Home Insurance Trap

shawn_gg

:S wow... all these seems really technical, and a little hard to understand

Inky_Pete

raskazz wrote: »

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

After 5 years any conviction resulting in a fine would have become a spent conviction, the only question is the exact dates of the "conviction" (if, in fact, this one ever was a criminal conviction rather than an administrative penalty) and the annual insurance contract being entered into.

A caution becomes a spent conviction as soon as it's issued, and a conditional caution becomes spent as soon as the conditions are satisfied (check out the Liberty website for details)

raskazz

Inky_Pete wrote: »

After 5 years any conviction resulting in a fine would have become a spent conviction, the only question is the exact dates of the "conviction" (if, in fact, this one ever was a criminal conviction rather than an administrative penalty) and the annual insurance contract being entered into.

A caution becomes a spent conviction as soon as it's issued, and a conditional caution becomes spent as soon as the conditions are satisfied (check out the Liberty website for details)

I know what is and isn't a spent conviction, thanks. I was asking why in your eyes it 'appears' that the policyholder's conviction is spent?

FlameCloud

Inky_Pete wrote: »

After 5 years any conviction resulting in a fine would have become a spent conviction, the only question is the exact dates of the "conviction" (if, in fact, this one ever was a criminal conviction rather than an administrative penalty) and the annual insurance contract being entered into.

A caution becomes a spent conviction as soon as it's issued, and a conditional caution becomes spent as soon as the conditions are satisfied (check out the Liberty website for details)

I know Aviva can be bad, but do you honestly think they would have kicked out the entire claim without making sure they were in the right first?

Inky_Pete

They haven't kicked out the claim, they've performed all of their usual looking for excuses to wriggle out of it (including, one would assume, a CRB check), not found anything and they've paid it out.

Then they've obviously been tipped off about this "conviction" when the woman was about to move back into the house that the ex-husband torched rather than see her get her hands on.

The police apparently weren't involved and she was never arrested and never appeared in a court of any description. She was "fined" £150 in 2002, presumably by the Benefits Agency, as a result of some sort of overpayment of benefits. She made the claim sometime after February 2007 (it could have been quite a while afterwards if the police were still untangling the whole arson by the ex-husband thing).

If the insurance application form she filled in asked her declare criminal convictions then since a criminal conviction is defined as -

The outcome of a criminal prosecution which concludes in a judgment that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged. The juncture of a criminal proceeding during which the question of guilt is ascertained. In a case where the perpetrator has been adjudged guilty and sentenced, a record of the summary proceedings brought pursuant to any penal statute before one or more justices of the peace or other properly authorized persons.

- then she'd have a strong case that this never was a criminal conviction, certainly not in any way that any reasonable person would recognise it, and as such it did not need to be declared.

Even if the "fine" were to be considered to be a criminal conviction, then if 5 years had passed between the date of the fine and her entering into that years insurance contract she would have been within her rights not to declare it as it was a spent conviction at that point. Whether or not Aviva would have a case against her for not declaring it to them in previous years is a totally seperate question, they would have to bring a case and prove in court that they had suffered a loss as a result - which they didn't if there were no claims during the time when the conviction was unspent.

We're obviously not getting the full details in the press, but it's going to the ombudsman so we'll see what he says. Hopefully he'll at least ask for clarification of what is and is not a criminal conviction as far as the insurance companies are concerned.

FlameCloud

Inky_Pete wrote: »

We're obviously not getting the full details in the press, but it's going to the ombudsman so we'll see what he says. Hopefully he'll at least ask for clarification of what is and is not a criminal conviction as far as the insurance companies are concerned.

Whilst at the same time reminding Aviva that he cannot rule on a claim of this size

dacouch

Where do you get the information that she never appeared in a court? All of the reports state she was fined and convicted of benefit fraud. This would lead me to believe she was caught by the benefits agency and taken to court

I_luv_cats

I rang my insurance company and told them reluctantly of my minor misdemeanor of over 20 years ago. I had to go into details.....

They said that is ok, it won't affect my policy and made a note that I informed them BUT said my policy would still show NO that i don't have any convictions.

I am annoyed that I had to tell them because it should be forgotten about. The person on the phone agreed BUT said they don't have a Rehabilitation Of Offenders Act Opt Out, just Yes or No to a conviction!

dacouch

I luv cats you do not need to declare a conviction that is spent under the rehabilitation of offenders act. This is why the Insurer is ignoring it, ideally they should mention that you do not need to declare spent convictions in the question they ask about convictions.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/25/25-disclosure-of-spent-motoring-convictions.htm

Inky_Pete

dacouch wrote: »

Where do you get the information that she never appeared in a court? All of the reports state she was fined and convicted of benefit fraud. This would lead me to believe she was caught by the benefits agency and taken to court

If she was cautioned then she cannot have appeared in court over this matter. Cautions are an administrative device used by a variety of government organisations - Benefits Agency, DVLA, Police, Inland Revenue, Customs & Excise and others - they are NOT part of the judicial process.

Courts don't even have the ability to give a caution, their equivalent would be either an absolute or conditional discharge.

Just because some journalist uses words like fined or convicted - which both have precise legal meanings - don't assume that they have the slightest idea whether or not they are correct to do so.

If the woman had a criminal conviction - spent or not - a CRB check would have revealed it. With a claim of nearly a quarter of a million pounds the insurance company would certainly have performed some basic checks before paying.

They paid out, therefore there was never was a criminal conviction for them to find.