Motor Insurance for non motoring conviction

Happy Monday

Hello
I have one non motoring conviction.
Does anyone know of any insurance company in this country that will offer a rate to someone like me?
All help appreciated.
I am getting a lot of doors closed in my face on this one.
Many thanks.
Happy Monday

bear1

Happy Monday wrote: »

Hello
I have one non motoring conviction.
Does anyone know of any insurance company in this country that will offer a rate to someone like me?
All help appreciated.
I am getting a lot of doors closed in my face on this one.
Many thanks.
Happy Monday

What was the conviction?

coylemj

Insurance brokers usually know who will offer policies to people who have the difficulties you are describing.

Happy Monday

coylemj wrote: »

Insurance brokers usually know who will offer policies to people who have the difficulties you are describing.

Conviction for criminal damage/harassment e-mails.

Happy Monday

bear1 wrote: »

What was the conviction?

Criminal damage/harassment e-mails.

Liam McPoyle

Happy Monday wrote: »

Criminal damage/harassment e-mails.

Have you ever held insurance?

If so, your most recent insurer will have to quote you.

If not, then you will need to get 3 letters of declinature from 3 insurance companies and go to the declined cases committee.

They will compel the company that first declined you to provide a quote.

Valetta

Do you need to disclose non motoring convictions at all?

Liam McPoyle

Valetta wrote: »

Do you need to disclose non motoring convictions at all?

Some insurers will ask have you any convictions rather than any motoring convictions.

bear1

If I remember correctly you need to disclose all motoring offences. That isn't a motoring offence so I'm not sure why you are telling them.
I would tell the truth and click no previous motoring offences.

Liam McPoyle

bear1 wrote: »

If I remember correctly you need to disclose all motoring offences. That isn't a motoring offence so I'm not sure why you are telling them.
I would tell the truth and click no previous motoring offences.

This is bad advice.

Clearly its an issue for some insurers if he is getting declines.

If he is asked SPECIFICALLY "have you any motoring convictions" then he can answer no.

If he is asked "have you ever had any convictions" he must answer yes because he had.

coylemj

Business Cat wrote: »

This is bad advice.

Clearly its an issue for some insurers if he is getting declines.

If he is asked SPECIFICALLY "have you any motoring convictions" then he can answer no.

If he is asked "have you ever had any convictions" he must answer yes because he had.

+1 I agree it's bad advice but even if there isn't a direct question, it's often in the terms and conditions that if you have a conviction for a crime involving violence or fraud that you declare it. Some companies want to know about any conviction.

Example: Aviva have a link on their webpage 'Our Assumptions' which includes the following .....

.... You or any named driver or any person who may drive your car ....

• Have not been convicted of any offences of any nature, or have any now pending

bear1

I'm not advising he should lie, maybe I phrased it wrong. I meant that if he is being asked if he has had any motoring convinctions then he should say no.
Other convictions of course yes.

Mintoe

Are insurance companies allowed to ask for info regarding "any convictions"? I would have thought that they can only ask for any info relating to motoring convictions.

Would I not be right in saying that you can lie to the insurance company if you want.

If it comes time to claim (let's say you rear end a car, or a car side swipes you etc so regardless of who's at fault), if the insurance company then find out the truth, they have to demonstrate that the lie you told either caused the accident or somehow added to the damage done?

For example, lets say I recently lowered my car, but big wheel spacers on it, remapped it and tinted all the windows. If I then drive straight into the car in front of me, because I was texting someone, the insurance company can't refuse to pay out, because none of my mods would have caused or prevented the accident from happening in the first place.

(similarly, if you're at a side road coming onto a main road and pull out into the side of another car and claim you didn't see him coming, then the insurance company can say "well you would have seen him if you didn't have tints, so we're not paying out")?

I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that I seen this be a thing in the past when an insurance company refused to cover someone and it went to court and whatever happened, the insurance company were forced to pay out as whatever their reasoning was, the judge ruled it had no bearing on the claim? I know that's very vague but I genuinely can't recall specifics, but the general idea is lodged in my head.


Then again, I also firmly remember reading in a paper before more than once of judges ruling against uninsured drivers who were in accidents that they didn't cause. the idea being that they were uninsured and the accident wouldn't have happened if they weren't on the road (so In a roundabout way, they were at fault). but boardsies in the past have said this isn't the case so I could be talking nonsense.


I do agree though that non motoring offences should have no bearing on motor insurance (and I say that as someone with no previous offences or convictions etc). I don't see what bearing it has.

It'd be similar to a pet insurance company asking am I a vegetarian because they're worried I might eat my dog. just looking for any reason to hike the policy or cancel it if they can, should you ever dare to claim. Car insurance needs serious overhauling.

Indricotherium

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Would I not be right in saying that you can lie to the insurance company if you want.

If it comes time to claim (let's say you rear end a car, or a car side swipes you etc so regardless of who's at fault), if the insurance company then find out the truth, they have to demonstrate that the lie you told either caused the accident or somehow added to the damage done?

For example, lets say I recently lowered my car, but big wheel spacers on it, remapped it and tinted all the windows. If I then drive straight into the car in front of me, because I was texting someone, the insurance company can't refuse to pay out, because none of my mods would have caused or prevented the accident from happening in the first place.

(similarly, if you're at a side road coming onto a main road and pull out into the side of another car and claim you didn't see him coming, then the insurance company can say "well you would have seen him if you didn't have tints, so we're not paying out")?

I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that I seen this be a thing in the past when an insurance company refused to cover someone and it went to court and whatever happened, the insurance company were forced to pay out as whatever their reasoning was, the judge ruled it had no bearing on the claim? I know that's very vague but I genuinely can't recall specifics, but the general idea is lodged in my head.


Then again, I also firmly remember reading in a paper before more than once of judges ruling against uninsured drivers who were in accidents that they didn't cause. the idea being that they were uninsured and the accident wouldn't have happened if they weren't on the road (so In a roundabout way, they were at fault). but boardsies in the past have said this isn't the case so I could be talking nonsense.


I do agree though that non motoring offences should have no bearing on motor insurance (and I say that as someone with no previous offences or convictions etc). I don't see what bearing it has.

It'd be similar to a pet insurance company asking am I a vegetarian because they're worried I might eat my dog. just looking for any reason to hike the policy or cancel it if they can, should you ever dare to claim. Car insurance needs serious overhauling.

I think if you enough stats you could probably draw correlations between non driving related convictions and likelyhood of claims. An example might be someone with many convictions for drunk in a public place might be more likely to crash their car and attract a higher premium. Thats just one I can think of.

As to you modifying your car, your insurance premium is based on the likelyhood you are going to have a claim, and not on whether your mods will cause you to be in an accident. And like it or lump it, a the driver in a modified car is more likely to be in an accident hence the higher premium.

pete4130

Deleted User wrote: »

Would I not be right in saying that you can lie to the insurance company if you want.

If it comes time to claim (let's say you rear end a car, or a car side swipes you etc so regardless of who's at fault), if the insurance company then find out the truth, they have to demonstrate that the lie you told either caused the accident or somehow added to the damage done?

For example, lets say I recently lowered my car, but big wheel spacers on it, remapped it and tinted all the windows. If I then drive straight into the car in front of me, because I was texting someone, the insurance company can't refuse to pay out, because none of my mods would have caused or prevented the accident from happening in the first place.

(similarly, if you're at a side road coming onto a main road and pull out into the side of another car and claim you didn't see him coming, then the insurance company can say "well you would have seen him if you didn't have tints, so we're not paying out")?

I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that I seen this be a thing in the past when an insurance company refused to cover someone and it went to court and whatever happened, the insurance company were forced to pay out as whatever their reasoning was, the judge ruled it had no bearing on the claim? I know that's very vague but I genuinely can't recall specifics, but the general idea is lodged in my head.


Then again, I also firmly remember reading in a paper before more than once of judges ruling against uninsured drivers who were in accidents that they didn't cause. the idea being that they were uninsured and the accident wouldn't have happened if they weren't on the road (so In a roundabout way, they were at fault). but boardsies in the past have said this isn't the case so I could be talking nonsense.


I do agree though that non motoring offences should have no bearing on motor insurance (and I say that as someone with no previous offences or convictions etc). I don't see what bearing it has.

It'd be similar to a pet insurance company asking am I a vegetarian because they're worried I might eat my dog. just looking for any reason to hike the policy or cancel it if they can, should you ever dare to claim. Car insurance needs serious overhauling.

Uberrima fides.

whomitconcerns

You would not be right in saying it. Utmost good faith principle applies

Deleted User wrote: »

Would I not be right in saying that you can lie to the insurance company if you want.

If it comes time to claim (let's say you rear end a car, or a car side swipes you etc so regardless of who's at fault), if the insurance company then find out the truth, they have to demonstrate that the lie you told either caused the accident or somehow added to the damage done?

For example, lets say I recently lowered my car, but big wheel spacers on it, remapped it and tinted all the windows. If I then drive straight into the car in front of me, because I was texting someone, the insurance company can't refuse to pay out, because none of my mods would have caused or prevented the accident from happening in the first place.

(similarly, if you're at a side road coming onto a main road and pull out into the side of another car and claim you didn't see him coming, then the insurance company can say "well you would have seen him if you didn't have tints, so we're not paying out")?

I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that I seen this be a thing in the past when an insurance company refused to cover someone and it went to court and whatever happened, the insurance company were forced to pay out as whatever their reasoning was, the judge ruled it had no bearing on the claim? I know that's very vague but I genuinely can't recall specifics, but the general idea is lodged in my head.


Then again, I also firmly remember reading in a paper before more than once of judges ruling against uninsured drivers who were in accidents that they didn't cause. the idea being that they were uninsured and the accident wouldn't have happened if they weren't on the road (so In a roundabout way, they were at fault). but boardsies in the past have said this isn't the case so I could be talking nonsense.


I do agree though that non motoring offences should have no bearing on motor insurance (and I say that as someone with no previous offences or convictions etc). I don't see what bearing it has.

It'd be similar to a pet insurance company asking am I a vegetarian because they're worried I might eat my dog. just looking for any reason to hike the policy or cancel it if they can, should you ever dare to claim. Car insurance needs serious overhauling.

Indricotherium

pete4130 wrote: »

Uberrima fides.

That seems deliberately unhelpful.

VincePP

Mintoe wrote: »

Are insurance companies allowed to ask for info regarding "any convictions"? I would have thought that they can only ask for any info relating to motoring convictions.

They can ask you what you had for breakfast if they want.

Private company, and like any private company they create their own terms and conditions.

Indricotherium

VincePP wrote: »

They can ask you what you had for breakfast if they want.

Private company, and like any private company they create their own terms and conditions.

And again if you had enough data you could probably work out that someone who eats eggs for breakfast has a different claim risk than someone who eats rashers.

Markcheese

Heard recently of a publican involved in a car crash , his insurance wouldnt pay out because he had been done for( and not notified them ) after hours licensing offences previously...
Sign of poor character apparently-

Liam McPoyle

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Would I not be right in saying that you can lie to the insurance company if you want.

If it comes time to claim (let's say you rear end a car, or a car side swipes you etc so regardless of who's at fault), if the insurance company then find out the truth, they have to demonstrate that the lie you told either caused the accident or somehow added to the damage done?

For example, lets say I recently lowered my car, but big wheel spacers on it, remapped it and tinted all the windows. If I then drive straight into the car in front of me, because I was texting someone, the insurance company can't refuse to pay out, because none of my mods would have caused or prevented the accident from happening in the first place.

(similarly, if you're at a side road coming onto a main road and pull out into the side of another car and claim you didn't see him coming, then the insurance company can say "well you would have seen him if you didn't have tints, so we're not paying out")?

I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that I seen this be a thing in the past when an insurance company refused to cover someone and it went to court and whatever happened, the insurance company were forced to pay out as whatever their reasoning was, the judge ruled it had no bearing on the claim? I know that's very vague but I genuinely can't recall specifics, but the general idea is lodged in my head.


Then again, I also firmly remember reading in a paper before more than once of judges ruling against uninsured drivers who were in accidents that they didn't cause. the idea being that they were uninsured and the accident wouldn't have happened if they weren't on the road (so In a roundabout way, they were at fault). but boardsies in the past have said this isn't the case so I could be talking nonsense.


I do agree though that non motoring offences should have no bearing on motor insurance (and I say that as someone with no previous offences or convictions etc). I don't see what bearing it has.

It'd be similar to a pet insurance company asking am I a vegetarian because they're worried I might eat my dog. just looking for any reason to hike the policy or cancel it if they can, should you ever dare to claim. Car insurance needs serious overhauling.

So if someone had multiple convictions for public order, criminal damage, fraud or whatever, you think they would not be a higher risk than someone with zero convictions?

They are a higher risk, someone with a past of criminality is more likely to have a future of criminality. If they have lack of concern for a the laws of the land its not much of a stretch to think they could have a lack of concern for the rules of the road.

There should be though, IMO, some leeway.

Eg, driver got a conviction for public order when he was 20, the folly of youth and all that. He has subsequently been living within the law for 20 years, I personally think it's very unfair that he would be considered in the same bracket as someone with 10 convictions over the course of their life.

There was a case against FBD a number of years ago. They insured a person with criminal convictions that were not declared. He had been asked had he any motoring convictions to which he truthfully answered no. He was involved in an bad accident and they refused to pay out on the basis on non disclosure of previous convictions. The driver went to the ombudsman and the case came before the courts. The judge ruled in favour of the driver because be was not specifically asked about non motoring convictions.

Fbd and many other insurers closed that particular loophole in the aftermath changing the wording to any convictions rather than any motoring convictions.

Insurance operates on the principal that the proposer knows everything and the insurer knows nothing, therefore the obligation is on the proposer to advise the company of all details that may otherwise influence their decision to offer a quote.

johndaman66

Deleted User wrote: »

I do agree though that non motoring offences should have no bearing on motor insurance (and I say that as someone with no previous offences or convictions etc). I don't see what bearing it has.

I would imagine though that staistically speaking someone who has non motoring conviction(s) is more likely to commit a motoring offence than someone who doesn't have a previous non mototing conviction....Like it or hate and you may argue that people get unfairly victimised but at the end of the day Insurance companies work of statistics in determining risk profile.


In the same vein we know that not all 19 year olds are nut jobs behind the wheel. However, in account of the fact that so many are and statistically more likely to be involved in an accident attributable to them, than say a 30 year old, all other things being equal then all 19 year olds are left to pay higher premiums notwithstanding that they may be a very careful and safe driver.

sogood

I think some of this will soon be overhauled/tweaked/goalposts moved/whatever as the proposed "Spent Convictions Bill" may well be passed into law, if it's not already on the way.

This is a new piece of legislation whereby your record is wiped clean, after a specific period of time, if you have remained trouble free during that time. It doesn't apply to all types of offences, but many minor offences are covered.

So, the insurance companies will have to think about how to screw you another way. Yes, you once had a conviction, but it's gone now!

9935452

sogood wrote: »

I think some of this will soon be overhauled/tweaked/goalposts moved/whatever as the proposed "Spent Convictions Bill" may well be passed into law, if it's not already on the way.

This is a new piece of legislation whereby your record is wiped clean, after a specific period of time, if you have remained trouble free during that time. It doesn't apply to all types of offences, but many minor offences are covered.

So, the insurance companies will have to think about how to screw you another way. Yes, you once had a conviction, but it's gone now!

But if they ask 'any previous convictions?' the answer would still be yes even if it was wiped from your record.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

sogood

9935452 wrote: »

But if they ask 'any previous convictions?' the answer would still be yes even if it was wiped from your record.

Yes, a grey area, as the whole point of the Bill, is to allow someone with a conviction to move on with their life, without this particular monkey on their back. The attitude would be that you offended once, made a mistake for whatever reason and now it's history, or can even be considered as to have never happened at all. Having to declare a conviction, which is now "spent" would be totally counter productive.

We will have to wait and see how it pans out, maybe in a test case. Maybe different rules would apply to a current or active conviction, as opposed to a spent conviction?

ATMatm

Liberty will generally quote. Same with a company called Octane underwritten by Zenith.

Happy Monday

Disclosed the non motoring conviction and the insurance broker and insurance company involved were happy to proceed with the quote.

To Elland Back

Happy Monday wrote: »

Disclosed the non motoring conviction and the insurance broker and insurance company involved were happy to proceed with the quote.

Good news. Make sure it is fully described on the Proposal Form / Statement of Fact and retain a copy