the on-line methodology whereby you affirm your compliance with a set of predetermined assumptions.

However, I reckon that the overarching duty of disclosure still lingers thereafter. Although you have answered the specific proposal questions correctly you are still obliged to disclose anything else that could constitute a material fact and you are subject to the uberrima fides principle which attaches specifically to insurance contracts.

I would love to see the spent convictions notion tested in court some time for clarity. If your conviction is spent one argument says that you are not obliged to disclose it. The counter argument is that your non-disclosure may be in accordance with the spent conviction concept but it may also be in direct conflict with the concept of disclosure of material facts. Which view prevails ?

GM228

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

There is a lurking catch there.

If you answer the specific proposal form questions accurately and truthfully, within their terms, there should be no problem. Same thinking applies to the on-line methodology whereby you affirm your compliance with a set of predetermined assumptions.

However, I reckon that the overarching duty of disclosure still lingers thereafter. Although you have answered the specific proposal questions correctly you are still obliged to disclose anything else that could constitute a material fact and you are subject to the uberrima fides principle which attaches specifically to insurance contracts.

I would love to see the spent convictions notion tested in court some time for clarity. If your conviction is spent one argument says that you are not obliged to disclose it. The counter argument is that your non-disclosure may be in accordance with the spent conviction concept but it may also be in direct conflict with the concept of disclosure of material facts. Which view prevails ?

The provisions of the Criminal Justice (Spent Convictions and Certain Disclosures) Act 2016 prevails.

The doctrine of uberrima fides was enshrined into Irish law via common law (or statute in the case of marine insurance contracts), no rule of law can compel you to disclose a spent conviction as per the Act.

Even if it were suggested that it is a contractual agreement as opposed to a rule of law requirement no agreement or arrangement can compel you either as per the Act.

6. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Part, where a person has a conviction which is, in accordance with this Part, regarded as a spent conviction, he or she shall not be required by —

(a) any rule of law, or

(b) by the provisions of any agreement or arrangement which purport to require the person to disclose the conviction or any circumstances ancillary to the conviction,

to disclose that conviction or the circumstances ancillary thereto.

Finally it is worth noting that an integral requirement of good faith is candour, even if the doctrine was held to prevail I think if someone failed to disclose due to an honest belief that they didn't have to by virtue of the Act then there would be no breach anyway.

Under His Eye

So can an insurance company simply ask have you ever been convicted of a crime regardless of the provisions of the act?

Peregrinus

Yes, they can ask. The Act doesn't control what anybody can ask; it controls what answers you have to give.

flatty

The question really is whether the insurance company would then be within their rights to deny payment of a claim.

Peregrinus

flatty wrote: »

The question really is whether the insurance company would then be within their rights to deny payment of a claim.

They would not. Under Criminal Justice (Spent Convictions and Certain Disclosures) Act 2016 the effect of a spent conviction is that (a) you are not required to disclose it by any rule of law, or by the provisions of any agreement/arrangement which purport to require you to disclose it. And (b) if (outside of court proceedings) you're asked about previous convictions, the question is treated as if it doesn't apply to spent convictions, you can answer it without mentioning your spent convictions, and you can't suffer any liability or prejudice for not having mentioned them.

What this means in simple terms is that the usual duty of full disclosure to an insurer does not apply to spent convictions, and questions on a proposal form can be answered without mentioning spent convictions, and you can't be penalised by the insurer for not having mentioned them.

There are some exceptions to this rule having to do with convictrions for offences of dishonesty/fraud; even if spent, you have to disclose these to an insurer. But motoring offences and drink driving offences are not offences of dishonesty or fraud.