insurance claim need help

[shalford]

my son sold his car to a friend 2 days later his friend had an accident with another vehicle

now the complicated bit

my son did not cancel his insurance till 3 days after his friend had this accident which is when he was buying another vehicle and wanted to swap his insurance straight over so that he would not lose his ncd that he had earned so far for the current year (4 months remaining) but the quote he received was too high so cancelled and went elseware

now 6 weeks later my son receives a call from his ex insurance firm who he cancelled with and was told that his friend was not covered with his own insurance company at the time of the accident and since my son still had the car in his name and the insurance my son had still running on the vehicle at the time that he was responsible as well as the new driver owner and my sons ex insurance company had a legal responsibility to pay out claim made by the other vehicle involved in the accident and that they will seek all monies paid out to settle this claim from both my son and the new owner driver at the time

what can we do we did not know this otherwise my son would have cancelled his insurance at the time of selling his car.

these bloody insurance laws we just cant keep up with them they seem to make there own laws up as they go along now my son who is always legal on the road is now in trouble through something we did not understand at the time as far as we were to understand that when you sell your car thats the end of your responsibility for that vehicle any advice would be appreciated

 

i would like to add that the police are pressing charges to my sons friend in connection with the accident

no insurance etc and as yet we dont know who is at fault with the accident my sons friend or the other vehicle driver

my son has no assets no work and has no money no savings and hes a student

the car was in his name although i his father paid for the car and for insurance as he cant get insurance without it being in his name

i also pay for the upkeep of the vehicle tax etc as my son drives me around as well as his own use it keeps me mobile as i am disabled (emphysemia)

any questions to clarify the above welcome as well as seeking help on this forum let this be a warning to anybody else falling in this same trap

thanks kevin

[oddjobbob]

If he has a receipt showing the date of sale and has posted off the V5 showing the date of sale then he has 0 to worry about, the insurance are just trying it on.

 

he cannot be held responsible for someone else's accident if he did not own the car at the time. he made a clerical error by forgetting to tell them for accouple of days, it happens.

 

tell the ins co that he has no assets, did not own the car and can prove it etc and that you will see them in court. keep everything in writing, not the phone, and politely but firmly respond in writing to any dca that you do not owe the money and will not be paying. if you get any calls tell the dca / ins co that you will respond to their query in writing only.

 

good luck

[sailor sam]

Has your son got any proof that he sold the car previous to the accident? I don't know of any rule that states you must cancel your insurance when you sell your car. However, obviously you should inform your insurers of a change in vehicle. I cannot see legally how you son can be held responsible (insurance wise) for an accident which occured 2 days after he sold the car. Has he explained to his insurers that he did not own the car at the time of the accident?

 

Please Note

 

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

 

[julius0205]

The vehicle was still covered by the insurance policy as the insurers were not informed of the change of ownership. By law as the vehicle is still on cover the insurance company has to deal with any third party claims presented to them. It doesn't matter if the driver isn't on the policy. Obviously try and get some proof that the car was sold to the friend and maintain the fact that your son did not own it. If the friend is being prosecuted for no insurance then that's pretty good evidence too.

 

As mentioned above make sure they are aware that your son has no assets, most insurers will write the debt off if they have no chance of getting it back. Just one more thing try not to sign anything before checking here!

[sailor sam]

The vehicle was still covered by the insurance policy as the insurers were not informed of the change of ownership. By law as the vehicle is still on cover the insurance company has to deal with any third party claims presented to them. It doesn't matter if the driver isn't on the policy. Obviously try and get some proof that the car was sold to the friend and maintain the fact that your son did not own it. If the friend is being prosecuted for no insurance then that's pretty good evidence too.

 

As mentioned above make sure they are aware that your son has no assets, most insurers will write the debt off if they have no chance of getting it back. Just one more thing try not to sign anything before checking here!

 

I think you will find you are wrong. If the OP has no connection to the vehicle then his insurance will not cover it. The accident claim should be aimed initially at the owner of the car at the time. HIS insurers will be responsible for handling the claim. If the OP sold it before that accident, then as far as insurance purposes are concerned, he no longer has an interest in the car and as such is not reponsible for it. All the OP needs to show his then insurers is proof of the date he no longer owned the car.

 

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

 

[Endymion]

I would suggest that Section 151 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 gives plenty of teeth to the OP's son's insurers argument, although quite why they are paying out without argument and pleading no insurable interest and an exception under Section 152 of the RTA 1988 etc, I do not know.

 

These claims always rely upon the wording of the policy of insurance. It is likely that the wording will incorporate a relevent section concerning the liabilities imposed under section 151 of the RTA 1988 and I would suggest you read these. Problem is, if the insurance company are going to go and pay the damages of the Claimant(s) then there is little you can do about it.

 

What will concern you is the possibility of a recovery action against your son and also any rise in premium because of the claim on the policy.

 

The problem remains is that, strangely, your sons insurance company believe the non disclosure of fact that he had sold the car and therefore no insurable interest, has robbed them of a defence and so they must pay.

 

What will cause you the most problems is that it is quite legal to insure a vehicle not owned by the policyholder - with the permission of the owner. Seeing as the owner is now being prosecuted and now has a get out clause in your son's insurance paying damages which he would normally be liable for, I doubt he will confirm that he did not agree that your son could not insure and drive the vehicle.

 

It certainly is a tricky one and I am very surprised that the insurance company has simply not invoked section 152 (2) (a) (i).

[shalford]

thank you all for your input although still stressed out with all this

yes my son has a note with signatures from both my son and hes friend for friday 2nd december 2011 confirming sale of his car

and posted his v5 document on tuesday 6th december

trouble is my sons friend when i contacted yesterday still has not received the v5 document confirming him as the new owner from dvla so i will have to now ring dvla

to see what the problem is, im fearing the worst here that maybe its lost in the post and laying around somewhere at dvla which is making me feel very angry now

i will see what there saying when i contact them today

now the bloke from my sons ex insurance who spoke to my son the other day informing him of the above, we explained the fact that my son sold the vehicle 2 days before this accident, and that did not make any differance as far as his office is concerned

they are saying that my son still had insurance running on it at the time of the accident and the car was still in hes name it makes no differance that we had proof otherwise and then became a heated exchange between my self and the insurance bloke especialy when they said they will seek any loses they incur from my son

 

my sons friend said that the other driver was speeding on a motorbike while he was pulling out from a side road and they collided and so we dont know what the outcome of cost and whos to blame etc

my sons friend says to me he has fully comprehensive insurance on hes family car in hes name and he thought that he was covered on hes insurance document as its worded

allowed to drive other vehicles but hes insurance company says he has to be 25 or over so hes not covered why dont they make that clear where it says hes allowed to drive other vehicles and then bury the age restrictions in small print in a thick booklet its a big con

[sailor sam]

thank you all for your input although still stressed out with all this

yes my son has a note with signatures from both my son and hes friend for friday 2nd december 2011 confirming sale of his car

and posted his v5 document on tuesday 6th december

trouble is my sons friend when i contacted yesterday still has not received the v5 document confirming him as the new owner from dvla so i will have to now ring dvla

to see what the problem is, im fearing the worst here that maybe its lost in the post and laying around somewhere at dvla which is making me feel very angry now

i will see what there saying when i contact them today

now the bloke from my sons ex insurance who spoke to my son the other day informing him of the above, we explained the fact that my son sold the vehicle 2 days before this accident, and that did not make any differance as far as his office is concerned

they are saying that my son still had insurance running on it at the time of the accident and the car was still in hes name it makes no differance that we had proof otherwise and then became a heated exchange between my self and the insurance bloke especialy when they said they will seek any loses they incur from my son

 

my sons friend said that the other driver was speeding on a motorbike while he was pulling out from a side road and they collided and so we dont know what the outcome of cost and whos to blame etc

my sons friend says to me he has fully comprehensive insurance on hes family car in hes name and he thought that he was covered on hes insurance document as its worded

allowed to drive other vehicles but hes insurance company says he has to be 25 or over so hes not covered why dont they make that clear where it says hes allowed to drive other vehicles and then bury the age restrictions in small print in a thick booklet its a big con

 

Am I missing something here? If he has fully comp insurance, presumably he exchanged details at the time of the accident. So why are his insurers not dealing with this? The 'allowed to drive other vehicles' bit you have quoted concerns me because that normally means 'vehicles which are not owned by the policy holder' and provides TP cover only. By quoting this, you are making me think that your son's 'friend' has not informed his insurers of the change of vehicle which MAY have invalidated his cover. But as I see it, that his his fault, not your son's. It would explain why the old insurers are chasing him though. Also I'm assuming that your son's 'friend' gave out his insurance details.... why would he do that?

 

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

 

[shalford]

my sons friend still owns hes other family car which has the fully comprehensive cover on it

he bought this car (my sons old vehicle) for hes girlfriend for school runs etc and was taking the car to a friend of hes to service it and new brakes and so he was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident sunday morning

he gave the police his details at the scene of the accident who quieried it as my son came up on their system as the owner of the vehicle as the v5 has not even been posted yet and my son was the only person who was entitled to drive this vehicle

this all happened at the weekend when he sold his car

my sons friend explained about fully comp on hes other car and was given a producer i believe

when he approached hes insurance company to let them know about the accident he was gutted to find out that he was not covered because of hes age as explained previously now hes being prosecuted for no valid insurance and hes insurance company said there not liable for any claims made by the other party involved in the accident

back to my original thread above 6 weeks later out of the blue my sons ex insurance company are on the phone telling us my son is now in involved since hes insurance company was currently still insuring the vehicle at the time of the accident it seems easier to claim from my son i guess i really dont know

does this help to clarify the situation

regards kev

[sailor sam]

Ok, it sounds like your son's friend was lucky the police didn't seize the vehicle! You mentioned that the other 'driver' was speeding... were there any witnesses to the accident? I don't see how they can persue your son if the other driver was at fault. Having said that, as your son's freind pullled out from a side road, the proportion of blame may well sway in favour of the TP. The outcome may be a split liability.

 

As things stand I would advise your son to sit tight and answer any correspondence about the accident with 'I was not involved in the accident as I did not own the vehicle at the time' and wait for them to take it to court.

 

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

 

[shalford]

ok thanks

[raydetinu]

Ignore all threats from insurance company about paying anything, and dont speak to them only correspond by email or letter.

They will have to take your son to court to get anything and as he did not own the car, you would have a good defence.

Anyway if they do keep on, then ask them lots of questions; i.e. why dont they persue the driver as he was responsable; why are they paying out anything at all if it was TP fault?; details of damage to be supplied and costs to be provided etc.

If you get my drift, tie them in knots with lots of queries etc. all helps to delay it all and will probably get fed up.

I did this when a friend of mine borrowed my car ( and found later his licence had expired ) and had an accident, so they came after me ( fortunately no damage to my car ) but Police through the book at him.

They did not answer a single question I put to them and it just fell away and they gave up.

good luck.

I dont think they paid up anything, they wanted me to pay them first before they settled and as they did not get anything of me, I think just denied liability in the end.

[shalford]

sounds like a good strategy thank you