Insurance... Did you know that...

[Ffoxy]

If you fali to disclose ANY convictions when you apply for ANY TYPE of Insurance, an Insurance Company can decline cover when you need to claim?

Yes folks... check it out (I'll send details tonight) You need to tell an Insurance company ANY conviction you have.... they will decide whether it affects your Premium or not...

P.S. I have no convictions for anything... but it smacks of a "get out" clause & Big Brother to me....

 

[306maxi]

If you fali to disclose ANY convictions when you apply for ANY TYPE of Insurance, an Insurance Company can decline cover when you need to claim?

Yes folks... check it out (I'll send details tonight) You need to tell an Insurance company ANY conviction you have.... they will decide whether it affects your Premium or not...

P.S. I have no convictions for anything... but it smacks of a "get out" clause & Big Brother to me....

I do wonder if that would actually stand up in court though. It's a get out clause of epic proportions but let's say I've got a conviction for stealing a loaf of bread 2 years ago (Well I am from Australia) I very much doubt that an insurance company will be able to demonstrate to a reasonable extent that this should enable them to stop you from having one of their policies or raise your premium.

It's like all things, companies will try to blag things and scare the uneducated or the person who simply can't be bothered into dropping their claim.

A while back someone's car rolled down the road and ended up going through our garden wall and the insurance company was taking ages to pay out for what was obviously a no-brainer so after a few months of getting nowhere I called them up and said "Consider this notice of my intention to pursue this matter with the Ombudsman, as I'm sure you're aware I must give you x amount of days notice before I proceed any further, please make a note of this on my case"

Funnily enough a cheque turned up a few days later......

For the record I absolutely believe that relevant convictions should be disclosed and if you're not sure then you should tell them.

P.S here's a picture of the Megane that tried to pick a fight with our wall

 

[Ffoxy]

I'm on the same page, but I am pretty certain it was some guy from the BIA and he quoted a woman who failed to reveal a conviction for a fine related to over claiming benefits, when her house burned down they wouldnt cover her and she lost the house, left with a clearance / rebuild cost of £400,000+

Now I cant see the relevance of that one... its a case of know what is needed, thats why I am flagging it here TBH as no on-line Insurance company nor the likes of Compare the Market etc make mention of this... what they do say is that they "make certain assumptions...."

The story can be found in the latest Auto Express .... and NO... I am not in any way concerned with that magazine in case anyone wonders

 

[306maxi]

I'm on the same page, but I am pretty certain it was some guy from the BIA and he quoted a woman who failed to reveal a conviction for a fine related to over claiming benefits, when her house burned down they wouldnt cover her and she lost the house, left with a clearance / rebuild cost of £400,000+

Now I cant see the relevance of that one... its a case of know what is needed, thats why I am flagging it here TBH as no on-line Insurance company nor the likes of Compare the Market etc make mention of this... what they do say is that they "make certain assumptions...."

The story can be found in the latest Auto Express .... and NO... I am not in any way concerned with that magazine in case anyone wonders

I reckon though if you went to court you'd be more than able to fight it though. With the Data Protection act and all I very much doubt that insurance companies have the right to ask for anything more than just relevant information. I doubt that any court in the land would find against you if you took an insurance company to court even if it is printed in black and white in the T's and C's.

Certainly good of you to flag this up for people though

 

[sduffield]

You only have to provide non-spent convictions. If the conviction is spent, then you don't have to advise any insurance company. This is due to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

This information has come from NACRO (The National Association for the Rehabilitation of Offenders).

 

[Ffoxy]

You only have to provide non-spent convictions. If the conviction is spent, then you don't have to advise any insurance company. This is due to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

This information has come from NACRO (The National Association for the Rehabilitation of Offenders).

Respect for that but its not what the BIA people are saying, bear in mind its not me saying this just me advising what may be about to hit us, or more accurately... those with convictions.

 

[johnw]

I do wonder if that would actually stand up in court though.

the thing to bear in mind is that motor insurance is a civil law contract with criminal law penalties of you don't have any.

As an example. Driver A fails to disclose a conviction for theft when he takes out motor insurance. Driver A has a crash and faces court for careless driving. He also faces a huge insurance claim from the injured party. The insurers do a criminal record check, find out about his conviction and void his insurance. In court he will then face not only the careless driving charge but a no insurance one as well. That will increase the penalty considerably.

He could take out a civil case against the insurance company to try to get his insurance declared valid. That will cost a huge sum of money. If he wins the insurers will appeal to a higher court. They can afford to go to the very top, regardless of cost and how long it takes. The criminal court won't wait while the civil case drags on so Driver A has lost his licence and is being chased by the injured party for compensation, which he will have to pay as his conviction makes him liable. So he could be financially ruined and be homeless before he wins in the civil court, IF he wins.

 

[johnw]

You only have to provide non-spent convictions. If the conviction is spent, then you don't have to advise any insurance company. This is due to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

A fine is only spent after 5 years, so even minor offences will have to be declared for that long. Any jail sentence, however short has to be declared for 7 years. A jail sentence of more than 6 months needs to be declared for 10 years.

 

[sduffield]

Respect for that but its not what the BIA people are saying, bear in mind its not me saying this just me advising what may be about to hit us, or more accurately... those with convictions.

If your insurance company asks about convictions, spent or otherwise, you are legally obliged to disclosed the spent conviction. However if the wording states convictions (not spent) which would be the majority of insurance companies (to fall in line with the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974), then you DO NOT HAVE to discose any spend convictions.

Just google "insurance spend conviction" and you will find the answer.

Must of us who have spent convictions do so because of a mistomena when we were young (and stupid). It does not necesarily mean that we are bad. Indeed since my conviction back in 1998, I have been respectable.

 

[Ffoxy]

the thing to bear in mind is that motor insurance is a civil law contract with criminal law penalties of you don't have any.

As an example. Driver A fails to disclose a conviction for theft when he takes out motor insurance. Driver A has a crash and faces court for careless driving. He also faces a huge insurance claim from the injured party. The insurers do a criminal record check, find out about his conviction and void his insurance. In court he will then face not only the careless driving charge but a no insurance one as well. That will increase the penalty considerably.

He could take out a civil case against the insurance company to try to get his insurance declared valid. That will cost a huge sum of money. If he wins the insurers will appeal to a higher court. They can afford to go to the very top, regardless of cost and how long it takes. The criminal court won't wait while the civil case drags on so Driver A has lost his licence and is being chased by the injured party for compensation, which he will have to pay as his conviction makes him liable. So he could be financially ruined and be homeless before he wins in the civil court, IF he wins.

Also... consider that the Government is looking at stopping the costs reclaim waiver to successful appeals and people who are taken to Court for any offences, in reality this means that even if you are found Not Gulity of a Charged Offence you will have to pay Court Costs... this is absurd but it is being considered. Surely this will prompt people to accept guilt where the Police are wrong and plead guilty to save the huuuuuge Law fees they would otherwise incur...

I'm telling you all right now... They are after us all 1 way or another...

At least they are now saying that cyclists will NOT be above the law in accidents...

 

[johnw]

in reality this means that even if you are found Not Gulity of a Charged Offence you will have to pay Court Costs..

Not quite true. If found not guilty at trial you will still be able to claim costs, but only at legal aid rates not the hugely inflated rates charged by some "specialist" road traffic lawyers.

 

[Ffoxy]

Not quite true. If found not guilty at trial you will still be able to claim costs, but only at legal aid rates not the hugely inflated rates charged by some "specialist" road traffic lawyers.

Accept your greater knowledge but its still WRONG!

 

[sduffield]

Just another point. If the ABI are saying that spent convictions should be disclosed when applying for insurance, then they themselves are committing a criminal offence contrary to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. The act was created to stop just this issue happening.

See http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1997/1037.html or http://www.tuckerssolicitors.com/guide_offenders_act.asp

It does seem that people will not let ex-cons have a second chance. It's almost like saying to anyone "if you have a crash in your car, then you have to surrender you driving licence".

The original article regarding the house insurance and the £150 is because the endoursement wasn't spent and therefore the person lied (albeit unknowingly) on her insurance proposal.

 

[johnw]

Accept your greater knowledge but its still WRONG!

I agree.