Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'm disappointed it didn't go to court, a hearing would have been interesting if Priti Useless had been compelled to testify. But I understand that Sir Philip might not have wanted the stress and uncertainty of a hearing.
    • Well stuff and all they can do with only a restriction k  £13k thats one hell of a card debt..   wonder why rbs decided to sell it on ....should they have allowed you to have such a large balance? Were you well solvent at the time? Looks like you were not if you had to pay your mortgage with it for god knows how long to run up £13k..   smacks of possible irresponsible lending to me esp if your credit file was shot with all manner of default s and lots other debt/ lending .
    • Hi guys    First post so apologies if I've made any mistakes on posting location or if this information if held in a general file location.   I have been declined a Mortgage recently based on defaults on my credit file that I genuinely didn't know anything about (details below)    British Gas - Defaulted in July 2019 owing £1,871 and £992 (settled Oct 2019)  Cabot – Defaulted Sept 2017 owing £330 (settled July 2017) Lowell – Defaulted May 2018 owing £79 -  Bt Consumer – Defaulted Feb 2016 owing £34 - This one isn't even in my name!    I was looking to see if anyone has a process or maybe letter templates for challenging Defaults and ultimately getting them removed from credit file?   I have spoken to a credit repair company who are looking to charge me £250 per Default to have them removed, however I would prefer to try and challenge these myself however have no idea where to start.    Any help appreciated. Happy to make a donation to the running of the site too if anyone can assist.   Many Thanks   
    • Priti Patel reaches £340,000 settlement with ex-Home Office chief Philip Rutnam "Priti Patel has reached a six-figure settlement with a senior civil servant following claims that he was forced out of his job for intervening in her alleged bullying of fellow staff, it has emerged."   https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/mar/04/priti-patel-reaches-six-figure-settlement-with-ex-home-office-chief-philip-rutnam   Now Johnson needs to explain how and why he over turned the assessment on her breach of ministerial code https://news.sky.com/story/boris-johnson-rules-priti-patel-did-not-breach-ministerial-code-over-bullying-allegations-12136986
    • So the CCJ is coming up to its sixth anniversary...hence the flurry of activity. Debt assignment even ones with a CCJ attached when sold or assigned....the transaction does not become complete until you have acknowledged or paid the new owner making them the legal owner.   Therefore they are desperate to get you on board with some kind of payment arrangement before it hits that  6 years period since the CCJ was given.   An action cannot be brought on any judgment after the expiry of 6 years from the date it became enforceable. The term “action” only applies to the commencement of fresh proceedings on a judgment, it does not include enforcement proceedings so, strictly speaking, for enforcement purposes and enforcement proceedings, no limitation period applies. However, any delay in enforcement on the part of the judgment creditor will affect any award of interest as recoverable interest is limited to 6 years on a judgment that is executed after the expiry of the 6 year period. Court permission is required to enforce a judgment debt that is more than 6 years old. In a particular case of Warrants of Execution, these must be renewed after 12 months if they have not been enforced. Further, the court is entitled to take account of delay and enforcement when exercising its discretion to grant any Order sought.       .
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2870 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

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...