I second that, but I would also make a complaint about the police's handling of it. They over-rely on the insurance database which is a computerised entity and can and does contain errors...people who are legally insured but not on it, and people who have no insurance who mistakenly are on it. The police know this full well, but as they don't give a toss about the truth but only about convicting people whether or not they're actually guilty, they're not going to question what the insurance database says, that could mean crucial lost revenue in fines. When the son produced the insurance documents at the station and the database still returned a negative, the police should then have rung the insurance company direct, and spoken to a human to confirm that the guy WAS insured. It could have very easily been dealt with at the time but the police chose not to do this as it would have reduced their chances of nailing him on some sort of offence. Based on that I would make a complaint to the local Police Authority and then to the IPCC if the result is not satisfactory. The police is an institution full of corruption and rogues who are just as bad as the criminals they go after, they are not interested in justice or the truth, just money and convictions of anyone they come across regardless of guilt or intention. They do not know the meaning of the words discretion or common sense. They are institutionally racist (this is a fact, declared by numerous judges) and apparently ageist too. There are bad drivers of all ages, there is no reason to single out the young. Do your bit in getting back at these dreadul people who are the pits of our society.

I agree with you Michele. My conviction is now spent, it was a minor offence and had nothing to do with motoring. When I did have a criminal record several years ago, I always answered honestly if anyone asked me, of course explaining the circumstances around how I got the conviction. If I was dealing in a field that had nothing whatsoever to do with my conviction, I would not disclose it unless specifically asked, e.g. if someone asked if I had any criminal convictions then I would of course answer truthfully. I would not mention it if not asked unless it was in an area that WAS relevant to the conviction, in which case I would bring it up and explain all circumstances around it. However, motoring was NOT remotely related to the offence I had a criminal record for, and I was never asked by any of my insurers about anything except specifically motoring convictions, so I carried on buying car insurance as normal and did not suffer from increased premiums.

Not ALL car insurance companies ask about non-motoring convictions...in fact I have just been scouting around on half a dozen or so and none of them had that question in their quotes bit, they only ask about specifically motoring convictions. A few years ago I made a claim with Swiftcover after my car was stolen. When I phoned them, one of their allegedly routine questions was whether I had a criminal record. They refused the claim and declared my insurance void because I had not revealed I had a criminal record when buying the policy. I was sure I had not been asked, because I am an honest person and I would definitely have declared it if they had wanted those details. So I checked on their website where you get your quotes, and indeed they ask about MOTORING convictions but not any other convictions. I then checked the policy wording and terms and condition and there was NOTHING in there that mentioned anything about having to declare such a thing even if not asked to do so. I used their complaints procedure and they closed ranks saying it's obvious that I should always declare that...well no, I'm not going to declare something like that unless I am asked to do so, thank you very much. If they think it is so important then they should have asked. So I went to the ombudsman and they duly upheld my complaint and Swiftcover were forced to pay out my claim. If they had asked and I had said no then of course they would be right in refusing my claim. They also had to reimburse me for the money I had spent on getting a new insurance company after SC voided my policy. If your company does NOT ask you then you do NOT need to disclose it. There is no legislation anywhere saying that you have to disclose unspent convictions when buying such products. It is up to the vendor to ask at the point of sale - if they fail to do so at the time of signing the contract (i.e. buying the policy), they cannot then breach the contract on that basis should they discover this about you at a later date. Vendors are more than welcome to refuse products to those with certain convictions but they MUST do so at the point of sale - they can't change their mind later to avoid paying out your legitimate claim. Both "confused" and "moneysuperket" ask you about non-motoring convictions, and load the premium accordingly, but if you actually go straight to the insurance company's own website, many of them do not ask such a question.