[CA] Please Help Missed Traffic School Deadline! Pasadena California!!

[Zigner]

I guess what I'm asking is this. Is there some law in CA that only allows an increase if there is a violation on the books. Here we have a case where the carrier found out about the violation and increased the rates because of it. Even if the violation were removed because he took the class it doesn't change the fact that he did violate the law and just because the violation is removed the carrier still knows it actually happened. The bell has been rung so to speak.

Think about it there are carriers that will give you a discount if you put those plugins on your car that sends them data on your driving habits. If they see that you speed around they can raise your rates on because they know you do it even though you never got a ticket for speeding.

Again, if there is no conviction, there is no violation.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

But they are raising rates without convictions based on those devices. Why shouldn't they be able to do so when they get the violation information from the state even though it is later removed because you took a class.

 

[Zigner]

But they are raising rates without convictions based on those devices.

What "devices"? The guy got a ticket for no headlights.

Another point I just thought of is this (and, of course, it's all hypothetical): If the OP WAS able to somehow talk his way in to being able to take traffic school, thus having the violation removed from his record, and if the insurance then refused to lower his rate, the OP could simply shop his policy around. The dismissed citation won't have any affect on the rates that he gets from different insurance companies.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

What "devices"? The guy got a ticket for no headlights.

The one I mentioned and you quoted in #16.

Think about it there are carriers that will give you a discount if you put those plugins on your car that sends them data on your driving habits. If they see that you speed around they can raise your rates on because they know you do it even though you never got a ticket for speeding.

 

[Zigner]

The one I mentioned and you quoted in #16.

I didn't even notice your mention of that. That is a different matter because they are giving you a discount off of the "normal" rates for a driver in your situation. That is contractual. And, frankly, it's not a part of this discussion as far as I'm concerned. Even though this is all hypothetical, to a degree, I'm trying to keep it within the realm of our OP's situation.

 

[FlyingRon]

For my info, can a CA insurance company not just decide to increase the rate? Do they have to have points on the license?

There are darn few states (and California isn't one of them) that mandates a specific rate scoring on traffic tickets.

Further, I'm not even sure if they did remove the point would it be binding on the insurer. The traffic school option doesn't mean you weren't convicted; it just suppresses the reporting. An insurer would be in their right to count that as a risk factor.

 

[kimchimango]

If there is no violation (because it's dismissed) then there is no increase. One isn't penalized for something they weren't convicted of.

Hello, I talked to the clerk this morning and she gave me a paper attached to my case. It is a Judicial Consideration paper. Do you know about this, can I get an extension? It looks like I need to have a proof of service and need to send it to the City attorney or the District Attorney.

http://www.courts.ca.gov/selfhelp-serving.htm

http://www.courts.ca.gov/forms.htm?filter=POS

Paper that is attached says:

"Judicial Consideration"

Pasadena Court House:
Traffic Department
300E Walnut Street

Proof of Service Instruction
www.courts.ca.gov/selfhelp-serving.htm

Pasadena City Attorney

Los Angles County District Attorney

*You MUST submit a Proof of Service to your Letter before it is submitted to the judge for review*

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

There are darn few states (and California isn't one of them) that mandates a specific rate scoring on traffic tickets.

Further, I'm not even sure if they did remove the point would it be binding on the insurer. The traffic school option doesn't mean you weren't convicted; it just suppresses the reporting. An insurer would be in their right to count that as a risk factor.

THAT is what I was asking about. Thanks Ron.

 

[Zigner]

There are darn few states (and California isn't one of them) that mandates a specific rate scoring on traffic tickets.

Further, I'm not even sure if they did remove the point would it be binding on the insurer. The traffic school option doesn't mean you weren't convicted; it just suppresses the reporting. An insurer would be in their right to count that as a risk factor.

According to the court, what is recorded is a "confidential conviction" with no point(s) assessed. Insurance companies do not count it against your record. 30+ years of experience as a driver in California; I know of which I speak.

I'm not going to continue on this, because it's not going to happen for the OP. The OP didn't bother with it then for no reason other than he wasn't inclined to.

 

[not2cleverRed]

Hello, I talked to the clerk this morning and she gave me a paper attached to my case. It is a Judicial Consideration paper. Do you know about this, can I get an extension? It looks like I need to have a proof of service and need to send it to the City attorney or the District Attorney.

http://www.courts.ca.gov/selfhelp-serving.htm

http://www.courts.ca.gov/forms.htm?filter=POS

Paper that is attached says:

"Judicial Consideration"

Pasadena Court House:
Traffic Department
300E Walnut Street

Proof of Service Instruction
www.courts.ca.gov/selfhelp-serving.htm

Pasadena City Attorney

Los Angles County District Attorney

*You MUST submit a Proof of Service to your Letter before it is submitted to the judge for review*

Perhaps using some google-fu would help you: http://www.courts.ca.gov/5804.htm

You can file a "motion for reconsideration", but you should not expect that it will be successful. Please explain why you think the court acted incorrectly and should have given you an extension. "I am only 19" is insufficient.

 

[Zigner]

The court is NOT going to give this guy traffic school. He was already found guilty and accepted that decision by failing to ask for a trial de novo.

 

[not2cleverRed]

The court is NOT going to give this guy traffic school. He was already found guilty and accepted that decision by failing to ask for a trial de novo.

I know that. You know that. The clerk handed OP forms so s/he'd leave and hopefully figure it out.

OP cannot figure out that there was a deadline, that the deadline has passed, and there's no undoing it, because there was no good reason for missing the deadline.

OP is like the student who walked in halfway through a final exam asking for an incomplete after skipping class for the past 3 months. Because yeah, *that's* not disruptive.

Let's start the countdown to the OG effect...