Jump to content


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2712 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Before i start if this is in the wrong section im sorry.

 

Basically a stolen car hit my parked van which was a write-off. We have identified the the driver and he has pleaded not guilty. We are going through the MIB for compensation.

 

My insurance company was not used to make a claim only to make them aware of it.

 

Now according to the letter off MIB. If the MIB identify the insurer of the stolen car and the driver is convicted in court i can claim through the the third party's insurer (Innocent victim). The MIB would not be able to assist me if it came to this.

 

Now is this true? and how would i make a claim for compensation from the insurer. I thought that's what the MIB did for me acted on my behalf to get compensation. That was the whole point of me going through them as i didn't want to lose my NCD, incur a accident in last 5 years and pay excess on the vehicle that was written off.

 

I am rather confused so any advice would be much appreciated. Thanks Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

They're correct, if the other car had a motor policy on it, the Insurer of this would be responsible it's a basic principle of the Road Traffic Act.

 

In effect it means instead of the MIB paying your claim, the other vehicle's insurance would

Link to post
Share on other sites
They're correct, if the other car had a motor policy on it, the Insurer of this would be responsible it's a basic principle of the Road Traffic Act.

 

In effect it means instead of the MIB paying your claim, the other vehicle's insurance would

 

Thank you. So would i be able to do this myself as im not insured with the company anymore and not driving. Would i not need a legal representative to go through the process with me?

Link to post
Share on other sites

dacouc, could you perhaps expand on your post #2 please. My interpretation of your post means that the insurer of the offending vehicle has to stand good for ANY driver using that vehicle. This would have wide rangeing consequenses.

Link to post
Share on other sites
dacouc, could you perhaps expand on your post #2 please. My interpretation of your post means that the insurer of the offending vehicle has to stand good for ANY driver using that vehicle. This would have wide rangeing consequenses.

 

The Insurer of the vehicle would have to stand third party claims for any driver named or not named by the policy irrespective of whether they are a thief of not providing the driver was indentified. It's on of the main parts of the Road Traffic Act

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Insurer of the vehicle would have to stand third party claims for any driver named or not named by the policy irrespective of whether they are a thief of not providing the driver was indentified. It's on of the main parts of the Road Traffic Act

 

To clarify, the insurers of a vehicle are obliged to meet any claim made under the Road Traffic Acts - basically injury or damage to third parties - but they would normally attempt to recover that amount from the driver.

RMW

"If you want my parking space, please take my disability" Common car park sign in France.

Link to post
Share on other sites
To clarify, the insurers of a vehicle are obliged to meet any claim made under the Road Traffic Acts - basically injury or damage to third parties - but they would normally attempt to recover that amount from the driver.

 

Yes this is technically correct. The RTA does make the Insurers of the vehicle liable. There was a case posted online awhile ago, in which someone sold their vehicle, but for some reason they did not cancel their insurance. The new owner did not insure the vehicle, it was involved in an accident after being stolen and the only insurance on the vehicle was in the name of the previous owner. The Insurers had to deal with the claim under RTA and they then pursued their policyholder to make a recovery on the basis they did not cancel the insurance following the sale, therefore subjecting the Insurers to a risk they should not have had. The Insurers in suing their policyholder were using the terms of the policy, in which it says that they must be informed of changes.

 

Can get quite complicated. But in simple terms, if there is insurance on a vehicle, that Insurer will be responsible for any liabilities and the MIB would not be involved.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most comprehensive policies state that third party cover is offered to non named drivers.

I cannot believe that insurance companies will stand by cars stolen, as this leaves them wide open to cover drivers with a dreadful record eg 9 points on licence etc etc etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Most comprehensive policies state that third party cover is offered to non named drivers.

I cannot believe that insurance companies will stand by cars stolen, as this leaves them wide open to cover drivers with a dreadful record eg 9 points on licence etc etc etc.

 

It's this specific part which makes them liable provided the driver is "identified"

 

"Subsection (1) above applies to judgments relating to a liability with respect to any matter where liability with respect to that matter is required to be covered by a policy of insurance under section 145 of this Act and either—

 

(a)it is a liability covered by the terms of the policy or security to which the certificate relates, and the judgment is obtained against any person who is insured by the policy or whose liability is covered by the security, as the case may be, or

 

(b)it is a liability, other than an excluded liability, which would be so covered if the policy insured all persons or, as the case may be, the security covered the liability of all persons, and the judgment is obtained against any person other than one who is insured by the policy or, as the case may be, whose liability is covered by the security."

 

Where it says "judgement" in reality means "identified" eg the police catch a car thief or a son driving his mums car (With or without permission) or a friend who borrows your car thinking they have driving other cars cover when either don't or their policy is not current. Provided the driver is "identified"

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/151

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...