Insurance Cancellation, the lifetime sentence

Quentin

Bear in mind that (if they were doing this with the hope of relying on not being discovered and intended lying on all future applications) they couldn't be insured at all throughout the six years (no named driver/ no house insurance in any house they lived etc).

The risk/ benefit ratio might not make it worthwhile.

Maybe better to accept higher premiums then find an insurer that asks for your history over a set period rather than "ever"

maddogb

it is funny thought eh, how a move to a postcode your insurers doesn't like can have longer lasting consequences than a murder you committed...

takman

GingerBob wrote: »

One final thought; there's no such thing as "your" insurance record, which could attract black marks in the same way that the CRA blacklists can. If you make a claim it will be recorded on CUE, and if you're fraudulent, it will be recorded on the IFB, but both these databases relate to incidents, not individuals.

So your saying the databases you have mentioned here are not blacklists yet the CRA are blacklists?.

So how have you come to that conclusion then when both are just simply databases that record information?.

But don't worry I don't expect any kind of sensible reply from you because whenever I challenge you on this you seem to just stop replying. Which obviously means you have no explanation why you think this either!. :rotfl:

You seem love the word "blacklist" so much that I imagine you spend hours each night creating your own blacklists; lists of insurance companies you will never use, lists of shops you will never visit, lists of foods you don't like and will never eat! :rotfl:

Aretnap

maddogb wrote: »

it is funny thought eh, how a move to a postcode your insurers doesn't like can have longer lasting consequences than a murder you committed...

The consequences of a murder conviction do last forever - even if you're released from prison you remain on licence for life. And the conviction is declarable to insurers for life as well. Most insurers will require you to declare ANY unspent criminal convictions, and serious crimes which result in a prison sentence of more than (IIRC) 4 years are not covered by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and never become spent.

I do agree that requiring cancelled policies to be declared forever is unfair, but the comparison with murder isn't a particularly useful one. You'd be better off comparing it with a moderately serious crime of dishonesty, which does become spent eventually so is none of your insurer's business after a few years.

[Deleted User]

GingerBob claims to have 12 credit cards yet calls the banking industry liars, thieves, scammers etc.

Of course, it would be hypocritical and show a complete lack of courage of your convictions to slam the banks yet use their services when it suits.......

GingerBob_3

takman wrote: »

So your saying the databases you have mentioned here are not blacklists yet the CRA are blacklists?.

So how have you come to that conclusion then when both are just simply databases that record information?.

But don't worry I don't expect any kind of sensible reply from you because whenever I challenge you on this you seem to just stop replying. Which obviously means you have no explanation why you think this either!. :rotfl:

You seem love the word "blacklist" so much that I imagine you spend hours each night creating your own blacklists; lists of insurance companies you will never use, lists of shops you will never visit, lists of foods you don't like and will never eat! :rotfl:

No, I just won't engage in endless conversations (with zx81 as well) where, no matter what argument I put forward, you will never agree, so what's the point?

takman

GingerBob wrote: »

No, I just won't engage in endless conversations (with zx81 as well) where, no matter what argument I put forward, you will never agree, so what's the point?

But have you considered that your logic is flawed and that it's incorrect and very misleading to refer to the CRA's as "Blacklists". I have never seen anyone on this site joining you in saying they are "Blacklists". So are you saying everyone is wrong except you?.

But don't worry i don't expect you to ever agree with me and that is a good thing because it definitely makes threads more interesting when someone has such strong views that are the complete opposite of mine!

stanfield1981

The bottom line is, if the details of any void policy are removed due to Data Protection reasons and you answer "no" to the question "have you ever had insurance cancelled ...." then surely they wouldn't know any different?

Tesco Bank did it to me 4 years ago and I am still being penalised. I';m waiting for my second response from Tesco due to them telling me that my details were passed to a company called "Synectic Solution" who I have never heard of.

The only records I know of that are held about you for life are things such as medical records and criminal convictions so I doubt the ICO will approve of a private company holding onto these for ever.

Watch this space...........................

dunstonh

The bottom line is, if the details of any void policy are removed due to Data Protection reasons and you answer "no" to the question "have you ever had insurance cancelled ...." then surely they wouldn't know any different?

data protection does not require things that are required from a regulatory or liability point of view to be removed.

The only records I know of that are held about you for life are things such as medical records and criminal convictions so I doubt the ICO will approve of a private company holding onto these for ever.

Plenty of things in financial services have to be held forever.

stanfield1981

All information has now been collated and sent to the ICO. I'll update this post with their findings!

They seem a bit puzzled as to how a company can hold onto personal information indefinitely but hopefully my email trail will make sense to them and they will clear it up