Advertising Standards
Discussion
There's an advert running on the radio at the moment for an insurance broker, boasting that you should come to them if you have criminal or motoring convictions. The theme of the advert is that, and I'll quote it as near word for word as I can recall "we won't hold your previous mistakes against you. If you have a history of criminal or motoring convictions, we won't judge you."
"We won't judge you" is a constantly repeated theme of the adverts.
Does this mean that they charge no extra for any previous convictions? Because if they do, then they are judging. Even if they offer better terms than others, they are still judging you by charging you extra.
Unless they genuinely don't care, I'm not sure how they can make this claim. I'm tempted to call them and say I have 3 previous convictions, all for insurance fraud. Then let's see if they "don't judge".
Thoughts on the legalities of their campaign?
"We won't judge you" is a constantly repeated theme of the adverts.
Does this mean that they charge no extra for any previous convictions? Because if they do, then they are judging. Even if they offer better terms than others, they are still judging you by charging you extra.
Unless they genuinely don't care, I'm not sure how they can make this claim. I'm tempted to call them and say I have 3 previous convictions, all for insurance fraud. Then let's see if they "don't judge".
Thoughts on the legalities of their campaign?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
There's an advert running on the radio at the moment for an insurance broker, boasting that you should come to them if you have criminal or motoring convictions. The theme of the advert is that, and I'll quote it as near word for word as I can recall "we won't hold your previous mistakes against you. If you have a history of criminal or motoring convictions, we won't judge you."
"We won't judge you" is a constantly repeated theme of the adverts.
Does this mean that they charge no extra for any previous convictions? Because if they do, then they are judging. Even if they offer better terms than others, they are still judging you by charging you extra.
Unless they genuinely don't care, I'm not sure how they can make this claim. I'm tempted to call them and say I have 3 previous convictions, all for insurance fraud. Then let's see if they "don't judge".
Thoughts on the legalities of their campaign?
My thoughts are that you could use your spare time more constructively."We won't judge you" is a constantly repeated theme of the adverts.
Does this mean that they charge no extra for any previous convictions? Because if they do, then they are judging. Even if they offer better terms than others, they are still judging you by charging you extra.
Unless they genuinely don't care, I'm not sure how they can make this claim. I'm tempted to call them and say I have 3 previous convictions, all for insurance fraud. Then let's see if they "don't judge".
Thoughts on the legalities of their campaign?
Durzel said:
"Judge" could have a number of connotations, maybe they won't judge you morally?
What the OP is suggesting is that they are not judging you will have some financial benefit.
If other insurer were refusing toinsure people with convinctions then you can see where the moral bit comes into play - otherwise its clearly financial.
As far as I'm aware there is no way for insurers to know if you have criminal convictions or not... It's not like they can get a DBS check on you. They could/maybe ask you to get a printout of what the Police have on the PNC but I can't see where they would go if you told them to get stuffed.
Unless you were in the newspapers and they found something... Seems weird that they would even ask.
I did a bit of work with a rehabilitation charity. As in I helped out, not that I was helped out. General guidance was to tell them nothing.
Unless you were in the newspapers and they found something... Seems weird that they would even ask.
I did a bit of work with a rehabilitation charity. As in I helped out, not that I was helped out. General guidance was to tell them nothing.
photosnob said:
I did a bit of work with a rehabilitation charity. As in I helped out, not that I was helped out. General guidance was to tell them nothing.
As an insurer is a private company they can contract with you on the terms they wish.If you purposely provide false info in order to gain a financial advantage (lower premiums than they would otherwise give) then surely that could be considered fraud.
Unless the Rehabillitation of Offenders Act specifically says you don't have to give the information - I am not sure if motoring offences are covered by that.
Mojooo said:
As an insurer is a private company they can contract with you on the terms they wish.
If you purposely provide false info in order to gain a financial advantage (lower premiums than they would otherwise give) then surely that could be considered fraud.
Unless the Rehabillitation of Offenders Act specifically says you don't have to give the information - I am not sure if motoring offences are covered by that.
I agree. But it comes down to the practicalities... If they can't find out the information they can only ask for it. The advice I was given was to advise people to say nothing. How are the police going to get involved when no one knows. If you purposely provide false info in order to gain a financial advantage (lower premiums than they would otherwise give) then surely that could be considered fraud.
Unless the Rehabillitation of Offenders Act specifically says you don't have to give the information - I am not sure if motoring offences are covered by that.
It's a sad state of affairs when someone has to pay more for his car insurance after being convicted for some unrelated crime. There is an argument that criminals are more wreckless, but there is a stronger argument that ever grown adult on the planet is a criminal. It's just that most people get away with it. Very few people have done nothing naughty.
They probably have a big asterix at the end and haven;t worked out what an asterix sounds like.
Most misleading advert I've seen recently was in Ireland.
Big poster at a bus stop said ' DUBLIN PORT ROAD NOW TOLL FREE '
This didn't mean it was free, it just meant they'd removed all the toll booths and you paid within 24 hours with your card
Most misleading advert I've seen recently was in Ireland.
Big poster at a bus stop said ' DUBLIN PORT ROAD NOW TOLL FREE '
This didn't mean it was free, it just meant they'd removed all the toll booths and you paid within 24 hours with your card
photosnob said:
It's a sad state of affairs when someone has to pay more for his car insurance after being convicted for some unrelated crime.
What's an unrelated crime though, in terms of risk? If you are a convicted paedophile, should you pay more for your car insurance? The 2 are unrelated, but surely, with your history, you are at a higher risk of having your car vandalised or torched.How can you say with any certainty what does or doesn't, increase risk.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
photosnob said:
It's a sad state of affairs when someone has to pay more for his car insurance after being convicted for some unrelated crime.
What's an unrelated crime though, in terms of risk? If you are a convicted paedophile, should you pay more for your car insurance? The 2 are unrelated, but surely, with your history, you are at a higher risk of having your car vandalised or torched.How can you say with any certainty what does or doesn't, increase risk.
velocefica said:
They probably have a big asterix at the end and haven;t worked out what an asterix sounds like.
Most misleading advert I've seen recently was in Ireland.
Big poster at a bus stop said ' DUBLIN PORT ROAD NOW TOLL FREE '
This didn't mean it was free, it just meant they'd removed all the toll booths and you paid within 24 hours with your card
That's very misleading... As the booths are still there.... I think your thinking of the M50.Most misleading advert I've seen recently was in Ireland.
Big poster at a bus stop said ' DUBLIN PORT ROAD NOW TOLL FREE '
This didn't mean it was free, it just meant they'd removed all the toll booths and you paid within 24 hours with your card
LoonR1 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
photosnob said:
It's a sad state of affairs when someone has to pay more for his car insurance after being convicted for some unrelated crime.
What's an unrelated crime though, in terms of risk? If you are a convicted paedophile, should you pay more for your car insurance? The 2 are unrelated, but surely, with your history, you are at a higher risk of having your car vandalised or torched.How can you say with any certainty what does or doesn't, increase risk.
With regards to a peadophile having there car damaged - well that's a real possibility. Nearly every crime could have a reason for insurers to increase a premium (if you are a thief you could be more inclined to commit fraud, if you are a thug you could be more inclined to drive aggressively etc...). I understand that.
I just take the pragmatic and selfish view that if it's impossible for the insurance company to find out, then people should keep their mouths shut and lie. In the same way that Loon takes the pragmatic view that if you have a little bang and get it fixed outside of insurance you shouldn't tell them. Both could have a bearing on premium, potentially, maybe.
Btw Loon, you seem to have been a lot nicer recently. I've found myself agreeing with a lot of the stuff you are saying. I hope you are okay.
LoonR1 said:
It goes back to the "I don't think the risk that we're discussing / claim that I've made / points that I've received should count towards my insurance premium, but all other risks / claims / points should" mentality on here.
Ranks up there with "I welcome Police discretion over automated enforcement, except where it goes against me, then it's unfair".LoonR1 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
photosnob said:
It's a sad state of affairs when someone has to pay more for his car insurance after being convicted for some unrelated crime.
What's an unrelated crime though, in terms of risk? If you are a convicted paedophile, should you pay more for your car insurance? The 2 are unrelated, but surely, with your history, you are at a higher risk of having your car vandalised or torched.How can you say with any certainty what does or doesn't, increase risk.
I suppose all the usual question son age, annual milege, profession, postcode etc are used to gauge the risk of an incident.
I can see some seemingly unrelated risks as having a bearing - a conviction for fraud or a dishonesty offence for example. I expect it is quite complex. I vaguely recall a study (or it may have just been a police initiative in teh US) where there was a link between drivers who parked in disabled bays and propensity to commit other offences.
Apparently the work done by some clever psycologist bloke (who wrote the matching questionnaire and algorithm for an online dating site) is being used in insurance to devise better questions to assess risk.
surveyor said:
velocefica said:
They probably have a big asterix at the end and haven;t worked out what an asterix sounds like.
Most misleading advert I've seen recently was in Ireland.
Big poster at a bus stop said ' DUBLIN PORT ROAD NOW TOLL FREE '
This didn't mean it was free, it just meant they'd removed all the toll booths and you paid within 24 hours with your card
That's very misleading... As the booths are still there.... I think your thinking of the M50.Most misleading advert I've seen recently was in Ireland.
Big poster at a bus stop said ' DUBLIN PORT ROAD NOW TOLL FREE '
This didn't mean it was free, it just meant they'd removed all the toll booths and you paid within 24 hours with your card
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff