Motoring offence DR40/DR50

[Steve C]

Just wondering if anyone could offer some advice and assistance please.

 

Posting this on behalf of my daughter who pleaded gulity to being in charge of a vehicle whilst over the legal limit. She had 91 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood and was banned from driving.

 

I believe she was of the understanding that she was charged with a DR40 offence but the licence has returned from the courts endorsed with DR 50,

 

Does anyone know what the difference is between the two? Is one considered to be more severe than the other?

 

She has notified her insurance company but they say the financial consequences of the endorsement doesn`t come into effect until she renews her premium? Does an insurance company bear in mind the length of a ban when calculating a renewal premium?

 

Many thanks in advance for all replies.

[pompeyfaith]

Here you go:

 

Drink Driving | DR40, DR50, DR90

 

PF

[vusys1]

if your daughter has been banned it may be worth just laying the vehicle up or suspending the policy with reduced cover, no point paying full premium if she is not allowed to drive.

[Wulfyn]

Does anyone know what the difference is between the two? Is one considered to be more severe than the other?

 

From a premium calculation point of view DR40 and DR50 are almost always considered equally bad.

 

 

 

Does an insurance company bear in mind the length of a ban when calculating a renewal premium?

 

Some will and some won't - it depends on how complex their rating engine is. All of them will force the premium up because she has received a ban, but some will also take into account the length of the ban.

[Steve C]

Thankyou pompeyfaith and vusys1 for your replies

 

Thankyou Wulfyn for your reply. My daughter will be slightly reassured by the explanations in your reply.

 

I assume because she pleaded guilty to the offence, the courts had to punish her. Had she had a solicitor at the police station this probably wouldn`t have even gone to court:confused: possibly been severely reprimanded instead.

 

However, when she went to court and the case was heard they banned her for 1 day, no fine, just court costs of £60.

 

She will obviously have to shop around for insurance when her premium comes up for renewal but hopefully the length of ban will speak volumes in itself and prove how little she was over the limit.

 

Then again, we all know that insurances companies need little or any excuse to bump up the cost of a renewal premium.

 

Thanks again for all your replies,very much appreciated.

 

Steve;)

Edited July 21, 2009 by Steve C

[LemonTwist]

Then again, we all know that insurances companies need little or any excuse to bump up the cost of a renewal premium.

 

People who present a higher risk have to pay higher premiums. You can't say fairer than that. I don't have a lot of sympathy for drink-drivers, I'm afraid, because of the risk they present to both themselves and other road users. Always better to be safe than sorry. All I can say is that I hope your daughter will learn from her mistake,

[Steve C]

Thankyou for your reply and I echo your sentiments entirely.

 

However, I do have sympathy for my daughter who was cajoled, harassed and pressured into her actions. It was not a drink driving charge but an "In charge of" offence. I won`t go into details but I assume the magistrates verdict of a 1 day driving ban does tell its own story.

 

Yes she has learnt her lesson and will be paying quite severly for the next few years to come as a reminder.

Edited July 23, 2009 by Steve C