Joined: Mar 05 2007 Posts: 13190 Location: Hedon (sometimes), sometimes Premier Inn's
Durham Giant wrote:I have been with my car insurer for 5 years. I have had one minor bump in that time about two years ago.
A few days ago they asked me to update my details before sending out my renewal.
Today i got an Email saying they could not offer me insurance for the coming year. No explanation etc.
The only thing i can think off is they asked if i had ever been convicted of a criminal offence. I said yes.
This was over 25 years ago.
Does the Rehabilitation of offenders act cover this would i be OK to not disclose it when i look for another insurer.
I was refused renewal of house insurance last year, I immediately thought it was due to flood risk (being in a flood area) so I rang and asked them why as I had taken out a flood risk survey as part of the planning process and was told to raise the levels by 1.300m. To my surprise it was nothing to do with flood risk but the number of habitable rooms and I exceed the maximum they will now insure. I went to the AA and they not only insured me, but were miles cheaper than my previous insurer who I had been loyal to for 5 years.
'when my life is over, the thing which will have given me greatest pride is that I was first to plunge into the sea, swimming freely underwater without any connection to the terrestrial world'
Joined: Feb 17 2002 Posts: 28357 Location: MACS0647-JD
The Video Ref wrote:Unless something has changed in the last couple of years, policyholders are not obliged to notify insurers of spent convictions.
In other words, if your conviction is spent, and you are asked if you have a conviction, you can say no.
You'd think so, but I wouldn't bet on it. If they ask the question then the majority view is that you have to give an honest answer. This is because an insurance contract is one of what they call "utmost good faith" so they can ask what they like, and even if they don't you are STILL obliged to tell them about anything that would affect their consideration of your application for insurance. The issue is whether a prudent insurer might reasonably be influenced by the information. So the conviction would have to be one that was arguably of relevance. For example, insurance fraud, reckless driving, or dishonesty.
The law is a bit of an ass on this one tbh. On the face of it, you'd say that you could simply answer "no" if a conviction is spent. The ROO Act simply states:
Quote:(2)Subject to the provisions of any order made under subsection (4) below, where a question seeking information with respect to a person’s previous convictions, offences, conduct or circumstances is put to him or to any other person otherwise than in proceedings before a judicial authority—
(a)the question shall be treated as not relating to spent convictions or to any circumstances ancillary to spent convictions, and the answer thereto may be framed accordingly; and
(b)the person questioned shall not be subjected to any liability or otherwise prejudiced in law by reason of any failure to acknowledge or disclose a spent conviction or any circumstances ancillary to a spent conviction in his answer to the question.
On the face of that people say you can simply answer "No", but others caution that the phrase "framed accordingly" does not mean you can lie, but that you should put something like: "I do not have any previous convictions that I am required to disclose". They say that if Parliament had wanted to authorise lying, it could have clearly said so.
There is a lot of conflicting information and views. You'd think the FOS ("Ombudsman") would definitively know, but seemingly not - see the article I link to below, which, to me, if anything, suggests that you can only give a "framed" answer, and not an incorrect answer. And taking the FOS article as a whole, I get the impression this is their view too. But if they take into account the existence of spent convictions then you can sue them, and plus the Ombudsman would award you compo.
The FOS(and the decision he cites) suggest that if you do honestly and fully answer, and they decline cover on grounds of a spent conviction, then that is unlawful. You would have a winning claim for breach of statutory duty. But - how would you prove it?
If you feel strongly about it, I suppose you could write to them and demand to know why they rejected the application. Say that as you know of no other reason, if they don't tell you, then you will assume that they have acted unlawfully by taking into account a spent conviction (or the possibility from your 'framed' answer that you likely have at least one) and will issue a claim and seek damages.
Not a very satisfactory situation at all. As you will gather, I don't trust motor insurers one inch, and would caution against anything that they could seek to take advantage of as if the occasion arises, they will invariably try. But then I am mad, so probably you should disregard the above.
The Video Ref wrote:Unless something has changed in the last couple of years, policyholders are not obliged to notify insurers of spent convictions.
In other words, if your conviction is spent, and you are asked if you have a conviction, you can say no.
You'd think so, but I wouldn't bet on it. If they ask the question then the majority view is that you have to give an honest answer. This is because an insurance contract is one of what they call "utmost good faith" so they can ask what they like, and even if they don't you are STILL obliged to tell them about anything that would affect their consideration of your application for insurance. The issue is whether a prudent insurer might reasonably be influenced by the information. So the conviction would have to be one that was arguably of relevance. For example, insurance fraud, reckless driving, or dishonesty.
The law is a bit of an ass on this one tbh. On the face of it, you'd say that you could simply answer "no" if a conviction is spent. The ROO Act simply states:
Quote:(2)Subject to the provisions of any order made under subsection (4) below, where a question seeking information with respect to a person’s previous convictions, offences, conduct or circumstances is put to him or to any other person otherwise than in proceedings before a judicial authority—
(a)the question shall be treated as not relating to spent convictions or to any circumstances ancillary to spent convictions, and the answer thereto may be framed accordingly; and
(b)the person questioned shall not be subjected to any liability or otherwise prejudiced in law by reason of any failure to acknowledge or disclose a spent conviction or any circumstances ancillary to a spent conviction in his answer to the question.
On the face of that people say you can simply answer "No", but others caution that the phrase "framed accordingly" does not mean you can lie, but that you should put something like: "I do not have any previous convictions that I am required to disclose". They say that if Parliament had wanted to authorise lying, it could have clearly said so.
There is a lot of conflicting information and views. You'd think the FOS ("Ombudsman") would definitively know, but seemingly not - see the article I link to below, which, to me, if anything, suggests that you can only give a "framed" answer, and not an incorrect answer. And taking the FOS article as a whole, I get the impression this is their view too. But if they take into account the existence of spent convictions then you can sue them, and plus the Ombudsman would award you compo.
The FOS(and the decision he cites) suggest that if you do honestly and fully answer, and they decline cover on grounds of a spent conviction, then that is unlawful. You would have a winning claim for breach of statutory duty. But - how would you prove it?
If you feel strongly about it, I suppose you could write to them and demand to know why they rejected the application. Say that as you know of no other reason, if they don't tell you, then you will assume that they have acted unlawfully by taking into account a spent conviction (or the possibility from your 'framed' answer that you likely have at least one) and will issue a claim and seek damages.
Not a very satisfactory situation at all. As you will gather, I don't trust motor insurers one inch, and would caution against anything that they could seek to take advantage of as if the occasion arises, they will invariably try. But then I am mad, so probably you should disregard the above.
Last edited by Ferocious Aardvark on stardate Jun 26, 3013 11:27 am, edited 48,562,867,458,300,023 times in total
Not a very satisfactory situation at all. As you will gather, I don't trust motor insurers one inch, and would caution against anything that they could seek to take advantage of as if the occasion arises, they will invariably try. But then I am mad, so probably you should disregard the above.
Being mad does not mean you dont know the Law
I think what you say sums up what i had checked up on which is that the law is pretty much framed in a way that it is all down to interpretation and that the power of an insurance company is likely to outweigh any individuals abilty to challenge it. rubbish will have to find another insurance company which does not have yes and no answers on their form.
Huddersfield Giants 2013 over achievers
Huddersfield Giants 2014 under achievers ??????????
Because i was turned down for Insurance by Swiftcover my previous insurance company because of having a non driving offence i now find that this makes it harder for me to get cover because now i have to answer yes to the question have you ever being refused Insurance.
If you answer yes to this question it automatically means some insurance companies wont even give yoiu a quote and do not even want any explanation.
On the basis of having a criminal conviction it appears the following companies (according to comparison sites i have used) do not insure drivers who have a declared criminal conviction.
Endsleigh Kwikfit Budget AA Swinton RAC Churchill Privilege Post Office AXA Skipton M and S.
So far the cheapest quote i have been able to get is £1009 which is over £400 more than last year and that was with no accidents, parking tickets or traffic convictions since i went to them for Insurance 2 years ago.
That £400 works out at an at a cost of about £25 for each punch I landed on the Bradford Organiser of the National Front and two of his acolytes !
Huddersfield Giants 2013 over achievers
Huddersfield Giants 2014 under achievers ??????????
Joined: Jan 30 2005 Posts: 7152 Location: one day closer to death
Can't help thinking you're being a bit naive here. Your conviction is spent. Don't declare it.
If you don't have one already, ask Swiftcover for proof of no claims and then walk away. Apply for insurance elsewhere, you've got your proof of no claims, and again, don't declare your conviction - which is spent, there won't be record of it if some insurance company goes hunting. How will they discover a spent conviction?
I walked away owing my last insurance company money after they tried to increase my policy and add admin charges to change to a lower powered, lower insurance group, cheaper car (my wife's!) when we went down to one car. Unfortunately for them I had my proof of no claims and am now happily insured elsewhere.
If, by some miracle, an incident occurs in the future and your new insurance firm says "you were declined insurance at Swiftcover", you can argue it was declined erroneously. Not that it will ever happen.
Apparently when Swiftcover denied me insurance they enter that on the national insurance database that means there is now a record given to all other insurers that i have been denied insurance without any explanation.
Now that is big brother for you BUT it is all done on the basis of protection from fraud.
I wish i had never disclosed it but it seems that now i cannot get away from it.
Huddersfield Giants 2013 over achievers
Huddersfield Giants 2014 under achievers ??????????
Have you actually rung any insurers or are you just going on what the comparison web sites tell you ?
I found that speaking to an actual alive and still warm sales person and explaining your situation politely and calmly (you can be calm sometimes can't you ?) often gets results - I picked up some unrequested extra discount on a two car policy with Direct Line last year and then this year when they tried to increase it spoke to someone at Aviva and got a superb deal, rang Direct Line back and gave them the opportunity to match it but they couldn't, nevertheless the salesperson did try which is something that a computer program wouldn't have done.
Someday everything is gonna be different, when I paint my masterpiece ---------------------------------------------------------- Online art gallery, selling original landscape artwork ---------------------------------------------------------- JerryChicken - The Blog ----------------------------------------------------------
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 273 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
