Will this invalidate my insurance?

[kilt]

Hi

Last year i did something silly and received a police caution for my troubles. I was advised that when getting insurance if asked 'do you have a criminal conviction' to answer no, which I did. However this was done over the phone. Only on purchasing my insurance did I receive a 'statement of fact' in which the question is asked differently. Here is talks about 'criminal convictions or criminal offences'. I am presuming that this is what the broker has sent to the underwriter. My question is whether my caution is considered a criminal offence? And whether this could be used to invalidate my insurance in the event of a claim?

Also on this link, www.askthe.police.uk/content/q562.htm, it states that a caution is immediately spent. Does this effect my situation in any way??

Very grateful for any answers

[R1Geezer]

if the insurers become aware during processing a claim then yes they would reduce payout or not pay out at all.

[kilt]

I was hoping that as its considered immediately spent I wouldn't have had to declare it even if the broker did ask me the correct question?? Any thoughts?

[vivandorron]

It is my understanding that a caution is for the Police to dispose of an issue without it having to be presented before a Court and matters can end there.

It all depends upon the nature of your 'sillyness'. If it were something very trivial, and photographs along with fingerprints were not taken, then it is unlikely that you are listed on Police criminal records. Otherwise your misdemeanour will remain on file for five years.

Ron.



Ron.

[Buenchico]

The whole point about a conviction (or caution) becoming spent is that you're allowed to lie if you're asked about whether you've got any convictions (or cautions). So you're never required to declare anything which is spent (other than for applications for certain types of employment where the provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act don't apply).

The rules about convictions/cautions becoming spent also apply to 'ancillary matters'. For example, someone with an unspent conviction might be declined insurance. Later, when the conviction has become spent, he applies again and he's asked "Have you ever been convicted of a criminal offence?" AND "Have you ever been refused insurance?". He can lawfully answer 'No' to the first question because the conviction is spent and he can also lawfully answer 'No' to the second question (because it relates to an 'ancillary matter').

Chris