A Cautionary Tale of Motor Insurance and the Motor Insurance Bureau *

[Webranger]

We all know that it is compulsory to have third party insurance for any motor vehicle you have on the road - and I do mean “on the road” whether being driven or not - and you will be vigorously prosecuted by the police if you don’t have it. We also all know that the police cars all have direct access to a national database which tells them immediately whether a particular vehicle is under cover at that instant of time.

*

Furthermore, we all think we know that companies that offer motor insurance are fine upstanding honest and fair examples of capitalism at its best. Well, forget that. Recent events have shown me that they can be on a par with banks - lying, conniving, greedy, and incompetent.

*

Fewer people are aware of what happens if an accident is caused by a driver who is not insured. How can the person who has suffered loss claim recompense? Just after World War 2, the Government of the day pressured the insurance companies into setting up a special company - the Motor Insurance Bureau (MIB) - to pay the due compensation which would be funded by a charge on the insurance companies proportionate to their premium income. The thinking behind this was that if the driver at fault had been insured then one or other of the insurers would be paying out, so a joint fund would be fair to everyone. It is now compulsory for the motor insuring companies to contribute and the victims of hit and run drivers are also covered. Apparently the cost of MIB to UK motor policyholders is £30 per annum each and every one.

*

What is even less well known is that MIB do not simply pay out compensation, they also take action against the uninsured driver to recover what has been paid out. That sounds reasonable on the face of it, and if done in a practical, straightforward, and honest way, who could complain?

 

AH! but that's a big IF. Read on to see how I discovered the reality of how this organisation works.

 

No, I was not driving without insurance, BUT …... When my daughter first passed her driving test and bought a small second hand Mazda Micra at the age of 18, we discovered that it was cheaper to insure it under my name with her as a named driver, than for her to be the main insured. The cheapest quote we found on internet comparison sites was from Quinn.

That was in January 2009. In the August I happened to be driving the car when it was smashed into by another driver swerving to avoid a lunatic who pulled out in front of him. Fortunately no-one was injured and the lunatic's insurers paid up for the damage – the Micra being a write-off. We had a “free” hire car for a time for which Quinn issued a cover note. This company, based in Eire and now in liquidation, turned out to be an outfit to avoid. Of course it would be wrong to say that it was a front for the IRA; it just sounded and acted like it; strident female voices with a thick Irish brogue going at the speed and reasonableness of a machine-gun.

 

They wanted more money for covering the hire car, they wanted more if my daughter drove it. But it was her car written off and she was already on the policy. No matter – more money.

 

After some weeks my daughter bought a Clio and informed Quinn to change the insurance again. They issued a temporary cover note – and wanted more money. Why temporary? We wanted a permanent one for the Clio. They argued about the car being registered to my daughter but insured by me. OK the other way around, but they didn't like it this way. Why? “It's a rule we just made up.”

 

Then on 12th November 2009 they issued a new permanent cover note – on the Mazda Micra which had by now been written off and SORNed. I later learned that it is illegal to insure a car under SORN.

 

I rang and told them that this was no good, they couldn't insure a non-existent car, and I told them to re-instate the Clio.

 

Just six days later my daughter was involved in a minor accident. The details are complicated and would take up too much space here. Suffice it to say the her car suffered very minor damage but the other had a badly crumpled front end and bonnet and was a write off. The police were called and decided two important things: that they could not apportion blame and (having consulted the database) that my daughter was insured.

 

I rang Quinn later that morning and they again claimed that the Clio was not insured but the non-existent Micra was. They then reinstated the Clio but would not admit to a mistake.

 

Four months later – February 2010 - my daughter was contacted by MIB (ah, got to them at last, now the plot thickens) who wanted to send their man to see her. So we welcomed him in and asked why he was involved. My daughter dictated a long statement explaining a) that she was insured, Quinn had made an error they would not admit; and b) she was not responsible for the accident anyway. The other driver claimed that my daughter had driven into her side but the photographs we had proved that it was the other way around.

 

The MIB rep was sympathetic and understanding. He said he was “a middle man” in such disputes and that he needed my daughter to sign a form/agreement and he would take it with the statement and we would hear no more about it. I read the form/agreement and realised that it was ambiguous because in effect it gave MIB authority to act for or against the signatory. “Don't worry about that,” he assured us, “The position here is quite clear, but without your authority to act, we can't sort it out for you. Let us handle it and it will go away.”

 

If he had been selling double glazing or something, I would have been dubious of such an assurance in the face of what was written, but this fellow was from a government instigated organisation, a national body essentially controlled by statute. Surely he wouldn't be lying through his teeth and conning us?

 

! Oh yes he was !

 

Some months later, when we thought it had “all gone away” we received a letter from the MIB's solicitors demanding nearly £6,000 (actually the first letter may have indicated less than that but the figure escalated over time, now being over £6,000). They had, without further contact with us decided that my daughter was not insured and was responsible for the accident, flying in the face of police decisions taken on the spot. They had proceeded to pay £300 to write off the other car, nearly £3,000 for whiplash injuries which I don't believe for a second, and close to another £3,000 for legal costs.

 

These are rip-off merchants with the same ethics as banks – never give a sucker an even break!

 

The propaganda says “the MIB recognise that the innocent victim has rights of full legal redress once fault is proven. This assumes that the MIB's own claims criteria are met “ but obviously they don't believe in bothering to prove fault and their claims criteria are as described above.

 

There followed a lengthy correspondence in which I proved that the other driver had misreported the accident and she was responsible. They had a letter from Quinn claiming that the policy had “lapsed” on November 12th and I proved that this was a lie, but it is far easier to take on an impecunious student than a crooked insurance company, so earlier this year they issued county court proceedings for summary judgement.

 

My daughter had to hire a solicitor to enter a defence and apply for Legal Aid, but before we had a decision on that and with only three working days notice, we had to go to court on October 3rd 2011 with a hastily hired and briefed young barrister.

 

The barrister for MIB just took the line that my daughter had signed the form/agreement which gave them authority to do as they damn well please (he didn't actually use that term but it amounted to that) and so she had no basis for a defence of any merit – which is what has to be proven to avoid an actual trial and obtain a summary judgment. He used the letter from Quinn and the other driver's claim about the accident, without mentioning that both had been proven untruthful, and suggested that the police would not have been bothered to prosecute an uninsured driver (!! a laugh a minute this guy!) He also claimed that the MIB rep had offered my daughter the chance to get legal advice before signing the agreement.

 

Fortunately our barrister had absorbed enough info to parry him and show that there were a number of issues that had to be addressed before any definite decision could be made. She pointed out amongst other things that the Witness Statement mentioning the suggestion of legal advice was signed by someone who was not present, so how could she know? [in fact, no such suggestion was ever made] She told the court, as I had previously told MIB, that we intended to force Quinn in as co-defendants so that they could be challenged on their refusal to take responsibility.

 

The judge wasn't hoodwinked either and she asked in detail about the statement that the MIB rep took before declaring that there were issues for a trial and even said that there was a possibility of misrepresentation. So now we have to drag the Receiver for Quinn into the case and prepare for a trial. My own expectation is that Quinn and MIB will eventually come to some agreement. If Quinn had not been so stupid and oppressive in the first place they would have had to pay nothing, now they will pay at least half of the claim, maybe all of it.

 

The morals of this story are:

Never trust an insurance company

Never give them even a paper-thin chance of dodging their obligations

Never trust the Motor Insurance Bureau

Never sign an agreement without legal advice

Never mind what verbal assurances are given, it's what written down that matters

[snowy101]

This company, based in Eire and now in liquidation, turned out to be an outfit to avoid. Of course it would be wrong to say that it was a front for the IRA;

 

So why say it then?, BTW the company you speak of is in administration.

 

 

 

 

it just sounded and acted like it - Please feel free to enlighten me as to how you would know how the IRA sound & act, as someone who is Irish & grew up in the north of Ireland during the troubles i find this deeply insulting.

 

 

 

strident female voices with a thick Irish brogue going at the speed and reasonableness of a machine-gun.- Much the same as countless accents here in the UK, although i don`t think you would use the prefix " thick" just because you have difficulty understanding a persons dialect does not make it thick, or them members of the IRA, I cant believe that if you had made these stereotypical insults about any other group of people you would have been allowed to post your bile.

 

You had bad treatment from an Irish insurance company [ well Sherlock so did lots of Irish people] , it does not give you the right to insult Irish people or tar them with membership of the IRA just because your delicate ears can`t understand an accent.

What will part 2 of this story be called.......... Pikey Irish Basta%ds fecked up my my cover note. Ah go on, go on, go on......... ya know ya want tae

Edited October 8, 2011 by snowy101

[Webranger]

Oh, dear, you have read a lot in to my post that was not intended. Philosophical note: we all read and listen through our own mental filters which is why so often communication creates more misunderstanding than understanding. I certainly had no intention of insulting or upsetting Irish people of any persuasion.

 

"Thick Irish brogue" is an old expression often read in my youth so it sprang readily to mind. It just means difficult for others to comprehend; I have no idea why it is a "brogue" rather than an "accent"; to claim it means "thick" in the mental sense is taking prickly sensitivity beyond reason. In fact, it was an expression in use long before "thick as two short planks" entered the lexicon.

 

The IRA spokesman during the "troubles" always spoke fast and aggressively and refused to countenance any other point of view and justified whatever they had done - even when they had killed the "wrong person." That's what I mean and I have no reason to apologise for that. I don't know what you can feel insulted about; I suggest you adjust your mental filters to the real world and accept humorous asides as of no real importance.

[snowy101]

Oh, dear, you have read a lot in to my post that was not intended. Philosophical note: we all read and listen through our own mental filters which is why so often communication creates more misunderstanding than understanding. I certainly had no intention of insulting or upsetting Irish people of any persuasion.

 

 

 

So i ask again, why reference & compare to the IRA if you intended no insult?. Are you really that naive [or think i am ] to think that by mentioning the insurance company is Irish & then the comparisons with the IRA would not insult anyone.

 

"Thick Irish brogue" is an old expression often read in my youth so it sprang readily to mind. It just means difficult for others to comprehend; I have no idea why it is a "brogue" rather than an "accent"; to claim it means "thick" in the mental sense is taking prickly sensitivity beyond reason. In fact, it was an expression in use long before "thick as two short planks" entered the lexicon.

 

Re read my quoting of " thick" in my reply , as i think you have a problem understanding Irish dialects even in the written word, i did not mention or infer you used it in a mental / educational sense.

 

The IRA spokesman during the "troubles" always spoke fast and aggressively and refused to countenance any other point of view and justified whatever they had done - even when they had killed the "wrong person." That's what I mean and I have no reason to apologise for that. I don't know what you can feel insulted about; I suggest you adjust your mental filters to the real world and accept humorous asides as of no real importance.

 

So you think that because the lady you dealt with spoke fast & in your opinion " aggressively" she should be compared to killers. We will have to agree to differ on that one.

 

My mental filters need adjusting:lol: , i`m not the one comparing an insurance company with the IRA. If you can`t see that your comparison is insulting or just don`t want to then perhaps your filters might need tweaking a tad.

[heliosuk]

Webranger, irrespective of the above which incidently did make me grimmace somewhat in relation to the IRA remark and I think has justifiably been challenged, how do you explain the fact that your policy was technically invalid from the start, whereby you freely state that you were not the main driver, your daughter was.

 

Frankly I'd be keeping quiet on this as if required the administrators of the company could defend along with the MIB and you find yourself with rather large legal costs bill. They won't give a monkey's about the costs, just goes on the liquidation bill.

 

Seems like a case of pot calling kettle black I'd say.

[raydetinu]

As far as I know it is illegal to own a car then just be named driver as somebody else is the main insurer, you must have lied on the application form or hey would not have allowed it!

Also it is perfectly legal to insure a car that is sorned, fire, theft etc. and in fact now you HAVE to have insurance if it is SORNED or you will be fined.

[2ltr16valve]

As far as I know it is illegal to own a car then just be named driver as somebody else is the main insurer, you must have lied on the application form or hey would not have allowed it!

Also it is perfectly legal to insure a car that is sorned, fire, theft etc. and in fact now you HAVE to have insurance if it is SORNED or you will be fined.

 

Sorry but your wrong there buddy, That is the execption to the continious insurance, if the vehicle is sorn and kept of a public highway - as would have to be the case if sorn. You do not need the vehicle insured.

 

If you're the registered keeper of a vehicle, it must be insured at all times.

The exceptions are:

 

• if you have made a SORN for the vehicle
  
• if your vehicle has been kept off-road since before SORN came into force on 31 January 1998 – unless it was brought back into use
  
• if your vehicle is recorded as stolen, passed or sold to the motor trade or between registered keepers
  
• if your vehicle is recorded scrapped or permanently exported by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing (DVLA)
  

 

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/Motorinsurance/DG_186696

[raydetinu]

yep ok, correct, got confused about vehicle being off road but not sorned, apologies all round.

[julius0205]

ok obtaining insurance and stating you are the main user of the vehicle when you are not, is known in the biz as 'fronting', insurers take this extremely seriously. Millions of young drivers pay the premium they are supposed to and yes have massive premiums for a reason. THEY ARE A BIGGER RISK AS THEY HAVE NO DRIVING EXPERIENCE! You have obtained the insurance fraudulently and had every intention of doing so as you have stated as such.

 

As for the MIB they are there to protect innocent drivers who are involved in accidents with uninsured drivers. If they can recover their money back they will and I don't blame them. And I don't very much a claims inspector from the MIB would lie! They are there to obtain facts.

 

By the way the police do not make any judgement in who is at fault, again they just state the facts given to them by the parties involved.

 

People don't trust insurers anyway!

 

The irish comment is totally out of order!!!!!!!

[heliosuk]

A very good post Julius which sums it up very nicely.

 

OP is conspicuously quiet!! Perhaps too busy shafting tennants?

[my-spirit-soars-free]

It is not illegal to own a car and have someone else as the named driver - this is perfectly normal in the case of a severely disabled person, for instance, who may well own the car, but be unable to drive it and have someone else (or several someone elses) drive it for them. It is also perfectly normal in the case of a married couple - my husband has often been the registered keeper, and the owner, of "my car", but it is insured in my name as I drive it 95% of the time, and he was just the other named driver on that car.

 

What is illegal is insuring someone elses car in your own name to drop the insurance premium, when the owner of the car is also the main driver - and if insurers catch you doing that they will voidl the insurance. Of course doing this also proves that you are prepared to tell lies to save yourself some money.

 

When you report an accident where the owner of the car was the driver, alarm bells instantly start to ring at the insurer. Then the OP needed to put his daughter on the hire car (as it is "her car that was written off") - another warning flag for the insurer that the wrong person is named as the main driver.

 

The MIB ended up talking to the daughter, even though the insurance was not in her name, as she had the accident, it was her car, and they may therefore have come to the conclusion that the insurers mistakes, even if they happened, are not relevant as the policy did not cover the daughter being the main driver.

[ScarletPimpernel]

Quinn's was considered a safe company for members of the NI security forces to be insured with. PIRA was so well infiltrated by UK intelligence that it is risible to suggest that if Quinn's were in some way connected to Republican paramilitaries that we would not be aware of it. The PSNI & An Garda Siochana are all over money laundering and terrorist fund-raising on both sides of the border.

 

All of my dealings with Quinn's, when I worked in NI, were with an office in NI and all the staff spoke with Northern Irish accents rather than southern accents, which are very different to an Irish brogue.

 

Quinn's might have been inefficient, and in my experience they were dire, but I do not think that this equates to sympathy for paramilitaries.