In this case it sounds like you have clearly been involved in a non-fault accident and as such subject to certain terms, you are entited to a replacement vehicle. The TPI are dealing with the vehicular damage itself and if you say that it will likely be write-off then it is mainly down to the TPI to deal with this aspect. You have a vehicle on Credit Hire - although in this case I suspect subject the the ABI terms and conditions and you are allowed that vehicle so long as certain conditions are met -there is a common-law duty to mitigate your costs as best as you can (ie in this case you would hire a vehicle only as long as you need to and if you don't have access to another vehicle - the acid-test being would you hire it yourself at that rate if you had the funds to do so?) Strictly speaking if you fail to expedite things then you may be responsible for a proportion of the hire costs yourself! It depends on what TPI that you are dealing with, as many have large backlogs of work, but I would say that you could usually expect to receive a cheque within say 21 - 28 days. You would then be expected to bank tghe cheque as quickly as possible and the hire to end, so long as this occurs then generally speaking you will not have a problem with Drive Assist recouping the full cost of the hire.

Thats good, I do think that from what you have said that it may be best to accept the offer, but of course that is ultimately your choice. The amount is presumably based on the injuries described in your medical report and so without knowing anymore is probably safe to assume that is has been calculated usingJSB Guidelines. Often with these things I do find that 50% of the stress is caused in worrying about what is going to happen, so is often best to take the advice of the tpI (OR MIB) in this matter and to accept the offer and to put it behind you and move on. Hope we have been of help to you.

I am sorry that you have gone through the trauma of having had an accident - and made worse by the fact that the TP didn't have any insurance etc. however in English (Civil) Law, speeding in itself is not considered an act of negligence. When undertaking any maneouvre, the greater duty of care will always be placed on that driver - it may sem pedantic, but by your own description, you saw the TP vehicle and then looked to your nearside to check that it was safe to start your maneouvre - and you then made the decision to pull out. Numerous case laws exist in similar circumstances and invariably, if this were to run to Court then you would be criticised for failing to check again to your offside, so in that respect you will certainly have to accept a proportion of the blame - as it would be considered that had you not pulled out then the accident would not have occurred in the first instance - and as I have already stated the speed of the other vehicle would mainly not be considered as a factor. It is regrettable that the Police have now destroyed the CCTV footage, but you could always request a precognition from an officer that viewed the tape - although having said that, these are expensive and not always granted and so the MIB may not be interested in pursuing this. A 75/25 split certainly siunds to be more than equitable, although I suspect that the injury itself may have been undervalued. Have you had a medical report following an examination by a GP or Orthopaedic Surgeon? If so What was the prognosis? Regarding he quantum, a valuation will usually be placed on the injury itself (Say £1500) and then if you are found to be 50% Liable then you will only receive 50% of the compensation and so-on

All of the responses here give you some very good advice. Under the maxim of utmost good faith, you must divulge to the insurer any information that may affect your insurance. Most claims now are registered on CUE (Claims Underwriting Exchange) and non-disclosed previous accidents will often be found out this way. Even if it is not it is when it comes down to a claim that your insurers prove their worth. For a (presumably) young driver, with a non-disclosed conviction and previous accident should an accident happen then history will almost certainly be found out, by way of DVLA licence histories and various accident databases. Consequences are numerous and may be as little as an additional premium (if they would have insured you had they known of the non-disc); or agreeing only to pay a percentage of the claim (the rest being paid by you); or even total repudiation, in which case they would pay the cost of the claim - which can be staggering amounts - and then seek recompense from you. Best to be honest - and drive carefully!!

Craigwalton is right, insurance companies rarely have good hearings in their own name in County Court as they are seen as having very deep pockets and unless their case is watertight, they will often lose. Realistically this shouldn't get as far as this though. With a renewed emphasis on fraud indicators, insurers will often look out for things such as new looking keys etc, especially when the car in question has a good theft-resistance rating. The best bet is to send a recorded delivery letter stating clearly but politely the facts of the case (always best to keep cool, especially when the document could ultimately be used as evidence of reasonableness in Court); the reason why one key looks new - could be that only one is ever really used; explain the difficulties that the delay is causing and that you consider it unreasonable and that the delay is causing you stress and incurring undue expense for you. Then give them a deadline to resolve matters in. Mention that if they do not soon resolve matters then you will contact the FSA. This will hopefully get things moving, however forensic tests will be able to show the use of the key as well as when it was manufactured etc and so if it is recently cut then best to be honest with them regarding it. Anyways good luck and keep us posted.

Definately check with the insurer in question. make sure that you give them all of the facts and let them make up their own mind, when you take out the insurance double-check the proposal form before signing and returning it to them. Insuraing a lease car is not a problem, but the NCB may be. many firms will 'mirror the NCB' if it is a spouse who is also a named driver taking out a new policy. Is your husbands NCB currently being used on another car?

The insurers are correct in their stance. They quote the glass's guide value - which is the officially recognosed valuer for cars. Admittedly there are many sources of valuing cars, but Glass's guide is very accurate as reflected in it's price tag of several hundred pounds per copy. Hence valuations from Glass's will be more highly regarded than those from other sources. There is no automatic entitlement to 'top book', as it depends on the mileage and pre accident condition of the vehicle, however many insurers will value at 'mid-book' automatically as most cars are not in A1 condition. The best bet here is to send ad's from autotrader and threaten to goto the FSA over the valuation. this will likely prompt them to goto the best value that they can do.

Presumably you received a CCJ here because there is some dispute in the case - either over liability or quantum. By the sounds of it it is due to liability - insurance companies are merely your agents - acting on your behalf and hence litigation is usually in your own name. In this case there mus have been a Judgment either through trial, or more likely in default and they have simply either failed to settle it or failed to settle it in time. NU aren't always the best to deal with on a one to one basis as they are a vast company, but they have done well to have the CCJ removed from your file - as this involves a huge amount of work. as for the seaqrches against your wife - this is a different matter as may not be directly related to this, but if you complain strongly then you may get some compensation. However this is not always quite so straightforward, as there may be be many reasons why you had the CCJ, such as failure to attend Court in a liability dispute - in which the insurers would have expended a vast sum of money to represent you, but your non-attendance would have caused you to lose the case and hence the CCJ - having said that though it should still have been settled before obtaining a CCJ. Good Luck.

Hi Patian. That is exactly what 'fronting' is - having the policy in the name of a lesser risk, when in fact it is meant for the higher risk - i.e. your son. I do not understand what JonChris is trying to say. Of course your son was named on the policy, otherwise we would be looking at a totally different scenario here, but the material facts are that the car was effectively owned by your son (it was his car) and if that was not declared then they would assume that your husband was the main user. A major underwriting criteria is whom is the main user of the car. It is logical, if your son was an occasional user of the car, then of course the premium would increase as a less experienced driver is using the car on occasion and hence the insurer is exposed to a greater risk, however if your son was the main user of the car then that risk proportionately increases - and this info they were seemingly not made aware of in this instance. Whether that is the fault of you, or the broker is a different matter entirely, however as previously advised the maxim of utmost good faith aplies still. It is incorrect that the premium is calculated solely on the credentials of the least experienced driver. Of course that is an element, but his/her usage is a major contributor too. Whilst I do not believe that it will help you resolve the situation, you do not say how much no claims bonus (discount) was applied to the policy as a result of your husband being the 'insured', as this is also a major factor in the underwriting decision. You mentioned confused.com, however this is simply an insurance aggregator, asking a wide range of questions in order to fill out the boxes on many insurance companies internet forms. All of these insurers may word their questions differently and hence the range of questions asked. Others have crticised my answer, however, whilst mine may be an opinion, it is an extremely educated one - and whilst you may possess documents stating that the claim is avoided due to a non-disclosure of the regd keeper/owner of the vehicle, they all effectively amount to the same thing - that the insurers were not told of who the owner/keeper was (possibly by the brokers) - hence fronting - and that they are well justified in repudiating the claim. Whether it is fair is a different matter entirely and your best bet is to plead ignorance and complain internally rather than through the FSA, as whilst the insurers may pay for an FSA claim to be investigated - this is not in your, or any other persons best interests, as your collective policies will simply increase as a cumulative effect. As I previously advised, your best bet for success is to pursue the brokers (all telephone calls recorded) and to see if you actually disclosed the fact that your son was paying for the car and would be the main user. Good luck.

I believe that I can clarify this matter for you. There are many issues here which may be addressed, but the most salient comes down not so much to that of insurable interest, but of the maxim of the utmost good faith. This maxim which is applicable to all contracts of insurance effectively means that you must disclose any relevant points to the insurance company, even if you are not asked. From the insurers point of view, they have been presented with a £10k theft claim and they will effectively do whatever they are legally entitled to do to avoid the claim, in this instance even the policy as a whole (since inception, or change of details). Most people when taking out a policy of insurance don't fully appreciate the possible consequences of the contract to which they are entering. Everything and anything that may affect the policy of insurance must be disclosed. Regardless of the vague reasons that the insurers have given you for avoiding the policy, I can assure you that it would have been due to the fact that the finance was in your sons name and hence it is a reasonable assumption that your son is the main user. In this instance a change was semingly made to the policy to insure a different vehicle. The insurance was to be in your husbands name, but the actual owner/keeper of the vehicle was evidently your son. This is known as fronting, whereby one takes out insurance - typically in a parents name, with a child as a named driver in order to reduce the insurance premium, when in fact the main user of the vehicle is the child. This is attractive as it will reduce the premium payable - and lets be honest, many of us have done this in the past - as it is an easy way to cut the cost of insurance. Your premium will have risen (sometimes significantly) with your son being a named driver, but the insurers will not have fully weighted the premium on your son, as they believed that he was not the owner/keeper/main user and hence only an occasional user of the vehicle. To cut a very long story short, there is no doubt in my mind that the insurers are perfectly justified in their actions and regrettably your appeal against their decision will not succeed. I have almost ten years of experience in insurance claims, am professionally qualified and work for the 'fraud' department of a major insurance company and every day many claims are 'chucked out' for the very same reason as yours. It may be no solace for you, but be grateful that the claim didn't involve another party and typically an injury, as every day I have to phone policyholders and tell them that their claim is void and even for a small accident, the solicitors costs, injury and uninsured loss settlements, credit hire for the third party as well as vehicle repairs can cost many more times than that of your loss. Nowadays it is commonplace for the the credit hire invoice for a third party's replacement vehicle to cost tens of thousands of pounds, even into the hundreds of thousands for a prestige vehicle!!!! You may have a civil claim against the brokers as they are paid to ask the right questions, but the maxim of utmost good faith still applies and I suspect that you will be unsuccessful in that claim also, however it is shrewd to request a transcript or a tape recording of the discusssions with the brokers regarding the change of vehicle, as it is not unheard of for brokers to sometimes disregard what has been told to them in order to ensure a lower premium (and hence more commission for themselves). Good luck though and keep us posted as to how to how your appeal progresses

I believe that I can clarify this matter for you. There are many issues here which may be addressed, but the most salient comes down not so much to that of insurable interest, but of the maxim of the utmost good faith. This maxim which is applicable to all contracts of insurance effectively means that you must disclose any relevant points to the insurance company, even if you are not asked. From the insurers point of view, they have been presented with a £10k theft claim and they will effectively do whatever they are legally entitled to do to avoid the claim, in this instance even the policy as a whole (since inception, or change of details). Most people when taking out a policy of insurance don't fully appreciate the possible consequences of the contract to which they are entering. Everything and anything that may affect the policy of insurance must be disclosed. Regardless of the vague reasons that the insurers have given you for avoiding the policy, I can assure you that it would have been due to the fact that the finance was in your sons name and hence it is a reasonable assumption that your son is the main user. In this instance a change was semingly made to the policy to insure a different vehicle. The insurance was to be in your husbands name, but the actual owner/keeper of the vehicle was evidently your son. This is known as fronting, whereby one takes out insurance - typically in a parents name, with a child as a named driver in order to reduce the insurance premium, when in fact the main user of the vehicle is the child. This is attractive as it will reduce the premium payable - and lets be honest, many of us have done this in the past - as it is an easy way to cut the cost of insurance. Your premium will have risen (sometimes significantly) with your son being a named driver, but the insurers will not have fully weighted the premium on your son, as they believed that he was not the owner/keeper/main user and hence only an occasional user of the vehicle. To cut a very long story short, there is no doubt in my mind that the insurers are perfectly justified in their actions and regrettably your appeal against their decision will not succeed. I have almost ten years of experience in insurance claims, am professionally qualified and work for the 'fraud' department of a major insurance company and every day many claims are 'chucked out' for the very same reason as yours. It may be no solace for you, but be grateful that the claim didn't involve another party and typically an injury, as every day I have to phone policyholders and tell them that their claim is void and even for a small accident, the solicitors costs, injury and uninsured loss settlements, credit hire for the third party as well as vehicle repairs can cost many more times than that of your loss. Nowadays it is commonplace for the the credit hire invoice for a third party's replacement vehicle to cost tens of thousands of pounds, even into the hundreds of thousands for a prestige vehicle!!!! You may have a civil claim against the brokers as they are paid to ask the right questions, but the maxim of utmost good faith still applies and I suspect that you will be unsuccessful in that claim also, however it is shrewd to request a transcript or a tape recording of the discusssions with the brokers regarding the change of vehicle, as it is not unheard of for brokers to sometimes disregard what has been told to them in order to ensure a lower premium (and hence more commission for themselves). Good luck though and keep us posted as to how to how your appeal progresses