Looking for any advise here.

My ex was driving my vehicle back in January when she had a bump that was her fault, unfortunately it was only after she had had a bump that she discovered that she was not insured to drive my vehicle (she had previously assured me that she was).

My ex then paid £500 to the victim as she was informed that that was the full cost of damages and being uninsured didn't want anything to come of the matter.

Since then we have broken up - I have now had a letter from my insurance saying that a claim for £700 has been put in for the cost of a replacement vehicle whilst the victims car was off the road. My insurance are saying that I have to pay this and if I do not pay outright myself then they will need to pay and I will lose my no claims bonus.

Is this correct?

Can somebody accept a payment for full settlement of damages and then submit another claim for a courtousy car?

Surely as she was hit by an uninsured driver she needs to go to the MIB for her claim, the accident was nothing to do with me.

Can anyone suggest anything I can do to stop my insurance company paying out - I really don't want to be out of pocket for something I had no involvement in.

Thanks in advance for any help.

Hi the

Welcome to CAG

The guys will be happy to advise as soon as they are available.

Thread moved.

It is to do with the road traffic acts. Although she was not Insured to drive the car, your Insurers are still liable for the third parties costs. Her paying the £500 is not relevant. You have allowed someone to drive your car when they were not Insured to drive it. So your Insurers are correct, that it is either a case of you paying the £700 or they will register the claim against your policy and you will lose 2 years NCD. Even if you paid the £700, they would note the incident and it will still affect your premium.

Remember that if you settle the £700, the third party has up to 3 years to submit a personal injury claim or 3 years after 18th birthday for those under 18 at the time of the accident. As you would effectively be covering the third party costs, you could get a nasty surprise of whiplash claims or worse. You might therefore wish to accept the loss of 2 years no claims, as the less risky option.

Well thats not the news I wanted.

It seems odd that it works that way round, I was always assured that insurance was done on the driver not the vehicle, but this seems to go completely against that.

Out of interest what if the vehicle had been stolen, am I still liable for the damage then or is this simply because I knew the person who was driving?

Oh well, looks like I'm going to lose my no claims bonus then.

Well thats not the news I wanted.

 

It seems odd that it works that way round, I was always assured that insurance was done on the driver not the vehicle, but this seems to go completely against that.

 

Out of interest what if the vehicle had been stolen, am I still liable for the damage then or is this simply because I knew the person who was driving?

 

Oh well, looks like I'm going to lose my no claims bonus then.

If there is liability cover on the vehicle, it is expected under the road traffic acts that the Insurers cover the risk. I believe this came about as an agreement between the Insurers and the government when legislation was done. Because the Insurers all chip in money to the MIB, I think they decided that they might as well deal with any claim under any liability policy that exists. The MIB then only get involved when there is no Insurance on the vehicle.

There was another thread on this site where someone had forgotten to cancel their Insurance when selling their car. The new owner then did not Insure the car and had an accident causing a claim to be made by a third party. Even though the car was sold, the Insurers of the only valid policy in force had to pay the claim. They then tried to reclaim their outlay from their Insured, on the basis of a breach of contract i.e not advising them they were no longer the owner of the car being Insured.

You could sue your ex for the money and then repay the insurance company! it was her fault after all.

But this does raise a point, does your insurance company know she was driving or have they assumed you were?

Now you said it was only after the accident she found out she was not insured to drive it, so did she think she had insurance of her own tha twould cover driving your car or did she think she was covered on your policy ( which you would of known right?)

There is now also the possibility of the insurance company coming after you for the money as she was not on the policy ( if they now know she and not you were driving ) and therefore not covered and would be entitled to claim back the money back from you.

A possible get out is when she paid over the £500 did she gat a receipt and on it did say in FULL and FINAL settlement of the claim, signed etc.

Another point did you inform your insurers at the time about the incident?

As the claim is for something that happened 5 months ago again they may say you did not tell us about so you gotta pay ( they have to pay as its a tp claim ) but may ask you for it back.

If there is liability cover on the vehicle, it is expected under the road traffic acts that the Insurers cover the risk. I believe this came about as an agreement between the Insurers and the government when legislation was done. Because the Insurers all chip in money to the MIB, I think they decided that they might as well deal with any claim under any liability policy that exists. The MIB then only get involved when there is no Insurance on the vehicle.

 

There was another thread on this site where someone had forgotten to cancel their Insurance when selling their car. The new owner then did not Insure the car and had an accident causing a claim to be made by a third party. Even though the car was sold, the Insurers of the only valid policy in force had to pay the claim. They then tried to reclaim their outlay from their Insured, on the basis of a breach of contract i.e not advising them they were no longer the owner of the car being Insured.

Ah I see, seems highly unfair on the insured driver but I guess if thats the way the law is worded then there is nothing I can do to get out of it.

You could sue your ex for the money and then repay the insurance company! it was her fault after all.

If I still had any way of contacting her I probably would, but I have no idea where she is any more.

But this does raise a point, does your insurance company know she was driving or have they assumed you were?

Nope, they know that my ex was driving

Now you said it was only after the accident she found out she was not insured to drive it, so did she think she had insurance of her own tha twould cover driving your car or did she think she was covered on your policy ( which you would of known right?)

She thought she was covered on her own policy 3rd party, however she presumed that without checking her documents and she's actually only 3rd party on other vehicles if they don't belong to her parents/partner.

There is now also the possibility of the insurance company coming after you for the money as she was not on the policy ( if they now know she and not you were driving ) and therefore not covered and would be entitled to claim back the money back from you.

Thats not a nice thought, thanks for letting me know - guess I'd better step up my search for my ex then.

A possible get out is when she paid over the £500 did she gat a receipt and on it did say in FULL and FINAL settlement of the claim, signed etc.

We did get a letter, but unfortunately my ex has it. Also, we were informed at that time that the £500 was inclusive of the courteus car

Another point did you inform your insurers at the time about the incident?

 

As the claim is for something that happened 5 months ago again they may say you did not tell us about so you gotta pay ( they have to pay as its a tp claim ) but may ask you for it back.

Fortunately I did inform them my vehicle had been in an accident, though the first they knew about me being reponsible for a claim was last week, until that point I had believed (like me) that this was settled outside of insurers.

Originally Posted by raydetinu

There is now also the possibility of the insurance company coming after you for the money as she was not on the policy ( if they now know she and not you were driving ) and therefore not covered and would be entitled to claim back the money back from you.

I don't think this will happen. 1) you informed your Insurers of the accident information at the time, so have met that condition in the policy, 2) They have told you that they will deal with the claim, with the loss of NCD and have not mentioned reclaiming from you. They actually gave you a choice, which logically seems to prove they don't have this on their minds.

As a lessson for the future. Never believe anyone has driving other cars (3rd party liability) for driving your car or that you have this on your policy for when you drive other cars. It is supposed to be an emergency type cover, but some people think they can use it as and when they please. This is not a risk I would take. Much better to take out temp cover via the owners Insurance policy or via a standalone temporary cover which is widely available. If this is comprehensive then you have cover for the car and if you get pulled over by the Police, you can show that you have cover. You will read many articles and posts online, where people have had problems when driving under DOC cover

Oh I think there is a very good chance they will get you to reimburse them, as she was not insured by them.

Unless they are asleep or just not doing their job, which is unusual for insurers! I suspect someone will spot that sooner or later.

raydetinu, if you are right, then the claims handler the OP spoke to was not thinking clearly. They have offered to deal with the claim, for a reduction of the NCD. If they wanted to reclaim from the OP, they would have had to tell them at that point, because it would have affected the decision that they were asked to make. If the Insurers turnaround and ask the OP for the money, then the OP could then be asked for any 3rd party injury claim money paid out, if that were to happen. Then it could get very messy. I just can't see it happening personally, given the amount involved. If it were a much larger claim, then yes, I think they would take action against the OP, who would in turn take action against their ex.

Well they have not paid out yet, so we shall see.

I would ask if the OP has legal cover with the policy, this may help in recovering costs if it comes to it.

Also I would defo query the amonut claimed as £700 is a bit on the high side!

if the damage was only £500, how come the hire car cost £700 and it sounds such a round figure?

Ask Insurance co to send the invoice they have submitted with claim and how they arrived at that figure.

Car repair should only take 2-3 days for that amount and you can hire a car £150/week. ( they must mitigate/limit the costs, so cant hire a roller for a week )

Tell ins not to settle until you are satisfied claim is legit, after all they supposed to be acting for you.

Wow, a lot to take in there, but thank you both very much.

I think the best thing to do is to ask the agent if they will be claiming th money back from me if I put a claim in - and ask for the answer in writing, that way if they say no I have come back if they change their mind later.

Omen you said agent in your last post? have you in fact been contacted direct by the insurance co or your broker?

I presume it's the broker, my payments go to Admiral, but it is underwritten by MMA - it's MMA who have contacted me.

so your actual policy is with Admiral? that is who you have a contract with.

the fact that it is underwritten by MMA is irrelevant to you; only Admiral should be contacting you ( or your broker if you used one )

Suggest you contact Admiral and ask whats going on and get info. of claim as I said.

weird, never heard of an underwriter contact a customer direct before.

MMA are a french based co.

I can't see how they can claim money back from you if they are paying out under an RTA obligation. Personally I don't see why they should be penalising your NCB. You haven’t claimed under your policy, nor have you asked for indemnity for the TP claim. It's not your issue that an obligation exists. You have not benefitted in any way from this claim. Someone else drove your car on the pretence they had insurance. You may have allowed it, but on the basis cover existed.

...and.

The issue over the underwriter, it should be underwriter you speak to.

Admiral sell direct policies where they do everything, but was this bought from a comparison site? if so it coud get more long winded.

Mwynci; If the insurance co paid out which they are obliged to; the driver is not on the policy so therefore not covered under it. so the policy holder is responsible for the insurance co losses. quite logical really.

The policy holders contract is with his insurance company, i.e. Admiral not the underwriter ( that is an arrangement between Admiral and MMA ).

Just like Lloyds underwriters, If your ship is insured with Lloyds ( it is Lloyds that payout and pass on the losses to its underwritters, whch could be many; they share the risk )

I'd beg to differ, my way of thinking.

the insured has right to choose when and where the policy indemnifies. You can at any stage of a claim choose not to seek indemnity under your policy.

RTA obligation and contractual indemnity are 2 different matters.

If hit someone with your hammer, that would not mean you have to pay the damages if I can't because you own the hammer.

It's is only because in law an RTA obligation exists that the insurer has to pay, if there was no insurer (for whatever reason), the third party could not chase the owner of the vehicle for reimbursement as they are not party to the Obligation. The OP is not benefitting from this in any way. That to me is unfair, this is of course presuming he was fairly duped into the situation.

I could be wrong

Re the underwriter, I'm not wrong, your contract of insurance is with the underwriter, they issue the cert, they receive the money. If the OP went to the FOS or MAS (see below), the complaint would be made against the underwriter.

I wouldn’t use Lloyd's as a comparison, It's far more complex. But if your car is insured with Lloyd's, they have no involvement in the transactions, none at all, even if it goes to the managing agent services dept (the first tier complaints system if your insured with a syndicate).

I'd beg to differ, my way of thinking.

 

the insured has right to choose when and where the policy indemnifies.

 

No they don't. The Insurers have the decision over whether they accept liability or not. This is written in the policy, which is why they advise the policyholder to never admit liability in the event of an accident.

 

You can at any stage of a claim choose not to seek indemnity under your policy.

 

Third party liability claims caused by an Insured vehicle will go to the Insurer covering the risk. The policyholder can of course decide to settle the third parties claim directly and save the Insurers some money. The OP says his Insurers offered them that choice.

RTA obligation and contractual indemnity are 2 different matters.

 

The Insurers are obliged to deal wih the third party claim and they gave the OP the option of the claim being under the policy or for them to settle it separately with the third party. The third party claim came out of the blue !

 

It's is only because in law an RTA obligation exists that the insurer has to pay, if there was no insurer (for whatever reason), the third party could not chase the owner of the vehicle for reimbursement as they are not party to the Obligation. The OP is not benefitting from this in any way. That to me is unfair, this is of course presuming he was fairly duped into the situation. I could be wrong

 

If the vehicle was not Insured the third party would try to make a claim from the MIB, if this claim was within their scope. If not they would attempt a claim against the OP, as the owner of the vehicle, unless they can against the driver (?). The OP would have had a duty of care to check that their ex had suitable Insurance for them to drive the car and not just take their word for it. If I were to ask to drive your Rolls Royce and I told you I had Insurance, would you let me drive it away, without checking my Insurance ? I believe that by law (RTA) the owner is required to ensure that there is Insurance in place, if their vehicle is to be used on the road.

 

 

Re the underwriter, I'm not wrong, your contract of insurance is with the underwriter, they issue the cert, they receive the money. If the OP went to the FOS or MAS (see below), the complaint would be made against the underwriter.

 

This is delegated authority territory and depends on the contract. By the sounds of it, Admiral

brokered the policy to MMA, but MMA deal with the claims. Admiral will do the admin for the policy and deal with related issues and complaints. MMA deal with claims issues and complaints.

 

I wouldn’t use Lloyd's as a comparison, It's far more complex. But if your car is insured with Lloyd's, they have no involvement in the transactions, none at all, even if it goes to the managing agent services dept (the first tier complaints system if your insured with a syndicate).

 

It is an FSA requirement that the complaints process is clearly explained in the policy documents. The OP will have these details.

 

Answers in red above.

Looks like we must agree to differ on this one then.

Of course the TP can claim against the owner of the vehicle or driver or both!

The TP vehicle has been damaged and incurred costs, by a uninsured driver, so who do you think has to pay.

the OP, or driver has the oppotunity to pay the claim direct ( after making sure it is valid ) or if they do not then his insurers have to pay it ( RTA as car is insured ), and can cliam it back from the insured, just as the TP can do, as the driver is not on the policy and therefor not covered.

On the policy bit it would appear then that Admiral are just agents/brokers then and as you say MMA in fact hold the primary risk, through the terms offered by Admiral.

Thanks Uncle, quite clear now; admit got cert thing wrong initaily.

OK, well I'm very confused now - but I've decided to call Admiral direct and see what they have to say before I go any further. If MMA choses to pay out I'm going to get it in writing that they won't chase me further, but I'm going to try prevent MMA from paying out if I can (or atleast getting it to not effect my no claims first)

I was duped by my ex - who showed me the section of her policy book that said she was 3rd party on other cars but didn't show me that there is a further clause in the small print that states this does not cover her partners car - though I accept that I probably had some responsibility to have checked this properly first rather than a quick glance at her book.

Now you have me confused! If your ex had a comprehensive insurance policy then she would be covered for third party risks ( do not know where this partner thing comes from ) in fact if partner was named on policy it would be cheaper as it spreads the risk.

Certainly contact Admiral, and ask for details of claim as souds dodgy to me ( too high ) keep asking questions if not satisfied.

Do it all in writing, email, no phone calls to keep a record.