Home Insurance Trap

stclair

Well i was quite shocked to read this article in the paper today.

As to be honest I did not realise that any criminal convictions/cautions had to be declared when taking out an insurance policy. (ive always lived with my parents except for the past 2 years so never actually had one myself)

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?7million_warned_of_insurance_trap&in_article_id=752029&in_page_id=34#

Or have I missed something

So there's millions paying premiums which i'm guessing are not refundable as someone might have forgotten to mention they received a caution for example nicking a bottle a milk as a teen.

Or am I barking up the wrong tree?

I have no knowledge on this topic what so ever. I just wanted to hear how people felt about the policy.

**disclaimer please accept my aplogies if there is already a thread already going about this matter**

shelly

stclair wrote: »

As to be honest I did not realise that any criminal convictions/cautions had to be declared when taking out an insurance policy. (ive always lived with my parents except for the past 2 years so never actually had one myself)

I'm pretty sure you are asked about non motoring (aswell as motoring) convictions/cautions when taking out any kind of insurance policy, be that home, car or bike so if someone deliberately doesn't declare any they may have they only have themselves to blame
As always with insurers, if you aren't sure if something needs to be declared, declare it anyway.

FlameCloud

stclair wrote: »

Well i was quite shocked to read this article in the paper today.

As to be honest I did not realise that any criminal convictions/cautions had to be declared when taking out an insurance policy. (ive always lived with my parents except for the past 2 years so never actually had one myself)

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?7million_warned_of_insurance_trap&in_article_id=752029&in_page_id=34#

Or have I missed something

So there's millions paying premiums which i'm guessing are not refundable as someone might have forgotten to mention they received a caution for example nicking a bottle a milk as a teen.

Or am I barking up the wrong tree?

I have no knowledge on this topic what so ever. I just wanted to hear how people felt about the policy.

**disclaimer please accept my aplogies if there is already a thread already going about this matter**

Like most articles it was very sensationalist in nature.

Your example of nicking a bottle of milk is flawed- the conviction would almost certainly be spent under the rehabilitation of offenders act. The problem for the lady in question was that the conviction must have been active (i.e. not that long ago, or she received a long custodial sentence for it) and was related to financial fraud- which all mainstream insurers will not touch with a bargepole- after all, would you get involved in a financial transaction with someone who has already proved willing to lie to obtain more money than they should?

jgallcash

i was under the impression that convictions spent under the Rehabilitation of offenders Act do NOT need to be declared to insurance companies.

Can someone please confirm if this is the case please?

dacouch

Convictions that are spent under the Rehabilitaion Act do not need to be declared to Insurers

dogbot

if it is spent then no, it does not need to be declared.

converse

This was covered on the One Show this week, they claimed any conviction, fines etc, had to be declared, or it'd void the policy.

raskazz

converse wrote: »

This was covered on the One Show this week, they claimed any conviction, fines etc, had to be declared, or it'd void the policy.

Just more poorly-researched, ill-informed 'journalism'.

The Metro article is awful - it describes voiding a policy due to non-disclosed convictions as a 'loophole' without mentioning that in 99.99% of cases very clear questions are asked at the quotation stage and warnings are given at the quotation/inception stage regarding non-disclosure/misrepresentation and the consequences that may follow as a result. It also neglects to mention the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and implies that undisclosed police cautions can be used to avoid policies - which they cannot.

raskazz

stclair wrote: »

So there's millions paying premiums which i'm guessing are not refundable as someone might have forgotten to mention they received a caution for example nicking a bottle a milk as a teen.

A caution is not a criminal conviction so does not have to be disclosed, thus cannot be used by an insurer to avoid a policy if it is not disclosed.

stclair

Hi peeps I was just abit confussed as i didnt realise that you had to delcare such information to insurance companies.

I must remember to drop in im an ex axe murder next time i have any dealings with insurance companies and my dads an ex bank robber lol

dunstonh

Hi peeps I was just abit confussed as i didnt realise that you had to delcare such information to insurance companies.

You answer the questions as they are asked. There is always a question on convictions.

The best thing is to never guess what the insurance company want to know. If in doubt, declare it.