Home Insurance Refused

Wig

This is for my friend

House insurance refused if there is someone in the house who has a conviction... !!!!!!!

Is this refusal normally for Buildings or Contents or both?
Is this the norm for most insurers?

And this is without caring what the conviction was for (except not motoring), so the conviction had no relation to home insurance and yet they refuse to insure

It could for example be for:
fraud, theft, Insurance fraud, etc etc and you could kind of understand

But if it is for:
late payment of a bill (e.g. council tax or TV Licence) or assault or a sex crime or littering or dangerous dog or harrasment or public disorder, or anything except motoring then they refuse insurance. Which is ridiculous.

TSx

Insurance is based on generalisations. It might be the generalisation that young people are more likely to be in an accident or someone without a smoke alarm is more likely to have a fire.

In this case the generalisation is that someone who has committed a crime may be more likely to commit another (insurance fraud). There are a few other reasons but it all comes down to generalisations.

Unfortunately mainstream insurance is cheap because it doesn't cater for individual circumstances. The best bet is to approach a broker who will be able to locate a policy taking into account the circumstances.

Aretnap

Your friend shoukd read up on the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. Unless his conviction was for a very serious offence it will become spent sooner or later, and once it becomes spent he will not have to declare it, and he'll be able to get insurance as normal.

http://hub.unlock.org.uk/knowledgebase/spent-now-brief-guide-changes-roa/

In the meantime though, yes it might well cause him some problems. Mainstream, mass market insurance policies tend to be aimed at the 90% of people who have fairly normal circumstances, and don't lways cater for people who are a it out of the ordinary (be they professional entertainers, people with period thatched homes, or convicted criminals).

That doesn't necessarily mean that the insurer thinks that the insurer thinks that everybody with a conviction is going to make a fraudulent claim; it just means that they don't fancy the hassle and expense of working out whether a dangerous dog owner is more likely to make a claim than a rapist or a TV licence dodger in order to cover a fairly small section of te market. Smaller, more specialist insurers will tend to be more interested in covering those rather esoteric sections.

Aretnap

Wig wrote: »

late payment of a bill (e.g. council tax or TV Licence) or assault or a sex crime or littering or dangerous dog or harrasment or public disorder, or anything except motoring then they refuse insurance. Which is ridiculous.

Of the offences you mention, dangerous dogs in particular would be a massive red flag. Home insurance includes public liability cover, which includes cover for liability for anyone mauled by your dog. So if you have a history of owning ferocious dogs that bite people, that's something which is going to send insurers running a mile.

Sex offenders I can imagine are at high risk of suffering vandalism, or at worst arson, which is an obvious worry for a home insurer.

So no it doesn't strike me as particularly ridiculous - the list of offences which are directly relevant to insurance risk is broader than you seem to think, and certainly broader than just fraud related offences. And that's before you get into questions like whether people with assault convictions are generally not very nice people who are also more likely to commit other offences, like fraud. So it doesn't surprise me if some insurers choose to wash their hands of the whole area, and leave it to someone else to deal with.

insurancejulie

You need to think of Insurance as financial protection for your home and takes out the contract 'in good faith'. If there is a criminal conviction then this is a broad way of finding out who is more likely not to conform to the norms of society and so present a greater financial risk to them.

An insurance broker may be able to delve deeper into the details and discuss the case with underwriters to see whether insurance will be offered and at what price. If insurance is offered you should expect it to be more expensive than for people without a criminal conviction.

Pincher

They just don't want anybody who isn't a virgin, i.e. whiter than white, and never been touched by the blemish of claim.


After DECADES of never claiming for content and theft, we had a break-in, and they are now demanding that I have:

"An alarm system provided with on-site signalling by an external audible siren or bell and subject to
a contract for preventative maintenance by an NSI (NAcosS Gold or Systems Silver-approved) or
SSAIB-approved alarm company."




"we will not be liable under the contents and/or Personal Belongings section(s) for loss or damage
by theft or attempted theft from the private dwelling unless the burglar alarm system is the
subject of a maintenance contract and is put into operation when the lnsured's household has retired for the night and whenever the private dwelling is left unattended"


We have to keep the alarm ON when we are IN THE HOUSE!!


It's very simple, they DON'T want us as customers.
It's the same as flood victims, or people who had HIV test.
A whiff of risk, you are on your own.


I now understand why the Victorians are so worried about scandal.
To be seen with dodgy people socially tars you with the same brush.

dacouch

Pincher, it's more a case of once you've been broken into once, you are many times more likely to be broken into again.

dunstonh

It's very simple, they DON'T want us as customers.
It's the same as flood victims, or people who had HIV test.
A whiff of risk, you are on your own.

It really depends on where you buy the policy. If you buy via a comparison site then those plans are priced for the mainstream market and they only want the relatively easy stuff. When things are more difficult, then the old distribution methods are still the best. As would be going with a quality provider in the first place and not the cheapest one at the top of the comparison site.

However, the reason for your issues are sound. A proportion of those suffering a burglary get targeted again shortly after as the house will be full of new shiny replacements.

Yes, I know, loose women only have themselves to blame for getting raped. A decent person would never get robbed, raped, or burgled. I must have deliberately flaunted my wealth and lured burglars to my house. My bad.

Once bitten, twice shy. Hence the need to improve security.

Pincher

dunstonh wrote: »

Once bitten, twice shy. Hence the need to improve security.

I have been designing lethal traps for killing these vermin intruders. Just have to make sure I am on holiday when they are triggered, so I have an alibi.


I think they jumped the side gate. The side passage can be 14 meters of a gauntlet. I would like to call it Snuff Alley. Reasonable Force only: arrow through eyeballs and sawn off legs.

EdGasket

Since a subsidence claim, repaired by the insurance, I have been unable to get insurance with anyone else either buildings or contents and my existing insurer will no longer cover subsidence without a huge premium (like £600 extra)!!! So what Pincher says is correct.

System

TSx wrote: »

In this case the generalisation is that someone who has committed a crime may be more likely to commit another (insurance fraud). .

But they are asking about anybody in the house, not just the policyholder.