Motor insurance claim against my son. Need advice.

[Ethel Street]

Do you have anything in writing from the garage that said they would insure the courtesy car?

 

Another angle I would explore if you can identify the insurer is that despite the garage cancelling the policy it would seem that it was in force at the time of the accident. The insurer should know what time the garage called to cancel it. If you can demonstrate that that the accident had happened before then, and that the policyholder had refused to give you the information to reprot the claim on time, you might have some success. it won't be straightforward though.

[Ethel Street]

Thanks BF - I skimmed back through it, must have missed that.

[Ethel Street]

11 minutes ago, Manxman in exile said:

**  I have no idea how trader's policies work.  Would someone being given a courtesy car by a company automatically be covered on that policy?

 

 

I used to deal with motor traders insurance but it was a long time ago so I'm not up to date with current policies and practice. However it used to be a standard extension. Some MT policies included it automatically, others it was an extension the trader paid extra for. You'd also have look at the use limitations - may only cover the customer for private use not business - and limitations re customer's age. Typically there would have to be a signed agreement for the use of the courtesy car for the cover to be valid.

[Ethel Street]

I've gone back and re-read this thread and I'm starting to see that a rather different interpretation of events is possible. One in which the garage isn't the villain of the piece. So let me be devil's advocate for a moment.

 

On Monday beetlejuice01 posted this about their son and the purchase of the "courtesy car"...

 

There was an agreement in place to purchase the vehicle that was being used as a courtesy vehicle. When his own vehicle was repaired and sold.

 

and this...

 

 

Not what he wanted to hear because he feels he is blameless and has already lost £3500.00 by having to purchase the damaged Car and reselling it at a large loss.

However, he signed an agreement to purchase the car. So he has honoured his agreement. 

 

and earlier today this..

 

Just to clarify the current situation. The company is now claiming that the courtesy car belonged to my son at the time of the accident, even though he had not paid them any money for it, at that time. Therefore, their insurance policy did not cover him. The money that he paid for the insurance cover was paid in cash. It appears they are now claiming that this was a deposit for the car and not for insurance cover. No receipt was provided so my son doesn't have a leg to stand on regarding the legal ownership of the vehicle. The date on the DVLA change of ownership paperwork was prior to the accident,

 

Note: he had signed a purchase agreement, it wasn't some vague understanding of what he'd do in the future. What's more after the accident it was beetlejuice's son who sold the damaged car - not the garage. A purchaser is normally going to insist on evidence that you own the vehicle that you are selling so beetlejuice's son presumably had evidence that he owned it. 

 

If nothing else this purchase agreement is a key document that should be posted up here (redacted) so that we can see what it says about when transfer of ownership took place and about insurance.

 

But what if the purchase agreement did transfer ownership to the son from the moment  he drove the "courtesy car" off the garage premises and the son was supposed to insure it from then? If that is what actually happened then it is more likely that the amount he paid to the garage was indeed a deposit as the garage is saying and not 'for the insurance cover'.

 

The garage were willing to let him take the ex-courtesy car without paying the full purchase price because they held his other car  as security for the balance of the purchase price. That seems to me to make more commercial sense than the garage agreeing to continue to insure the ex-courtesy car on their own policy after they had transferred ownership. Normally if a garage lends you a courtesy car you don't have to pay the insurance on it.

 

Why would any garage agree to insure the ex-courtesy car in those circumstances? And why would a garage transfer RK at DVLA to son if he didn't own it and hadn't paid them anything for it? That doesn't make commercial sense either.

 

After the accident son calls garage who realise they hadn't got around to telling their insurer that they'd sold the car. So they immediately tell their own motor trade insurers that it's been sold and to take it off their policy. There's a time lag between telling insurers and the insurers updating MID. Police arrive at the accident shortly afterwards and check the MID before the motor trade insurers have put though any update. So police find the vehicle on MID, as far as they are concerned it's insured, and don't take any further interest in the insurance.

 

This is just my alternative reading of the story that has been put to us. I may be completely wrong, but if I am right what has happened is a misunderstanding by the son about who should have been insuring the ex-courtesy car. He should have insured it but he didn't. Fortunately for him the car was still on MID when police checked at scene of the accident or he could be facing a driving without insurance charge. But I fear he may be a difficult position in relation to the 2nd party. At the moment it's only 2nd party's insurer seeking recovery of the vehicle damage costs, but what if the 2nd party appears later with a personal injury claim? I bet there'll be a claim from the 2nd party for his excess.

 

From the very brief details of the accident I don't agree that the son is blameless either. The person who backed out of the drive may be partly responsible but I'd be surprised if the son was found to entirely blameless.

Edited July 1, 2020 by Ethel Street

[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

[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.