Motor Insurance Bureau v Tumble

[tumble]

Hi , looking for assistance.

Background

 

Involved in a minor incident in 2012.

Lady agreed to get work done at a local garage as my policy excess was £400

and the dent was so minor I agreed to pay at this point

as I had reversed into the car to allow an emergency vehicle access

as there had been an incident in the road I was situated.

 

 

The lady went quiet and the next thing I heard from an accident claim specialist.

 

I called my insurance company to advise that a claim was on its way

they stated that my policy had not been renewed ,

it was an automatic renewal which had not been actioned.

Therefore I was not insured.

 

 

It was noted at this stage that the lady was now in a hire vehicle.

 

I took the photographs I had taken of the damage to a garage,

the man pointed out that the car was parked illegally across two broken white lines in the road

affecting the flow of traffic and to watch out for an exageratted claim.

 

I spoke to a solicitor who advised that the MIB would contact me and advised me to co-operate fully

and treat them as if they were the insurer and I should be treated fairly.

 

I was duly contacted and gave details of the incident.

MIB advised that they did not pay excessive charges and would investigate the liability aspect fully

and not pay out without consulting myself.

 

I met with an investigator who also advised I would be treated fairly

and would contact my insurers for further details regarding the admin error.

 

 

I advised that I was concerned that the lady was driving a substitute vehicle for some time.

MIB advised they would not pay for car hire.

None of the above was actioned.

 

There was no pre action protocol and a claim for £2609.88 was issued through the county court

with a limited particulars of claim not stating what the amount related to.

I issued an embarressed defence.

 

On receipt of an Application notice it was apparent that the whole claim was for car hire for eleven days

while the ladys car was in for repair.

 

I attended court.

The judge struck out my defence but gave me 28 days to submit an amended defence

and ordered me to pay £1750 into the court pending directions

 

 

I presume after the amended defence is submitted.

The claimant then put in for costs of £1150 ,

the judge has reduced the costs to £750. (not yet awarded )

I am looking at unfair advantage here as its pretty difficult at times

navigating your way around CPR rules when you up against a solicitor.

 

I have not had sight of the engineers report for costs of repair

which I feel would be totally disproportionate to the car hire.

 

 

The ladys own insurance paid for repair to the vehicle

and I donnot understand that if I was liable why I was not pursued for this.

 

There is no bona fide invoice for the car hire showing dates of hire.

The results of the investigation were not made available to me establishing liability,

therefore this could be the cart before the horse as I was promised I would be treated fairly.

Advice please

many thanks

Tumble

[rebel11]

Thread moved to correct forum.

[unclebulgaria67]

This would actually be better in legal.

 

I think this needs to be looked into by someone legally knowledgeable.

 

Why no action by you against your Insurance company. If they issued a renewal letter/notice stating automatic renewal, which they did not action, then you could issue a court claim against them for breach of contract. You would be claiming the full value of the claim and costs by the third party.

 

The MIB were never going to do what they told you. They are only really there to make sure an innocent third party is not out of pocket, as a result of damage caused by an uninsured driver.

 

The accident management companies are really credit hire companies, who provide expensive hire cars for longer than needed.

 

You could do with input by another poster to this site ganemede, as they know the legal side with Insurance claims.

[tumble]

Thankyou, it is what it is at the minute me against the MIB. I trusted what they told me , the application notice states that they record all calls. I need to know how to access this info . MIB failed to respond to a subject access request. The judge was not concerned with this.

 

Tumble

[unclebulgaria67]

Thankyou, it is what it is at the minute me against the MIB. I trusted what they told me , the application notice states that they record all calls. I need to know how to access this info . MIB failed to respond to a subject access request. The judge was not concerned with this.

 

Tumble

 

I think you will find that the MIB are treated like a protected species by the courts. A bit like suing HM The Queen.

 

If you contact the ICO, they will force the MIB to action your SAR. The MIB will no doubt say that they only keep call recordings for a year and can't provide them. But it worth trying.

 

This has turned into a messy situation. You should have been more active in pursuing your Insurance company, but can still do this.

 

You really need a Solcitors who deals with this type of situation, but there is a risk of incurring more costs, which might just make the situation worse. You might be advised to come to a settlement and then pursue the Insurance company who failed to automatically renew the policy.

[tumble]

My email trail demonstrates I was pro-active and co operative from start to finish.

The investigator was given my policy details and advised he was going to contact them.

Ive asked for confirmation, no response.

 

 

The judge did raise an eyebrow and asked the claimants was it usual for a bit of panel beating to take 11 days.

Am I to understand that driving with no insurance has a no ceiling limit

and all right are revoked to fair treatment both by a government department and the courts.

 

 

In some ways I am grateful of the incident in some respects that it highlighted the fact

of not being insured the consequences of something more serious makes me shudder.

 

 

I have been a driver for 25 years and never been in a position of no insurance and thank god never had an accident.

I can produce my cover details for the last ten years, this was to demonstrate that this was a genuine mistake.

 

I did not refuse to pay for the damage,

however I was advised that liability would be established

and MIB would not pay any costs until it was confirmed

and discussed with myself.

 

 

MIB was irresponsible paying out such excessive amounts,

potentially highly disprortionate to the actual damage to the vehicle.

 

 

When discussing the car hire the case handler stated it would not be paying it and it was scandalous.

I could serioulsy do with some legal advice and pointers regarding CPR rules.

 

 

Surely liability should be established first and foremost.

 

 

I remember Martin Kaye on CAG god rest him. Could do with a Martin right now.

Tumble

[unclebulgaria67]

I want to know why the Insurance company have not admitted their mistake and honoured the cover they advised in their automatic renewal. You were correct to rely on the automatic renewal and that you were insured.

 

I would have thought a court claim against your Insurers on this basis, would be an easy win. I am sure I have read of other people in the same situation, who have taken such action and won back all of their costs.

 

There was a case reported on here, where someone was being chased by the MIB for £30k and the MIB did not bother to keep them informed of what they were agreeing with the third party.

[unclebulgaria67]

I have asked someone with knowledge of the Insurance legal side to have a look for you. They may respond later when they get a chance.

[tumble]

Really thats shocking. I doubt now whether the MIB even wrote to them. At the time of discovering I had no cover I immediatley went online and organised cover. My feeling at the the time was that I would just pay for the damage as it was so minimal. The insurance company stated that the onus was on myself to check bank statements that payment had been taken. I accepted this and trusted the MIB to make representations as this formed part of their investigation. Looks like the MIB are a law unto themselves. I am fully aware that driving without insurance is both reckless and irresponsible. So the message is co-operate and get shafted anyway.

[unclebulgaria67]

Really thats shocking. I doubt now whether the MIB even wrote to them. At the time of discovering I had no cover I immediatley went online and organised cover. My feeling at the the time was that I would just pay for the damage as it was so minimal. The insurance company stated that the onus was on myself to check bank statements that payment had been taken. I accepted this and trusted the MIB to make representations as this formed part of their investigation. Looks like the MIB are a law unto themselves. I am fully aware that driving without insurance is both reckless and irresponsible. So the message is co-operate and get shafted anyway.

 

I think the MIB are funded by Insurance companies. They don't go out of their way to investigate much. As I said, they are there to deal with the loss suffered by the third party and get agreement on that. I suspect it is the norm for them to tell the uninsured driver a load of porky pies, just so they don't have to deal with them as well.

 

Sorry but I think that the Solicitors you spoke to gave you some pretty naive advice. Someone better informed, may have suggested that you needed to deal with it in a different way. You may have been able to negotiate directly with the third party. You could have instigated legal proceedings against the Insurance company, keeping them informed of the costs of the third party. You ended up in a position which was not in your interests.

[tumble]

Right if thats the case its not correct and it needs looking into seriously. A goverment department should behave appropriatley. Maybe this arrogance makes them exempt from pre action protocol and mediation also. I have prepared my amended defence. Incidentally most prestige car showrooms provide courtesy vehicles when a car is in for repair ( this was an Audi). Very keen to know before booking a repair if you had been in an accident, I guess at this point eyes light up referral fees kick in and the mate with the car hire company gets a call.

[tumble]

Is there an act of parliament or a specific law thats states that by driving without insurance your forfeit all your human rights ?!

[unclebulgaria67]

Is there an act of parliament or a specific law thats states that by driving without insurance your forfeit all your human rights ?!

 

No. But when you take on people who do this work on a regular basis, they know the court rules, they know the case law, they know what Judges look for etc, you are going to come a cropper, unless you have a Solicitor/Barrister who know more than they do.

 

Think you need to gather evidence about the cost of the hire car by doing some checking around and try to negotiate a reduction. It seems to have been acceped that a hire car was needed for 11 days. Unless you can evidence that the car damage did not merit a hire car, then it would be just the days in repair. Or if the repaired car was delivered back to the third party before the hire car was taken back.

[Ganymede]

Hi tumble.

 

You need to obtain the following documents from the Claimant's solicitor:-

 

1) Engineers report.

2) Repair invoice.

3) Credit hire agreement.

4) T&Cs for your auto renewal insurance policy.

 

Can you also type up the Particulars of Claim and your Defence.

 

I'm concerned about your lack of insurance. It's your responsibility to activate auto renewal and YOU must ensure that you are insured before setting foot in a car.

 

Thanks.

[unclebulgaria67]

Gany

 

Thanks for responding.

 

Is there case precedent or law relating to the policyholders responsibility re auto renewal ?

 

I would have thought that auto renewal means that the contract of Insurance will automatically be renewed with the renewal premium collected. When I was a manager of a companies renewals for different Insurance products, it was my understanding that as Insurers we were responsible for ensuring auto renewal, if we had stated this. We had some IT issues with auto renewal function and when this was realised we offered cover from renewal, if it was required.

 

If we are making policyholders responsible for renewal of the policy, why offer auto renewal.

[Mwynci]

RE the auto renewal, I'm not aware of anything legal out there, the FOS won't stand for it if no auto renewal attempt has been made, this is assuming all is clear cut, and the funds were there, no problems, otherwise it's upto the consumer.

RE the hire, 11 days is a lot but not excessive, and if it was an audi, it's probably a certain well known accident management company who did this, made sure the car went in on a thursday afternoon, got the estimate done on the friday , had to wait til the tuesday for authority, got it late that afternoon, it wednesday by now, then garages are only expected to work 4 hours (at £40+) per day on a car, so the car wasn't ready until friday afternoon after a quality check,quick clean, leaving the hire car to be picked up on Monday. - just an opinion of course. You can try to argue impecuniosity, or that an alternative could have been sought for a cheaper price, you'll need evidence for this.

Get the documents advised in the above posts and take a good cynical look at everything.

If this has been settled by the MIB (apologies I can't make that out from the posts, it could just be me tonight), it may be the correct decision based on the ecconomics of costs against probable outcomes and most likely what an insurer would do.

[tumble]

Thankyou for the input people. I am unhappy with the conduct of the MIB and have written to the chief exec , the next step of the complaints procedure is the minister for transport. Liability was never confirmed in writing. As I understand it MIB is a government dept ? If so public servants and they have failed on all counts, they wasted my time in the belief they would investigate and take a fair view. Technically how can they legally claim anything when liability wasn't established. I moved to give way for an ambulance , I have confirmation from the ambulance service that it

Attended. The women had parked across two broken white lines affecting the flow of traffic. Whose right . That was the investigation. If I'm liable at least give me the findings.

[Ganymede]

Liability will be determined by the judge, hence the reason for issuing the Court claim.

 

You reversed without looking into a stationary car, regardless of where the car was parked primary liability will probably go against you. You might be able to argue some contributory negligence for where the other car was parked though.

 

You really, really need to get hold of the documents quickly though.

 

Can you also type up the Particulars of Claim and your original Defence please.

[unclebulgaria67]

Tumble

 

If you want further help from CAG, you need to do what Ganymede suggests. You can make as many complaints you like about MIB and not being liable, but it is not going to get you very far. You need to start to apply a methodical approach to resolve this. If you can show a Judge that there are issues that need to be looked into, they may provide additional time.

 

You need to obtain the following documents from the Claimant's solicitor:-

 

1) Engineers report.

2) Repair invoice.

3) Credit hire agreement.

4) T&Cs for your auto renewal insurance policy.

 

Can you also type up the Particulars of Claim and your Defence.

[Ganymede]

Sorry that didn't read well. Obviously you have your own T&Cs tumble, they won't be with the Claimant's solicitor.

[tumble]

Apologies , grateful for assistance mum is very poorly at the minute which is why I omitted to send off my amended defence prior to the hearing.

 

Ganymede could I just ask in your opion why the ladys own insurance paid for the repairs to the car ?

Will post the POC shortly.

The poc is very brief. It is the application notice that gives further details but is pages long. would you like sight of this also.

[tumble]

The claimant's claim is in respect of monies due by the claimant for expenses arising from a road traffic accident on 27/07/2012 which took place at xxxxxxxxx.

 

The collision was caused by the negligent driving of the defendent. As a result of the defendents negligence the claimant has suffered loss, damage and expenses totalling £2452.20

 

The claimant further claims interest at the rate of 8% per annum under section 69 of the county court act 1984 on the said sum and calculated at £157.68

 

And the claimant further claims interest under the above act at the rate of 0.54 per day from the date of issue until judgement or earlier payment.

 

Claimants claim 2608.88

[tumble]

sent this request to sols today.

 

1) Engineers report.

2) Repair invoice.

3) Credit hire agreement.

4) Findings of investigation carried out by the MIB establishing liability

5) Copy of correspondence from Aviva confirming non compliance of auto renewal.

 

You will receive my full defence in due course.

[tumble]

still baffled how you can be taken to court before liability established. inoccent until proven guilty ! no

[Ganymede]

still baffled how you can be taken to court before liability established. inoccent until proven guilty ! no

 

Because it's the Court's job to establish liability and make a decision on who is at fault if the Parties can't agree.