Home Insurance Trap

dacouch

Insurers do not normally perform checks on criminal records for Insurance claims and as far as I know an Insurance company cannot do a crb check on a customer

raskazz

Inky_Pete wrote: »

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

I'm sorry but there is no polite way of putting this - that is absolute rubbish.

I'm not sure why you bring up the issue of cautions either - the policyholder would not have been fined if cautioned. Even if somehow both a fine and a caution were imposed, the rehabilitation period is the longest of either punishment - in this case, 5 years for the fine.

Inky_Pete

My point is that if the policy holder were cautioned, and the various articles stated that she was, then the "fine" which was imposed cannot have been a criminal conviction related fine. You either have an administrative penalty or a judical one in a particular case - not both. In this case what is being described as a "fine" would most likely have been an agreed repayment of the overpayed benefits - and possibly also an administration charge - imposed as a condition of avoiding a criminal prosecution.

Also, no judicial penalty can be imposed without the accused being appraised of their rights to silence, representation etc. This would almost always mean a formal arrest by the police.

There are far too many things missing from the reported situation for it be as most people are assuming it to be.

dacouch

The DWP and local councils can prepare their own cases and proceed to court.

If you read the various reports they all refer to a conviction and the statement from Aviva also refers to Michelle Barbers conviction for fraud.

raskazz

Inky_Pete wrote: »

My point is that if the policy holder were cautioned, and the various articles stated that she was, then the "fine" which was imposed cannot have been a criminal conviction related fine.

Which articles? The most authoritative source I can find - the BBC - makes no mention of the individual being cautioned and all the articles I have read refer to her being fined.

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/norfolk/8294336.stm)

The BBC article also contains one telling sentence which I haven't yet seen elsewhere:

"In this instance, Ms Barber has failed to declare previous convictions, although she has had opportunities to do so."

Note opportunities plural. That suggests to me that not only did she fail to disclose it at quotation/inception but also when interviewed by a loss adjuster and thoroughly probed to fess up.

Inky_Pete wrote: »

You either have an administrative penalty or a judical one in a particular case - not both. In this case what is being described as a "fine" would most likely have been an agreed repayment of the overpayed benefits - and possibly also an administration charge - imposed as a condition of avoiding a criminal prosecution.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever to back up this wild assertion? I think a round figure of £150 is far more likely to a fine rather than repayment.

The individual herself is quoted as saying:

"'I was shocked and felt sick. Why did no one tell me such a tiny fine could do this?"

(http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/insurance/household/article.html?in_article_id=491886&in_page_id=34)

Inky_Pete wrote: »

This would almost always mean a formal arrest by the police.

Wrong. Court summons can be presented in cases of benefit fraud with no police involvement.

Inky_Pete wrote: »

There are far too many things missing from the reported situation for it be as most people are assuming it to be.

I can only see one person making assumptions.

InsuranceWorrried

Hi all,

I have a Police Caution, I wont go into details but it was a stupid alcohol related incident, having seen the article in the Metro I checked my home insurance policy - which luckily runs out soon as it quite clearly states that anyone with a caution is not eligible (it actually says CAUTION as well as conviction in the wording), well I decided to have a look at some quotes and More Than were reasonable.

I checked the eligibility statement which says;

o be eligible for cover all of the following statements must be true:

Your family includes you or any of the following people providing they normally live with you: your husband, wife or partner; children (including foster children); your relatives; your domestic employees.

*You and your family HAVE NOT:*

*

received any conviction except for driving offences"

So, I decided to email them telling them I had a caution and they replied;

"Unfortunately, no cover is available if you have a police caution"



I have emailed them back saying I assume they are going to change their policy wording then since the home office website (I included the link) clearly states that a Police Caution is NOT a conviction.


Is the person that replied just plain wrong? Or, if I took out a policy with More Than would I be rejected if I came to make a claim?