insurance with a conviction?

andy83

My mate has just got a new bike and has a previous conviciotn of gbh

are there any bike specific insureres that will touch him or has he no chance??

thanks in advance

cee

not sure if the insurance company will even ask if he has any criminal convictions, car insurance companies ask if you have any driving convictions, but that seems obvious....

how long ago was it? it could well be 'spent' and therefor no need to declare it to anyone, unless interviewing for a job with an exempt profession.

andy83

he has six years for it to be spent

just i know contents insurance for example cant be obtained if you have a conviction, well not through the main companies anyhow

cee

after a little googling....

http://www.unlock.org.uk/

some helpful stuff here, including lists of insurers for people with unspent convictions.

c

andy83

yea cheers for that, saw them when i was looking for home insurance for them

just wondered if someone like cyclleguard would cover them just for their bike

cee

after a quick look at the cycleguard website....not sure.

Material facts - this is any piece of information that might affect our decision to provide you with insurance. Under UK law, you are obliged to advise us of any material facts, such as convictions for fraud, theft or dishonesty, prior claims or events, or any special terms or conditions that have been applied by previous insurers.This obligation applies at the time you arrange insurance and extends to any change in circumstances whilst you are insured with Cycleguard

I guess this means that it depends on what the conviction is for...It would seem to me that gbh is not any of these things...worth phoning them and asking them the question?

andy83

cheers

i did try read that jargon but i dont understand stuff like that lol

will pass the info on to him

it is bad enough hat they see gbh as bad as fraud when it comes to insurance, you would have thought fraud/theft would be a lot more high risk groups but as you say best to ring them

cee

interesting stuff.....been having a look through that unlock site and it does seem to me to be prejudicial to say the least. Even getting jobs, you don't have to declare some stuff, unless it is for one of the exempt professions.

I agree....even us laypersons could imagine that someone who has defrauded someone, is statistically more risky to insure. Maybe more likely to make fraudulent claims etc...maybe for theft as well, but like you say...gbh....might have been got jumped, fought back, won very well, or jumped someone....

Good Luck!

andy83

very true

and the ironic thing is that it was a case of self defence (yea i know they all are but it was lol)

for instance with my job working with people with learning disabilites ANY conviction and i lose my job as i need regular crb checks

no matter what the crime

not saying i condone people who steal, fight etc but as you say it doesnt seem fair in some circumstances

spen666

andy83 wrote:

very true

and the ironic thing is that it was a case of self defence (yea i know they all are but it was lol)

Obviously weasn't self defence or he would not have been convicted! Self defence is a defence to a charge of assault

for instance with my job working with people with learning disabilites ANY conviction and i lose my job as i need regular crb checks

no matter what the crime

not saying i condone people who steal, fight etc but as you say it doesnt seem fair in some circumstances

spen666

cee wrote:

after a quick look at the cycleguard website....not sure.

Material facts - this is any piece of information that might affect our decision to provide you with insurance. Under UK law, you are obliged to advise us of any material facts, such as convictions for fraud, theft or dishonesty, prior claims or events, or any special terms or conditions that have been applied by previous insurers.This obligation applies at the time you arrange insurance and extends to any change in circumstances whilst you are insured with Cycleguard

I guess this means that it depends on what the conviction is for...It would seem to me that gbh is not any of these things...worth phoning them and asking them the question?

To quote from the Unlock website link

“Unspent” convictions are always material facts

Guess this totally contradicts your theory about the relevance of the offence

cee

spen.....

Please do not jump on my back. I never stated that what I was saying was gospel and advised that he should speak to the insurer, fully disclosing all of the facts.

I sent a guy a link to a good site for information (which he already knew about), then quoted from the cyclegaurd website. Your post has not exactly offered any advise or help, or in fact added anything positive to this discussion.

The two sites do seem to contradict each other, but the theory about relevance has not yet been proven wrong. What unlock say is relevant to all insurers, and what an individual insurer deems as relevant to their assessment formula, can be entirely different.

Of course the unspent conviction should be disclosed, but I did advise the chap to speak to the insurer to find out. only that way will the relevance of the offence be known.

spen666

cee wrote:

spen.....

Please do not jump on my back. I never stated that what I was saying was gospel and advised that he should speak to the insurer, fully disclosing all of the facts.

I sent a guy a link to a good site for information (which he already knew about), then quoted from the cyclegaurd website. Your post has not exactly offered any advise or help, or in fact added anything positive to this discussion.

Apart from providing the information that may save this person from
a) paying for invalid insurance
b) being unable to claim on a policy
c) committing more criminal offences

I would suggest that is more positive than advising someone wrongly on their legal responsibilities

The two sites do seem to contradict each other, but the theory about relevance has not yet been proven wrong. What unlock say is relevant to all insurers, and what an individual insurer deems as relevant to their assessment formula, can be entirely different.

The two websites are not contradictory at all. It is your misinterpretation of the legal position that is what is wrong. Cycleguard do not say you do not have to disclose convistions for violence. In fact they specifically state that material facts are...

is any piece of information that might affect our decision to provide you with insurance. Under UK law, you are obliged to advise us of any material facts, such as convictions for fraud, theft or dishonesty, prior claims or events.

This is not providing an exhaustive list, merely examples of some sorts of convictions. It is also, only someone's interpretation of the law and not the law itself.

Of course the unspent conviction should be disclosed, but I did advise the chap to speak to the insurer to find out. only that way will the relevance of the offence be known.

bigmat

It strikes me that the position is ambiguous for a conviction of this nature. Examples are given of what should always be disclosed (fraud etc), so its a matter of discretion as to whether other convictions should be disclosecd but I would recommend erring on the side of caution and checking by phone. Then get something in writing to confirm the position. I don't think its as black and white as you are suggesting, spen - if insurers don't ask the right questions, they generally can't complain if they don't get the right answers and in this case its far from clear that a GBH conviction has any relevance to the risk that insurers are covering. Also, what "more criminal offences" would the guy be at risk of committing if his bike insurance policy was avoided?!

Cee, your advice seems pretty much spot on mate!

cee

spen666 wrote:

cee wrote:

after a quick look at the cycleguard website....not sure.

Material facts - this is any piece of information that might affect our decision to provide you with insurance. Under UK law, you are obliged to advise us of any material facts, such as convictions for fraud, theft or dishonesty, prior claims or events, or any special terms or conditions that have been applied by previous insurers.This obligation applies at the time you arrange insurance and extends to any change in circumstances whilst you are insured with Cycleguard

I guess this means that it depends on what the conviction is for...It would seem to me that gbh is not any of these things...worth phoning them and asking them the question?

To quote from the Unlock website link

“Unspent” convictions are always material facts

Guess this totally contradicts your theory about the relevance of the offence

spen. it was you who suggested the contradiction which you now seem to be retracting.

The two websites are not contradictory at all.

again, what part of 'speak to the insurer...disclose the facts and see what they say' is giving false information or even an interpretation of law....

thanks MatHammond...glad someone else thinks I am not going insane!

Is the original question answered now? Is this getting tedious now? peace out.

[/quote]

spen666

MatHammond wrote:

It strikes me that the position is ambiguous for a conviction of this nature. Examples are given of what should always be disclosed (fraud etc), so its a matter of discretion as to whether other convictions should be disclosecd but I would recommend erring on the side of caution and checking by phone. Then get something in writing to confirm the position. I don't think its as black and white as you are suggesting, spen - if insurers don't ask the right questions, they generally can't complain if they don't get the right answers and in this case its far from clear that a GBH conviction has any relevance to the risk that insurers are covering. Also, what "more criminal offences" would the guy be at risk of committing if his bike insurance policy was avoided?!

Cee, your advice seems pretty much spot on mate!

Its not a matter of the discretion of the person seeking insurance.

The person seeking insurance MUST disclose all unspent convictions as these are material facts. The insurance company MAY choose to ignore the conviction in deciding whether to insure the applicant or in deciding what premium to charge.


Matt it is as vlack and white as I suggest. Try looking up the law. The applicant MUST disclose all relevant facts whether or not the insurer asks specific questions about it or not.


However, if you don't want to believe someone with several decades of criminal law experience and prefer advice from someone who clearly does not know the law, then that is your absolute right.

spen666

cee wrote:

spen. it was you who suggested the contradiction which you now seem to be retracting.

The two websites are not contradictory at all.

again, what part of 'speak to the insurer...disclose the facts and see what they say' is giving false information or even an interpretation of law....

thanks MatHammond...glad someone else thinks I am not going insane!

Is the original question answered now? Is this getting tedious now? peace out.

Erm I never suggested the 2 websites contradict each other. I suggested that the law contradicts what you had interpreted the cycleguard website as saying.

It is a simple fact of law- ALL RELEVANT FACTS must be disclosed. The onus is on the applicsant to disclose, not on the insurer to ask. You do not escape criminal liability by saying I was not asked for that information

Who is accusing who of giving false information? I have not accused you or anyone of giving false information. I do however say you are wrong in your interpretation of the legal requirements.

The law is simple. You must disclose all material facts and unspent convictions are material facts.

What the insurance company do with that disclosure is a matter for them, but it does not absolve you of the requirement to disclose the facts- UNLESS the insurance company specifically tell you they do not require disclosure- but this will only apply to that company and not any other company

bigmat

Why is a conviction for GBH relevant to a bicycle insurance policy? How does it affect the risk insurers are taking on? On what basis are you saying that the guy should be obliged to disclose this information? Insurers might seek to avoid the policy on the basis that this wasn't disclosed, but I think its unlikely. They have listed convictions that will be material - if they required disclosure of all convictions then they would have (should have) said so. I would suggest that it would be prudent to check with insurers, just to avoid any dispute down the line, but I think an insurer would have serious difficulties in avoiding for material non-disclosure in these circumstances.

I really don't think your analysis of the position is correct and I'm not sure your criminal experience is strictly relevant to a matter of insurance policy interpretation.

always_tyred

HEY KIDS!

(1) Don't do drugs
(2) Don't run with scissors
(3) Don't give unqualified legal advice

cee

ok spen.

again peace out. have a nice day.

bigmat

I'll get my coat... :oops:

spen666

MatHammond wrote:

Why is a conviction for GBH relevant to a bicycle insurance policy? How does it affect the risk insurers are taking on? On what basis are you saying that the guy should be obliged to disclose this information? Insurers might seek to avoid the policy on the basis that this wasn't disclosed, but I think its unlikely. They have listed convictions that will be material - if they required disclosure of all convictions then they would have (should have) said so. I would suggest that it would be prudent to check with insurers, just to avoid any dispute down the line, but I think an insurer would have serious difficulties in avoiding for material non-disclosure in these circumstances.

I really don't think your analysis of the position is correct and I'm not sure your criminal experience is strictly relevant to a matter of insurance policy interpretation.

Given that non disclosure is a criminal offence - something you clearly did not realise- I think my criminal experience is very relevant

Or are decades of practicing criminal law not relevant to a criminal law matter?



What the Insurance company do with the disclosure is up to them, but the failure to disclose is a criminal offence

always_tyred

Spen has more than 140 years' legal experience. All of it relevant.

(4) always use a condom.

dilemna

spen666 wrote:

MatHammond wrote:

Why is a conviction for GBH relevant to a bicycle insurance policy? How does it affect the risk insurers are taking on? On what basis are you saying that the guy should be obliged to disclose this information? Insurers might seek to avoid the policy on the basis that this wasn't disclosed, but I think its unlikely. They have listed convictions that will be material - if they required disclosure of all convictions then they would have (should have) said so. I would suggest that it would be prudent to check with insurers, just to avoid any dispute down the line, but I think an insurer would have serious difficulties in avoiding for material non-disclosure in these circumstances.

I really don't think your analysis of the position is correct and I'm not sure your criminal experience is strictly relevant to a matter of insurance policy interpretation.

Given that non disclosure is a criminal offence - something you clearly did not realise- I think my criminal experience is very relevant

Or are decades of practicing criminal law not relevant to a criminal law matter?



What the Insurance company do with the disclosure is up to them, but the failure to disclose is a criminal offence

Erm without wanting to prolong this storm in a tea cup, I thought insurance contracts were based on contract law and based on utmost good faith uberimae fide. Poster cee got to the right answer by saying to call the insurer to clarify even if he was not aware of your finer legal argument. Pretty much all insurance policies state that if policy holders are unsure whether a fact is material or not to disclose it which cee has indeed advised. I think he is fully aware of the repurcussions of with holding material information without needing to patronise him or being heavy handed.

There is indeed a fine line between giving layman's anecdotal legal advice and that given by some one who appears authoritative from the legal profession who should really disclose whether they are legally qualified to give advice or just refrain. Most people just want to help and there are ways of going about tackling a laymans understanding of the law which are not so abrasive. I would be interested if you could give the authority of the criminal law which specifically refers to insurance under the road traffic act although I am aware that cyclists are not required by statue to have insurance, yet. I would have thought it unlikely that in this instance the policy holder would be prosecuted under the criminal law for non disclosure of material facts on a cycling policy as the CPS cannot currently even prosecute drivers of vehicles for non disclosure of important material facts in their motor vehicle insurance policies or uninsured drivers generally. Whether there is provision in statute for an insurer to prosecute under the criminal law I don't know perhaps you being our legal eagle can assist further?

Unfortunately for the friend of the OP I would have thought a GBH convicition to be something an insurer would want to know as it affects their risk to insure the individual if he has a tendency to violence. GBH is a serious assault - grievous bodily harm. Some one who has an aggressive temperament may be a much greater risk to other road users he meets therefore the insurer will need to assess their risk in the likelihood of a claim should another party make one against them as the insurer of the insured.

There are enough violent psychopaths around and I feel all offences against the person, alcohol and drug offences should be added to those already requiring specific disclosure such as dishonesty in the terms and conditions of the policy.

spen666

dilemna wrote:

Erm without wanting to prolong this storm in a tea cup, I thought insurance contracts were based on contract law and based on utmost good faith uberimae fide. Poster cee got to the right answer by saying to call the insurer to clarify even if he was not aware of your finer legal argument. Pretty much all insurance policies state that if policy holders are unsure whether a fact is material or not to disclose it which cee has indeed advised. I think he is fully aware of the repurcussions of with holding material information without needing to patronise him or being heavy handed.

Erm I think you will find it is a criminal offence to fail to disclose all material facts when applying for an insurance policy.

May I suggest you try to look up the relevant legislation and in particular the Fraud Act 2006 which has a specific offence at Sections 1 and 3 of fraud by failing to disclose information . It is punishable by upto 10 years imprisonment AND an unlimited fine.

There is indeed a fine line between giving layman's anecdotal legal advice and that given by some one who appears authoritative from the legal profession who should really disclose whether they are legally qualified to give advice or just refrain. Most people just want to help

It is not helping anybody if you give somebody wrong advice. You are effectively advising someone to commit a crime.

If you do not KNOW the correct answer- keep quiet, or do as I do and check the correct legal position before seeking to advise.

It is made even worse when someone does give a poster the correct legal advice and we still get barrack room lawyers contradicting the correct legal position and effectively counselling or procuring the OP to commit a crime

and there are ways of going about tackling a laymans understanding of the law which are not so abrasive. I would be interested if you could give the authority of the criminal law which specifically refers to insurance under the road traffic act

Why would I want to give a reference under the road traffic act when,: -
a) the matter does not relate to matters covered by road traffic law
AND
b) is covered by the Fraud Act 2006

although I am aware that cyclists are not required by statue to have insurance, yet. I would have thought it unlikely that in this instance the policy holder would be prosecuted under the criminal law for non disclosure of material facts on a cycling policy as the CPS cannot currently even prosecute drivers of vehicles for non disclosure of important material facts in their motor vehicle insurance policies or uninsured drivers generally. Whether there is provision in statute for an insurer to prosecute under the criminal law I don't know perhaps you being our legal eagle can assist further?

As stated above, this is nothing to do with road traffic law and what happens to motorists for road traffic offences is irrelevant to what is done to offences under the fraud act

Unfortunately for the friend of the OP I would have thought a GBH convicition to be something an insurer would want to know as it affects their risk to insure the individual if he has a tendency to violence. GBH is a serious assault - grievous bodily harm. Some one who has an aggressive temperament may be a much greater risk to other road users he meets therefore the insurer will need to assess their risk in the likelihood of a claim should another party make one against them as the insurer of the insured.

There are enough violent psychopaths around and I feel all offences against the person, alcohol and drug offences should be added to those already requiring specific disclosure such as dishonesty in the terms and conditions of the policy.

dilemna

spen666 wrote:

dilemna wrote:

Erm without wanting to prolong this storm in a tea cup, I thought insurance contracts were based on contract law and based on utmost good faith uberimae fide. Poster cee got to the right answer by saying to call the insurer to clarify even if he was not aware of your finer legal argument. Pretty much all insurance policies state that if policy holders are unsure whether a fact is material or not to disclose it which cee has indeed advised. I think he is fully aware of the repurcussions of with holding material information without needing to patronise him or being heavy handed.

Erm I think you will find it is a criminal offence to fail to disclose all material facts when applying for an insurance policy.

May I suggest you try to look up the relevant legislation and in particular the Fraud Act 2006 which has a specific offence at Sections 1 and 3 of fraud by failing to disclose information . It is punishable by upto 10 years imprisonment AND an unlimited fine.

There is indeed a fine line between giving layman's anecdotal legal advice and that given by some one who appears authoritative from the legal profession who should really disclose whether they are legally qualified to give advice or just refrain. Most people just want to help

It is not helping anybody if you give somebody wrong advice. You are effectively advising someone to commit a crime.

If you do not KNOW the correct answer- keep quiet, or do as I do and check the correct legal position before seeking to advise.

It is made even worse when someone does give a poster the correct legal advice and we still get barrack room lawyers contradicting the correct legal position and effectively counselling or procuring the OP to commit a crime

and there are ways of going about tackling a laymans understanding of the law which are not so abrasive. I would be interested if you could give the authority of the criminal law which specifically refers to insurance under the road traffic act

Why would I want to give a reference under the road traffic act when,: -
a) the matter does not relate to matters covered by road traffic law
AND
b) is covered by the Fraud Act 2006

although I am aware that cyclists are not required by statue to have insurance, yet. I would have thought it unlikely that in this instance the policy holder would be prosecuted under the criminal law for non disclosure of material facts on a cycling policy as the CPS cannot currently even prosecute drivers of vehicles for non disclosure of important material facts in their motor vehicle insurance policies or uninsured drivers generally. Whether there is provision in statute for an insurer to prosecute under the criminal law I don't know perhaps you being our legal eagle can assist further?

As stated above, this is nothing to do with road traffic law and what happens to motorists for road traffic offences is irrelevant to what is done to offences under the fraud act

Unfortunately for the friend of the OP I would have thought a GBH convicition to be something an insurer would want to know as it affects their risk to insure the individual if he has a tendency to violence. GBH is a serious assault - grievous bodily harm. Some one who has an aggressive temperament may be a much greater risk to other road users he meets therefore the insurer will need to assess their risk in the likelihood of a claim should another party make one against them as the insurer of the insured.

There are enough violent psychopaths around and I feel all offences against the person, alcohol and drug offences should be added to those already requiring specific disclosure such as dishonesty in the terms and conditions of the policy.

Did you get out the wrong side of bed this morning or is that your usual manner when advising clients? :roll:

always_tyred

dilemna wrote:

Did you get out the wrong side of bed this morning or is that your usual manner when advising clients? :roll:

I can assure you that it is entirely normal.