Home Insurance Trap

I_luv_cats

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 of the UK Parliament enables some criminal convictions to be ignored after a rehabilitation period. Its purpose is that people do not have a lifelong blot on their records because of a minor indiscretion in their past. The rehabilitation period is automatically determined by the sentence, and starts from the date of the conviction. After this period free of further convictions, the conviction is "spent" (= expunged), and with certain exceptions an ex-offender is not obliged to mention an expunged (spent) conviction in any context, including when applying for a job, or obtaining insurance, or in civil proceedings.

(From Wiki)

I was "naughty in 1988" and haven't declared it to my Insurers because of the R.O.O.Act BUT this has scattered the pigeons!!! I have a DD due on Monday - Should I cancel now!!!

Door_knockers_will_die

I think that this is a very serious subject and needs to be discussed very seriously at the highest levels. I can see both sides - as an Aviva customer and shareholder !
The lady in question - well her apparent crime was an overpayment of benefits which was dealt with in 2002, so seven years ago.
She was told to repay some benefits and to avoid a possible court case, given an administrative penalty of £150 which would have been stopped out of her benefits. No police, no court case, no conviction - probably not even a mention of fraud. So where have Aviva now dragged this up from ???
A VERY similar thing happened to me - so now I am uninsured. The DWP overpaid me and then amde me repay and a year later they hit me with an "administrative penalty" which was simply taken from my benefits. I was too ill to argue at the time. SO NOW I AM UNINSURED ????

I will say this, there are millions of people driving round with INVALID insurance if this case is allowed to stick. People with all sorts of minor convictions are not insured for their home or motor. What happens if they kill someone on the road. Like the article says, over 7 million people would be affected. Declare these minor offences and YOU WILL NOT GET INSURANCE. That is why they only check you out AFTER you make a claim. They take your money, but beware if you claim.

I_luv_cats

Hasn't anybody ever thought about this ?? Unfair contract ??? because the The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 states you don't have to declare it !!!

The Act is mentioned with most job applications so why not Insurance !!!

*Scarlett

Most insurance companies will ask you to declare any criminal convictions.

If these are spent, it will not usually impact on your policy. Most insurers disregard any spent convictions.

It's wise to keep yourself in the right by declaring anything asked as it may have an impact on future claims. FSA require insurers to keep records for a number of years (it may be 7 but that is just something popped into my head!!)

dacouch

You do not have to declare convictions that are spent under the rehabilitation of offenders act.

The person in the article was caught out as she had an offence that needed to be declared to her Insurers as it was not spent under the rehabilitation act. Insurers do not like to offer cover to people with dishonesty convictions such as fraud and benefit fraud. The claim has been declined because had the person in the article declared the claim then Aviva would under normal circumstances not have offered cover. They would therefore not have had to deal with the claim, this is why they have declined to pay the persons claim. They have declared the contract (Policy) null and void and will refund the persons premiums.

A contract (Policy) requires certain things from each party, the Insurers duty is to pay valid claims and the policyholders duty is to pay the premium and declare truthfully the answer to any questions

Would you be happy Insuring your home or car with an Insurer who routinely offers cover to people with criminal convictions expecially dishonesty convictions bearing in mind the extra claims they would / could cause would have a direct impact on your own premium?

Once again you do not need to declare a conviction that is spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act

I_luv_cats

A fine would be spent after 5 years!!

Fines3, compensation, probation4,
community service5, combination6,
action plan, drug treatment and
testing, and reparation orders If over 18 - 5 years
Applying for insurance
If the proposal form asks whether the applicant has any previous convictions, the answer can be ‘no’ if the convictions are spent. This is the case even if the conviction is relevant to the risk which the insurers will underwrite.

(source Nacro)

jonnyd281

Fine was and the act of fraud was 2002, the fire was in Feb 2007 (it says so in the metro quoted in the OP) so the insurance was taken out within 5 years of the offence taking place. Rehabilitation of Offenders Act does not apply in this case.

Inky_Pete

The insurer have "demanded" the money back, it doesn't say that they're received any kind of court order requiring that it be repaid.

If it is a spent conviction - and it appears to be - the insurer would have a real hard time convincing a court that she was wrong to not declare it.

( BTW. Anyone laying odds that it was the ex-husband who tipped the insurer off about the conviction?)

dacouch

As Jonnyd281 has pointed out there may have been 5 years between the offence and the claim, however the important thing is was the conviction spent or unspent when the person took our or renewed the policy. If it was not unspent then the Insurer can rightly declare the policy void and not pay a claim. This is assuming Aviva do not accept customers who have dishonesty convictions which they do not.

raskazz

Inky_Pete wrote: »

The insurer have "demanded" the money back, it doesn't say that they're received any kind of court order requiring that it be repaid.

If it is a spent conviction - and it appears to be - the insurer would have a real hard time convincing a court that she was wrong to not declare it.

( BTW. Anyone laying odds that it was the ex-husband who tipped the insurer off about the conviction?)

How does it 'appear' to be spent? It doesn't appear that way to me.