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.
