Motor insurance claim against my son. Need advice.

[Manxman in exile]

Does he even need a name for the third party?  So long as they have her registration number can't they find out who her insurer is and send a claim to their third party claims department?*  I can't remember for sure, but doesn't Askmid allow you to identify who the insurer is in circumstances where you know the car's registration number but you don't know who was driving? This sort of thing must be happening umpteen times a day across the country.  I'm sure Uncle Bulgaria would know.  (Or as BankFodder has already suggested, get details from DVLA - if that's possible).

 

All the OP's son needs to do is claim off them, including a copy of CCTV as evidence.  The insurer then asks their client what's going on.  You don't actually need to have had a physical collision to be at fault and cause an accident.  And if she says it was your son's and the other bloke's fault because "they were speeding" - how does she know?  Either she didn't see them, so she doesn't know how quickly they were going, or she did see them and saw they were speeding, in which case she should not have pulled out.

 

*If you are in an accident, the fact you are uninsured does not (so far as I know) prevent you suing a third party who caused the accident.  You being uninsured should not affect fault questions.  Of course the police may become interested if they find out... although not here it would seem.

 

PS - How on earth did your son become involved with this garage?  How did he become so embroiled that he felt obliged to buy a used courtesy car in the first place?  Something here smells really fishy...

[Manxman in exile]

And if the garage persists in saying RK transfer at the DVLA is proof of ownership then either (1) they really are trying it on and have no better argument/proof, or (2) they don't have a clue.

[Ethel Street]

11 minutes ago, Manxman in exile said:

And if the garage persists in saying RK transfer at the DVLA is proof of ownership then either (1) they really are trying it on and have no better argument/proof, or (2) they don't have a clue.

 

I think that's overstating it. RK and ownership are different things, I agree, and RK doesn't prove ownership. But if there were a dispute over ownership, and the other documentation/evidence was missing or  ambiguous, and it went to court the judge might consider that the actions of the garage in transferring RK before the accident had evidential value in support of their claim that the son owned the car before the accident. If the son did not own the car why would the garage transfer the RK? It would be an unusual commercial practice.

Edited July 1, 2020 by Ethel Street

[unclebulgaria67]

I thought for a contract to purchase to go through there had be be consideration paid, to the seller before ownership passed to the buyer.

 

If there is no evidence of such consideration having been paid, then the Insurers noted on the DVLA MID database should be the liable party under Road Traffic Acts.

 

The garage to have continued to Insure the Car under their Traders policy is further indication that they still considered they owned the vehicle, as the purchaser had not paid them the price agreed.

 

It may be worth contacting the MIB  (Motor Insurance Bureau) about this and just seeing whether they have any information which might help.

 

https://www.mib.org.uk/contact-us/

 

 

[Ethel Street]

19 minutes ago, unclebulgaria67 said:

I thought for a contract to purchase to go through there had be be consideration paid, to the seller before ownership passed to the buyer.

 

OP's son paid £200 according to OP which garage says was part of the purchase price.

[Manxman in exile]

1 hour ago, Ethel Street said:

 

I think that's overstating it. RK and ownership are different things, I agree, and RK doesn't prove ownership. But if there were a dispute over ownership, and the other documentation/evidence was missing or  ambiguous, and it went to court the judge might consider that the actions of the garage in transferring RK before the accident had evidential value in support of their claim that the son owned the car before the accident. If the son did not own the car why would the garage transfer the RK? It would be an unusual commercial practice.

 

I don't disagree that in the absence of other evidence the registered keeper record is the next best thing.  However, I'd also be arguing that the very absence of other evidence suggests that there may not have been a transfer of ownership at all before the accident.  What sort of garage would let the car go with money still owing without some documentary evidence?  (Well, we can all speculate about that...)

 

The question "why would the garage transfer RK details on DVLA if they hadn't sold it?" is a good question.  It would be very interesting to see the V5C issued immediately after that transfer just to ensure that the DocRef date (the date when the transfer to the new keeper was actually made on DVLA and not the effective date of transfer) is pre-accident.  Wonder if OP's son still knows, or if it can still be checked?  (How do we know the transfer was actioned pre-accident?  The effective date may be pre-accident, but when was it done?).

 

I see you've just posted again...

Edited July 1, 2020 by Manxman in exile

[Manxman in exile]

5 minutes ago, Ethel Street said:

 

OP's son paid £200 according to OP which garage says was part of the purchase price.

 

What I don't understand is why the OP's son, who apparently drove a very nice, expensive(?) car such that people might think he was "loaded", would end up agreeing to have his car sold so he could buy a second hand used courtesy car from a garage.  I don't have a particularly expensive car but I've never had a courtesy car I'd have swapped for the car I owned.

 

It may be irrelevant legally, but I think if I understood why then I'd understand this situation better.

[Kyosanto]

Ugh... there is nothing worse than seeing someone in trouble ask for advice, then subsequently ignore all the advice and let themselves be screwed over. Terrible read, ruined my day.