Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Paragraph 18 – you are still talking about Boston stolen items. About time this was fixed??? Paragraph 19  In any event, the claimant's PS5 gaming device was correctly declared and correctly valued. The defendant accepted it for carriage and was even prepared to earn extra money by selling sell insurance in case of its loss or damage. New paragraph 20 – this the defendant routinely sells insurance in respect of "no compensation" items (a secondary contract contrary to section 72 CRA 2015) new paragraph above paragraph 20 – the defendant purports to limit its liability in respect of lost or damaged items. This is contrary to section 57 of the consumer rights act 2015. The defendant offers to extend their liability if their customer purchases an insurance cover for an extra sum of money. This insurance is a secondary contract calculated to exclude or limit their liability for the defendants contractual breaches and is contrary to section 72 of the consumer rights act 2015. New paragraph below paragraph 42 – the defendant merely relies on "standard industry practice" You haven't pointed to the place in your bundle of the Telegraph newspaper extract. You have to jiggle the paragraphs around. Even though I have suggested new paragraph numbers, the order I have suggested is on your existing version 5. You will have to work it out for your next version. Good luck!   Let's see version 6 Separately, would you be kind enough to send me an unredacted to me at our admin email address.
    • UK travellers have been turned away at airports because their passports are not valid for EU travel.View the full article
    • i think theres been MORE than amble evidence of that and am astonished that criminal proceedings haven't begun.
    • Yep, those 'requirements' not met to shareholders satisfaction seem to me to be: 1. Not being allowed to increase customer bills by 40% (of which well over 50% of the new total would NOT be investment) 2. 1 plus regulators not agreeing to letting them do 'things in their own time (ie carry on regardless)
    • As already mentioned freely available "credit scores" are fairly useless. All lenders have their own "credit scoring" system, that for obvious reasons they don't divulge. And they're "scored" differently to the freely available ones. As soon as they could, we've always encouraged our two children to use credit cards responsibly... Pay off in full, etc, to generate good history. It's paid off. At quite young ages, they have both obtained loans for cars, mortgage and their credit card limits are through the roof. Personally, I have shifted debt around a lot on credit cards (even financed a house purchase once at 0% 😉) and I've only ever been refused a credit card once, sorry twice by the same company, over many years. They must have something very different in their lending criteria. You're a tight one, Mr Branson.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Spent Conviction - Household Insurance


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3990 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi,

I've searched unsuccessfully for a definitive answer to this, hope someone here can help.

 

I had my household insurance policy cancelled due to receiving a criminal conviction, the sentence was 6 months suspended reduced to 4 months on appeal.

7 years have now passed and as I understand it the conviction is classed as spent and I do not have to declare it when applying for insurance.

But insurance companies also ask have you ever had insurance refused/cancelled.

Do I need to declare that I have had insurance cancelled when it was cancelled due to a conviction that is now spent and does not need to be declared in itself?

 

Any advice would be much appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the conviction had nothing to do with the Home Insurance i.e. you did not try to commit fraud by making a false claim, then I would advise the following.

 

Use an Insurance brokers or phone companies directly to discuss this when asking for quotes or arranging Insurance. Because the conviction is spent, it does not need to be disclosed and if the cancellation only related to the conviction not being accepted by one Insurers underwriting guidelines, then the reason for cancellation should not be a problem for Insurers.

 

I am reluctant to advise you that because the conviction is spent that the cancellation does not need to be disclosed, because I would not want you to experience any hassle, if you needed to claim on the Insurance. It is sometimes better to mention something like this when approaching Insurers for quotes/cover, so they know about it and cannot use it against you to frustrate you when claiming.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the conviction had nothing to do with the Home Insurance i.e. you did not try to commit fraud by making a false claim, then I would advise the following.

Snip

It is sometimes better to mention something like this when approaching Insurers for quotes/cover, so they know about it and cannot use it against you to frustrate you when claiming.

 

Thx for your advice.

The conviction was for copyright offences, nothing to do with insurance.

My only qualm about declaring it is if it causes the premium to be loaded.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thx for your advice.

The conviction was for copyright offences, nothing to do with insurance.

My only qualm about declaring it is if it causes the premium to be loaded.

 

What offence did they actually convict you of?

 

The age would have been relevant if you were under 18 when convicted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What offence did they actually convict you of?

 

The age would have been relevant if you were under 18 when convicted.

 

Can't remember the actual charges (paperwork lost) but the crime was selling copy dvd's.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You won't need to disclose the conviction as it's spent, however Insurers don't like dishonesty convictions which I think many will class this as.]

 

I know that I don't have to declare the conviction as it is now spent.

 

But

 

Do I have to declare the cancellation which was due to the conviction?

If I declare the cancellation any insurance company will want to know the reason for it.

This will mean declaring the conviction which I am not legally required to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You won't need to disclose the conviction as it's spent, however Insurers don't like dishonesty convictions which I think many will class this as.

 

If you have problems getting cover try this broker http://www.bureauinsure.co.uk/ or this charity http://www.unlock.org.uk/

 

Insurers are not allowed to discriminate in regard to a spent conviction. In theory they would not be allowed to use the cancellation issue, if it solely related to this spent conviction, as a reason not to quote/issue a policy. BUT Insurers can decide who they want to be their customer, the same as any other business. Not much you can do about it.

 

A bit of a harsh situation to be in and if you have any trouble the Unlock people linked to, are a good contact point.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's something important to check here...

 

Why was the policy cancelled? was it cancelled by them because you informed them mid-term of your conviction, or was it cancelled because you didn't tell them about the conviction when taking out the policy?

 

If it's the former, then I'd argue that it shouldn't affect the premium charged, as they can't discriminate against you because of a spent conviction. I would expect you'd still need to disclose it though unfortunately.

 

If it's the latter, then the cancellation is not for your conviction, it's for mis-representation and as such will need to be disclosed in full and will likely affect the premium.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's something important to check here...

 

Why was the policy cancelled? was it cancelled by them because you informed them mid-term of your conviction, or was it cancelled because you didn't tell them about the conviction when taking out the policy?

 

If it's the former, then I'd argue that it shouldn't affect the premium charged, as they can't discriminate against you because of a spent conviction. I would expect you'd still need to disclose it though unfortunately.

 

If it's the latter, then the cancellation is not for your conviction, it's for mis-representation and as such will need to be disclosed in full and will likely affect the premium.

 

Will try and explain the sequence of events.

 

The contents insurance was not in my name but in my wifes name, I was not mentioned on the policy at all.

I/we were not aware that it was necessary to inform the insurance company of the conviction. When my wife renewed the policy (twice) no questions were asked re convictions etc.

 

Approximately two and a half to three years after my conviction I dropped my phone into a saucepan of water and my wife phoned up to make a claim on the contents insurance.

She was asked then if either she or anyone else living in the house had any convictions.

She told them of my conviction and was asked why they had not been informed at the time. She explained that we were unaware of the need to do so and was asked to put the details in writing, this she did.

Some time passed and she received a letter from the insurance company telling her that the insurance had been cancelled and enclosing a cheque which it was explained was the refund of premiums back to the date of my conviction.

 

Hope the above is understandable.

 

Thanks to all for their advice thus far.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That makes it more difficult. Your wife had a policy (which included you) cancelled due to non disclosure. Your wife will need to disclose this for all Insurance arrangements, that a policy was cancelled, as she failed to meet a policy condition to disclose the conviction at the point it was incurred.

 

Suggest working with a local brokers, to see what they can arrange.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

As UB has said, unfortunately, this means the cancellation will need to be disclosed indefinitely - your wifes policy was not cancelled because you had a conviction, it was cancelled because your wife did not disclose the conviction and thus misrepresented the risk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...