It would be too late to appeal the parking ticket as this has been paid.

I contacted GoCompare about my parking ticket and they told me that I had to select NE99 from drop down menu, this being a non-coded, non enforceable offence. This would have the consequence of increasing my premium. I then spoke to the insurer directly by-passing the compare website, happended to be Churchill Insurance who said that I did not have to declare such a parking offence. Said they would speak to management to deal with this matter internally as it needed clarification. (Doubt they'll do that).

Can anyone actually clarify if my parking my car with 1 or more wheels 'on any part of an urban road other than a carriageway' constitutes a parking or motoring offence? Apparently comes under TFL Contravention '62'. It does mention it is a parking contravention on the letter, guess I've answered my own question!

Thanks

further to by post try contesting the parking fine was sign properly attached regarding parking etc ask why fine was inposed etc

Coyote,

Firstly, not at any point have I said it was unfair. My initial point was to clarify what needed to be disclosed. That is one issue that people with convictions face. A number of insurers make it unclear what does and doesn't need to be disclosed, often confusing what needs to be disclosed with what they see as relevant. This is difficult for a customer, who has no knowledge of insurance law, to understand.

Secondly, I believe you have strayed from a discussion on insurance to a discussion on how society responds to pepople with convictions. From your opening statement of "I wouldn't even want....any personal dealings with such people", I find that rather extraordinary. To make such a blanket statement is quite frankly ridiculous. I do not condone people committing criminal acts. I believe people should be punished for their crimes. However, there is a line to be drawn. Not every "criminal" can be so easily pigeon-holed.

I would find it extremely difficult to find anybody in this country who has not committed fraud or deception. Whether they have been convicted or not is a different matter. To believe there is a "criminal class" and a "law abiding majority" is rather naive.

Hi Rich you do not declare a parking fixed penalty and this does not affect your licence or ins history

Reg

Yes of course other convictions air dishonesty, such as fraud, deception etc. But you highlighted 'Theft' which is why I mentioned this. Equally though I would decline fraud and deception. I wouldn't even want to employ, work with or have any personal dealings with such people.

You say that insurers whom accept convicted criminals find the claims book balanced. Good for them. For some, however, the risk isn't worth taking until such time that time has passed that it is unspent. I don't think this is unfair. What IS unfair are those depriving others of property which belongs to them or defraud companies which has a negative effect on those law abiding people who choose not to commit an offence by raised insurance premiums where insurers are left to pick up the pieces.

Criminals shouldn't expect to have the same privileges as those honest people trying to earn a decent living. It's not supposed to be easy otherwise people would not think twice about offending. If you have a problem with the period of time in which the insurers base their assessment then I suggest you take the Rehabilition of Offenders to the Government.

Coyote,

My point is not that a simple parking ticket has to be disclosed. My point is that the decision whether to disclose information, whatever it may be, is not down to what the insuree decides is relevant. As you rightly identify, it is based upon what may affect the decision of an Underwriter. Now, as far as I am aware, that is a subjective opinion. Of course, certain information has been established as being "material" in this regard - i.e. unspent convictions, and hence my point about the RoOA.

However correct me if I am wrong but I am yet to find a definitive 'list' of information that needs to be disclosed, and information that doesn't. Given that the basis of insurance is on an insurance contract, my understanding of insurance law is that such a 'list' would not be possible.

On the decision of whether or not to insure, that is obviously a discussion for a separate thread (and one that I would be keen to have with you). However, in short, our evidence suggests that, although people like yourself are able to make a measured and balanced decision on the information that is presented, this is certainly not the case more widely. The assumptions made on what can be derived from a conviction such as that of theft can be quite inaccurate. Dishonesty could arguably be derived from most convictions. Given that there are 8 million people in E&W with convictions, that is a fair share of the market. There is nothing to stop anybody to fabricate or exaggerate a claim. Although it has been stated to me many times, I am still yet to see the evidence which proves that people with convictions claim more. In fact, quite the contrary, the evidence from insurers who do cover is that they have the best claims record on their books. Given the fact that the individual knows the insurer is aware of their conviction, they are aware that any claim will be looking into in greater detail. They are just grateful for the insurance.

Best wishes,

The important thing to remember here from the OP is that it's a NON-ENDORSABLE OFFENCE. Nothing has been put on their licence and it's a parking contravention.

Not quite sure why we have veered into 'convictions' as it's not one. It's also not a material fact as the information is not likely to affect the decision by a Underwriter.

Yes, quite rightly so that an insurer should decline for some convictions that are unspent. I've declined convictions for fraud, sexual offences including relating to a child, burglary etc. I've not declined on assault unless it's been serious with a substantial sentence otherwise I'd end up declining a fair percentage of the population lol!

Whilst I agree that UNLOCK can be sometimes helpful to some of it's members it's not entirely fair to say declining convictions is 'unsophisticated'. If one insurer decides not to write the business that's up to them. They don't want to carry a bad moral hazard. If someone has intent to steal something then that makes them a BIG risk to the insurer so your anecdote as to why theft would affect for motor insurance is quite ridiculous. A theft conviction airs dishonesty. It has been proven that the party has had the guilty mind to commit the act and also carried out that act. It's calculated. They decided to steal knowing that it's wrong and has consequences, no one else. What's to stop them being dishonest and fabricate or exaggerate the claim. I don't like thieves and I'd be more than happy to decline all quotes presented for this type of conviction. You have to remember that a judgment has passed to convict and therefore it's not a question of 'if'. It's theft. Plain and simple.

So the OP's case would have no place for UNLOCK. It's a simple parking ticket; and can you imagine if everyone had to declare those to an insurer!!! No. It wouldn't happen.

Huckster,

You are absolutely right about any unspent convictions. The problem is that many insurers fail in their duty to recognise the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and how this impacts on what they are entitled to know. I have evidence of insurers insisting that spent convictions be disclosed.

The problem you highlight re: being declined is a common one for us. I accept that there are a combination of factors which influence the decision as to what price to offer cover at, if at all. However, it is clear from our experiences that many insurers simply refuse to cover people with any criminal convictions, specifically for home insurance purposes, irrespective of the type of conviction.

This is the problem that our members face on day to day basis. We have a workable solution in the form of a list of specialist insurers who can provide cover, but the choice is quite clearly limited, and this can sometimes be reflected in the price.

It is not my argument that insurers must insure people with convictions. It is more about looking at each case on its individual circumstances, and looking beyond merely "Have you any criminal convictions? If yes, we cannot cover you". For an industry that is premised on risk assessment, that is rather blunt and unsophisticated risk analysis.

Chris

Yes people should declare any conviction which is unspent, even if the Insurers decide to ignore it, because it is not relevant to risk.

I once declined a customer Home Insurance due to an unspent conviction for assault. The customers brother then went on national radio that evening, saying that his brother was turned down for Home Insurance due to assault. The radio presenter then commented saying 'how riduclous'. What the brother did not reveal to the presenter, was that 3 claims were also made on the last policy in 2 years for events I cannot remember. But the overall picture asssault and claims, suggested that this potential customer was one we could afford to lose.

Huckster

I have been following this discussion and would just like to make my own contribution.

The charity that I work for (UNLOCK) represents people with previous convictions. One issue that we deal with is access to insurance. Because of this, we have built up quite a knowledge around the issue of disclosure.

I think the most important thing to recognise is that the customer is not in a position to be able to decide what is a "material fact", and therefore what should be declared. Applying that to the situation thaat we deal with, often we are asked why a criminal conviction for theft is relevant to motor insurance. So long as it is an unspent conviction, it needs to be declared, for the insurer to then decide.

You are right to say that some driving endorsements are not criminal convictions, but all that means is that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 doesn't apply. If an insurer asks for some information, this should be provided. If it isn't, it may be regarded as non-disclosure of a material fact, which allows the insurer to avoid the policy.

I hope this helps.

Good advice, I will call the insurer directly and put the question to them, it does seem strange that I should declare such a parking offence, and no the vehicle was not parked in a dangerous/obstructive position. The offence wording from TFL was approximately 'having 2 or more tyres resting on a surface other than a carriageway '. I had parked for 5 mins outside a second hand car dealership where cars for sale were already littering the pavement, could not park on road as it was double red route, with 4 tyres on pavement. In hindsight I should have appealed it.

Thanks again

Hi

I am not sure if NE99 is the correct code. In fact I don't think any of the NE codes are relevant.

non-endorsable, disqualifiable offences In cases where the offence is a non-endorsable one, i.e. the details do not appear on the driving licence, the following range of NE codes should be used when notifying:

• a disqualification period
• a reduction in an existing disqualification period
• removal of a disqualification period

NE99 This code should be used to notify non-endorsable disqualifications under the Theft Act 1968 and any others, which are not already covered by the NE96 and NE98 codes.

NE96 This code should be used to notify non-endorsable disqualifications (maximum period two years) and any amendments/removals under the provisions of the Child Support Pensions and Social Security Act 2000, which came into force on 2nd April 2001. NE98 This code should be used to notify non-endorsable disqualifications under the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, which came into force on 1st January 2004.

I cannot find an offence code for parking on a pavement. Why don't you phone the Insurance company you have selected and ask them the question. If they do not need to declare, make a note of their name date/time and save yourself some money.

Huckster

rsdelbs:

Offence was captured by cctv, no police involvement, parked with all 4 wheels on the pavement. Fixed penalty issued via post. Moneysupermarket said I should declare it as a non endorseable offence, code NE99, unfortunately that will increase my premium.

That's ridiculous. Don't declare it. The idea of 'non-endorsable' means that it's not a conviction and which doesn't need to be declared to the insurer. NE99 could be a number of things which is why it increases your premium. Did you leave the vehicle in a dangerous position (MS10); Contravention of pedestrian crossing whilst parked (PC30)?

Were you asked to submit your licence to DVLA to endorse it? Were you disqualified for any period of time?

DON'T declare the NE code. The Insurers don't require it!

Non-Endorsable Offences

A non-endorsable offence is an offence which courts do not endorse onto your paper counterpart. No penalty points are attributed to these offences but these offences do carry a period of disqualification. At the end of the disqualification (over 55 days) you will have to apply for a renewal licence together with the appropriate fee. The offence codes detailed below are used by us to record the offence on the drivers’ database so that the status of the individual’s driving entitlement can be confirmed.

NE96 Disqualification imposed under the Child Support, Pensions & Social Security Act 200024

Disqualification imposed under the Child Support, Pensions & Social Security Act 200024

NE97 Non endorsable offence with a possible on going reduction in the disqualification period. Non endorsable offence as a result of interim disqualification not being sentenced within 6 months.

Non endorsable offence with a possible on going reduction in the disqualification period. Non endorsable offence as a result of interim disqualification not being sentenced within 6 months.

NE98 Non endorsable miscellaneous offences from 1/1/2004. Power under Section 146 of the Power of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 to order a defendant to be disqualified from driving − Anti-Social Behaviour.

Non endorsable miscellaneous offences from 1/1/2004. Power under Section 146 of the Power of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 to order a defendant to be disqualified from driving − Anti-Social Behaviour.

NE99 Replaced UT10, UT20, UT30 & UT40 after 30.06.92.

Replaced UT10, UT20, UT30 & UT40 after 30.06.92.

Offence was captured by cctv, no police involvement, parked with all 4 wheels on the pavement. Fixed penalty issued via post. Moneysupermarket said I should declare it as a non endorseable offence, code NE99, unfortunately that will increase my premium.

These types of endorsable codes come under 'MSXX' or 'PCXX' where 'XX' is a code. The point here, as already stated, is that this is a non-endorsable offence. It's the same as driving without a valid MOT. You receive a £60 fine but no points. Nothing is put on the licence therefore do not need to declare.

The OP should ignore the fixed penalty for the purposes of insurance.