Jump to content

You can now change your notification sounds by going to this link https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/index.php?/&app=soundboard&module=soundboard&controller=managesounds

 

You can find a library of free notification sounds in several places on the Internet. Here's one which has a very large selection https://notificationsounds.com/notification-sounds

 

 

BankFodder BankFodder

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi all,   I had an Lloyds bank overdraft in 2019 with the overdraft amount being £1350 maxed out by December 2019. I had left the account alone for two/three months as the overdraft fees were basically ruining me(Adding to the £1350 overdraft), i then received a letter from Lloyds asking me to phone them regarding this debt (This was January 2020). I had phoned Lloyds and we went through an expenditure on the phone and the outcome was i was to make payment of £30 towards the debt for 6 months and then after the 6 months is up they would get in touch with me to discuss further options. (There was mention in January that after the 6 months there was a possibility of a loan to pay of the remaining balance and then you make payments against the loan for however many years/months you choose.) It is worth noting that whilst i was making these payments they seized all interest on my account.    I have made every payment since January and have gradually managed to reduce my overdraft down to £1200. My problem is that the bank have phoned as it now at that stage for re-discussion, they have asked me to go through another expenditure and i panicked and over estimated things to make it look like i had less income; not loads but i was in a deficit of -£47. Due to this they said they could not allow me to take out a loan as it would only mean i was borrowing more to pay of debt which they would not allow. It then got passed over to another team and he said that i only had two options. Take a one month break with all interest etc stopped and this will allow me to seek financial advice elsewhere, or they said they would default the payment and i can then pay the minimum i can afford but the default would stay on my credit file for 6 years. He mentioned that they wouldn't take any money of me to help clear the debt as i had a deficit of -£47 and that shows i financially cannot afford to do that option. I have looked at the effects a default can make to your credit file and it impacts it tremendously.   Lloyds asked me how i cover my expenses every month and i mentioned that my Grandparents help me out sometimes with cash flow. So the gentleman at Lloyd's suggested going away and asking my grandparents if they could contribute money to me to help aid in my debt. so that he could go back to the original team(I think collections team) and say she now has this ____ He is due to phone me on Thursday (Tomorrow). I can afford to contribute probably £50-£80 a month but it would mean cutting down on fuel and some other expenses.   Its worth noting that i have a credit card with Nationwide maxed to £1000 too and this will soon be at the stage where they charge interest and i cannot afford to clear this either. Is this worth writing to them about?   Is there anyone that can advise me on what to do to help me pay as little as i can and avoid the default PLEASE, any help is really REALLY appreciated.   Thank you all in advance.
    • In terms of whether or not this is a private sale, clearly it will be for a judge to decide. It seems to me that we have somebody here who bred a litter of puppies and has sold several of them or all of them at probably around £1200 each. I think that is very different from selling your own private second-hand car to get what you can for it in order, for instance, to buy another one. Anyway it's for the judge to decide. In terms of whether or not the seller is aware of the defects – if they are a private seller – all it really means is that they are not subject to sale of goods legislation so that a purchaser in a private sale does not have specific protections. After that you have to fall back onto the common law of contract and once again I think that the liabilities are reasonably strict and I still think that even in a private sale if you bought something with defects which was represented to you as being without defects then you would probably have a good case. In this case, the dog has been accompanied by a health certificate and I think that is as good as any kind of representation dog is without defects. I think we are coming to an altogether more interesting issue. Apparently the dental defect with this puppy is observable and could have been detected by any reasonably careful examination carried out by a reasonable professional. But apparently also there is the possibility that there may be a more complicated problem which could be addressed by work costing up to £2000. What I'd like to know is whether this more complicated problem is as a result of the failure to spot the initial problem. Even if the initial problem had been spotted, with this still be a possibility that this more complicated work would be necessary? I suppose what I'm getting to his that at what point does one decide that a defect is an unacceptable defect or simply a risk that comes with purchasing all animals and therefore could still be considered as "satisfactory" because it would meet the reasonable expectations of any reasonable pet owner. To put it bluntly: are we saying here that if you buy an animal is less than genetically perfect, that you are purchasing defective goods and you are entitled to a refund? Does this mean that all animal traders are obliged to ensure that all the animals they sell are genetically perfect? This is dangerous territory: eugenics.  
    • a dn can be issued even on one default payment.
    • I think I still remain to be convinced that a court would not find the seller's offer to take the puppy back and give the OP a full refund both reasonable and acceptable.   Ignoring that this is the sale of a puppy, isn't this more akin to the private sale of a second-hand car?   I don't really know what the phrase:  "I recently bought a puppy from a home breeder. They have never breed dogs before and aren't a licensed business" means.  Is this a business to consumer sale, or is it simply the opportunistic private sale of puppies from a domestic litter?  I think the OP needs to establish this because it's not clear to me - yet.   AIUI, if I as a private individual privately sold, say,  a car with umpteen non-apparent faults or defects with it, but I was honestly unaware of them and could not be expected to be aware of them, then I'm not liable for any breach of contract when those faults and defects manifest themselves to the buyer a week later.  Isn't that what worried private sellers of cars are told here when aggrieved purchasers threaten to sue them?  It's not immediately obvious to me why this is necessarily any different - unless this is clearly a business to consumer sale.   The OP also says:  "Our puppy was sold as having passed a full health check from Vets4Pets", and so far as I can see this isn't disputed.  Unless that health check revealed the dental problem the OP is now complaining about, but the OP never was shown it (seems unlikely that the seller would mention it but not make the results available), then I think the seller may well be entitled to rely on it.  What more could they do to ascertain the health of the puppy?   I think this is not necessarily a clear-cut claim, and from the way the OP describes the breeder I think the question whether this is a consumer sale or a private sale may not have a black or white answer.     1.  The OP mentions following advice to buy puppies bred from a "home pet" (or similar such wording).  Not clear if this was the case here, but if it was, doesn't this suggest a private rather than consumer or trade sale?   2.  The OP also suggests that the health of the puppy was misrepresented, but is this necessarily correct?  They say the puppy was advertised as having had a "full health check", but that's not the same as saying the puppy was actually healthy.  And if it was a private sale, is the seller required to declare health problems they are aware of if they aren't specifically asked?
    • Ok,    I thought it may of helped as their DN stated 2 installments in arrears when it was issued on 10/2/17, but it would infact only have been 1 installment overdue 17/01/17.   I will keep to what I already know and stop over thinking further issues. 😁    
  • Our picks

    • Currys Refuse Refund F/Freezer 5day old. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422656-currys-refuse-refund-ffreezer-5day-old/
      • 5 replies
    • Hi,  
      I was in Sainsbury’s today and did scan and shop.
      I arrived in after a busy day at work and immediately got distracted by the clothes.
       
      I put a few things in my trolley and then did a shop.
      I paid and was about to get into my car when the security guard stopped me and asked me to come back in.
       
      I did and they took me upstairs.
      I was mortified and said I forgot to scan the clothes and a conditioner, 5 items.
      I know its unacceptable but I was distracted and Initially hadn’t really planned to use scan and shop.
       
      No excuse.
      I offered to pay for the goods but the manager said it was too late.
      He looked at the CCTV and because I didn’t try to scan the items he was phoning the police.
       
      The cost of the items was about £40.
      I was crying at this point and told them I was a nurse, just coming from work and I could get struck off.
       
      They rang the police anyway and they came and issued me with a community resolution notice, which goes off my record in a year.
      I feel terrible. I have to declare this to my employer and NMC.
       
      They kept me in a room on my own with 4 staff and have banned me from all stores.
      The police said if I didn’t do the community order I would go to court and they would refer me to the PPS.
       
      I’m so stressed,
      can u appeal this or should I just accept it?
       
      Thanks for reading 
      • 7 replies
    • The courier industry – some basic points for customers. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/421913-the-courier-industry-%E2%80%93-some-basic-points-for-customers/
      • 1 reply
    • The controversial sub-prime lender says the City watchdog is investigating its practices.
      View the full article
      • 0 replies
beetlejuice01

Motor insurance claim against my son. Need advice.

Recommended Posts

Yes please find out the company name.

 

on the basis of what you say I don't find any difficulty in making sure that your son is fully compensated for the damage to the vehicle which he agreed to buy and also holding the third party responsible for all of the damage caused by the accident and also the personal injury.

 

it will take some work but you can begin by finding out all the information that I have asked you to obtain

 

 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we are dealing with broadly two issues here and they are fairly separate from each other.

Firstly there is the question of the accident which was caused by a third party – as yet unnamed.
We don't know when this accident happened because I asked you earlier on and you haven't responded.

When he agreed to buy the car, it was in a certain good condition – and apparently insured. It was damaged in an accident which apparently was not his fault but for some reason rather which I don't understand it, he is not able to claim on the insurance for the damage to that vehicle – in part because apparently the owners of the vehicle cancel the insurance just after the accident and so somebody or other said that he should be personally liable for the damage.
Instead of being assertive or challenging about this, he simply accepted this and was prepared to accept the loss.

It seems to me that the company – whose name we don't know – and I have a sense that it is being withheld from us – had a contract obligation to let him have the car in a certain condition and while it was not his, it was certainly insured and so I would say that it was an implied term of the contract that he should benefit from the insurance and be able to claim on it so that the car will be put into a proper condition at the expense of the insurer.

I don't really understand why you can have accident in a car which is insured at the moment that the insured peril occurs – and then later on the insurance is cancelled and for some reason rather is not able to claim against an insurance which was in place at the time.

This has to be absolutely wrong and so I consider that the company is in breach of contract and that you have a claim here. I would say that the claim is un-loseable – and the anything which might frustrate the claim is if the company does a Phoenix and wind itself up before a judgement can be enforced.
A company which takes this kind of action in respect of insurance is clearly a bit suspect – and the fact that we not being told the identity of the company is also suspect.

A second possibility on this scenario is that the third party who course the entire accidents identified and all of the claim is made against her insurance – assuming that she is insured. Once again, the whole thing is a bit surprising because apparently she lives down the road and so far as I gather, no attempt has been made to ascertain her identity – and that means that if she moved house, you would have no way of finding out where she was.

Once again because you haven't told us when this happened because you haven't addressed the question that I posed earlier, we have no idea how bad the situation has become simply to lapse of time.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The second issue is the issue of the accident and the damage and personal injury caused to the second party.

No attempt has been made to discover any information about the damage, the cost of repairs, whether independent quotations have been obtained, any information about the personal injury, any site of medical evidence or corroboration that the injury really exists – because I understand that she told the medics who were on hand that she was all right – although it could have been a latent injury.

You seem simply to have received a bill for a sum of money and nobody even seems to be querying it or trying to calculate the basis upon which that bill was arrived at.

As far as I gather there's been no attempt to contact you in advance to let you know that you are being held liable and the various action was being taken in order to ascertain the value of certain damage and personal injury.

On the other hand I understand that your son for some reason rather is not involved in dealing with this other than going to a solicitor

One of the things that troubles me here is that he has now gone to a solicitor. That's fine – some solicitors can do a job – I can tell you that in these kinds of circumstances most solicitors don't do a good job. They simply want to shuffle papers around, get a compromise as quickly as possible so they can put in their bill, get their money and move onto the next case.

It's extremely rare to find a solicitor who is prepared to be a dirty little streetfighter – and that's what you need. I've only met a couple in my whole life.

If you are taking legal advice elsewhere then I don't think there's any point in us wasting our time on this discussion because we do this for free and there are a lot of people that we help. I don't think it is helpful for you to have conflicting advice and so I think you need to decide which horse you are riding in this race and stick with it.

Once again, I think that your son should become involved in this. If it goes to court – and I'm hundred percent certain that it will – at least against the company – then he will be the person who has to bring the case.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incidentally, is there some way that we can find out the identity of the insurer whose policy was apparently cancelled after the event?

I think it is reasonable to begin a claim directly against them – as well as against the company.

Maybe my site team colleague @unclebulgaria67 can suggest how this can be done.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is the Askmid process, but not sure it will reveal the Insurers of the car many month ago, when this accident appears to have taken place.   If the garage have refused to provide the Insurance details. I wonder whether the local Police may be willing to assist.  No harm in asking. 

 

https://www.askmid.com/

 

FAQ's quite helpful as well

 

http://stayinsured.askmid.com/FAQs   

 

The registered keeper is responsible for ensuring the car is insured, however..

You are responsible for checking that your insurance allows you to drive another vehicle.

 

All vehicles insured on your motor trade policy and all trade plates owned by you should be added to the MID, including... Less

- All permanent vehicles registered to, owned by or leased to you

- Temporary vehicles such as courtesy or short term hire vehicles

- Customers’ vehicles whilst in your custody or control for your motor trade business

- Other vehicles, irrespective of the duration, regularly covered under your policy for your motor trade business

The MIB recommendation is that all vehicle records that have road cover included are sent to the MID regardless of the period of cover in order to minimise the risk of being stopped by the police and a possible vehicle seizure.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still no further update on this.

I hope that we can get an update fairly soon – because on the basis of what we hear from the OP, this is all such a winnable case and there should be very little problem other than it being time consuming to get fully compensated for the damage to the loan vehicle, and also to make sure that the damage caused by the third party who left the scene is fully compensated by her or her insurance.

 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look through, you will see that we've been told that apparently the please check the insurance details and agreed that the car was insured at the time.

As long as we can get the insurance details – and as long as we can find out the name of the company, then I don't expect a great deal of difficulty although it may be time consuming.

However, the OP seems to have left the discussion for the moment – which is a shame.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why, I feel that they may not be back to this thread. I have a sense that they felt already quite defeated by it all.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My first thought reading this was in agreement with uncle Bulgaria's initial comment that there was no, and never had been, any insurance on the courtesy car.  (Or at least no insurance that the the OP's son could claim the benefit of).  And that the garage had committed the offence of permitting to drive without insurance.

 

But if the police are saying that the vehicle was insured at the time of the accident*, I don't see what the problem is.  Unless - the vehicle was insured, but the OP's son was not insured to drive it**.  In that case the insurance company would pay out the claim from the party the OP's son collided with, but then they would seek to recover that from the OP's son.  (Or at least that's how I understand this sort of situation). Is that actually what has happened here?

 

The lesson is, if you are driving a car that isn't yours and that you haven't arranged the insurance on, DON'T DRIVE IT until you have absolutely satisfied yourself (ie seen and retained copies of proof that you are insured) that you are legally covered to drive it.

 

*  I find it very hard to believe that the company supplying the car would get away with (or would even try) cancelling the insurance immediately after being informed of the accident - and that the insurance company would follow this getout.  Surely the timeline of events (including a police report) will establish whether the car was or was not insured at the time of the accident?  That is all that matters.  Cancelling (or attempting to cancel) the insurance after the event can have no effect, surely?  And is probably a criminal offence.

 

**  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 hate to say this, but I often wonder when concerned parents post on behalf of their children, whether they've been told the whole story.  The OP doesn't seem to know a lot of detail here]

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi again, sorry for the lack of updates. 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, so it appears they are pretty watertight as regards who owned the car at the time of the accident.

Its clear that they have taken him for a mug. From a legal standpoint. He owned the vehicle at the time of the accident and although the vehicle was insured when the Police did their check. It was not my sons insurance cover.

Therefore he was driving the Car unknowingly without insurance.

We believe that the Police did not pursue my son at the time was due to him having valid insurance on his own vehicle that was being repaired.

The only avenue we can see forward. Is to pursue the 3rd party who caused the accident.

As my son does not have any insurance company representing his claim. He would have to pay for separately, which could be more than the cost of the claim against him. Without any guarantee that his claim against the 3rd part would be successful. 

It looks like my son has to take this one on the Chin.

He has again contacted Hastings insurance who are asking him for £3000.00. Their claims/loss adjuster is getting back to him. We are trying to negotiate a settlement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I'm very pleased that you came back.

You still haven't told us the name of the company. I don't really understand why – and I think it's important to know.

I don't think that your son's case is as hopeless as that. What makes you think that they checked his own insurance and not the insurance relating to the loan car?

We absolutely need to know the name of the company and I'm sorry to say that I think you're making life much more difficult for us by withholding this. I think you're making life more difficult for your son as well.

What have you done to obtain the identity of the third party?

Have you received any correspondence from this unknown company?

Have you had any quotations – et cetera or have you sought any quotations et cetera for the damage and personal injury which is apparently being claimed from you?

Also, I've just noticed that apparently he paid money for the insurance cover. I'm not sure this was clear to us before on this thread. We had understood that the courtesy car came automatically with insurance.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the OP seems to have posted a rather negative message and then gone again.

I hope the OP gets its notification – you shouldn't give up so easily. If you allow us to unravel this for you, we can laid out and we will probably find that the solutions are fairly simple – although they may be a little time consuming

You really shouldn't let these people triumph over you. Instead of feeling that you have lost out on this, I think that you should marshal some anger and use that to drive you forward with our help.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may have missed the details of the prospective purchase earlier in the thread, but how can your son have bought a car without knowing it?  How can he have paid a deposit without knowing it?  (And why did he think that that  payment was for insurance?)

 

So he has no documentation whatsoever showing that he's the owner?  And the only suggestion that he is is that he's down as the Registered Keeper with DVLA.  NB - Being the RK or holding the V5C is NOT evidence of ownership.

 

beetlejuice - please don't take this the wrong way, but do you have any first-hand knowledge of any of the facts relating to this?  Have you actually spoken to or read any documents from the police, the insurance company or the garage?  It seems an almost incredible chain of events and timing that your son's car has to be repaired; he's given a courtesy car and there's some odd arrangement that he'll buy the courtesy car at a future date when his is fixed; he thinks he's paid for insurance but has actually paid a deposit on the courtesy car; he's involved in an accident caused by car A causing him to run into car B; car A says "not me Guv" and does a runner; car B sues your son;  garage cancels insurance at about the time of the accident; police think your son is insured; insurance company says "No he's not".  And finally it turns out your son has bought the car without realising it.

 

It all seems very strange...

 

And if he was driving without insurance I wouldn't expect the police to let him get away with it.  It's a strict liability offence so getting a conviction would be simple.  If they're not going to prosecute there must be more to this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I understand the story, his own vehicle was being repaired by a a repairer – whose name we have not been told – and they agreed to lend him a courtesy car while they carried out the repair work. It now transpires that apparently they wanted some cash ostensibly for the insurance. At the same time, presumably he said he liked the courtesy car and so they said okay that when they finished the repair work on his own car, they will sell him the courtesy car.
 

After the courtesy car was involved in an accident caused by a third party who suffered no damage and left the scene, the police attended and check the insurance and were satisfied that there was an insurance in place. Our man then reported to the garage and said that the courtesy car had been damaged in an accident and apparently they went straight ahead and cancel the insurance. We have no idea why.

Apparently they now say that the car belonged to him and that the money he paid for the insurance was actually a down payment on the car.

It's all very convoluted, and unsatisfactory – and of course it doesn't help that although we have asked the OP many times for the name of the company, the name hasn't been given to us to a point where I now believe that it is being withheld, for whatever reason.

Maybe the garage owners are unpleasant and there is a worry that there could be some recrimination or even retaliation if their name is published on the site. At the very least we could have been given an explanation as to why the name is being withheld. In fact what is happening here is that a lot of people are putting in a lot of interest and a lot of energy – and we aren't getting anywhere because we are not getting any cooperation from the OP.

This could turn out to be one of life's great mysteries


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, beetlejuice01 said:

. 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, so it appears they are pretty watertight as regards who owned the car at the time of the accident.

Its clear that they have taken him for a mug. From a legal standpoint. He owned the vehicle at the time of the accident and although the vehicle was insured when the Police did their check. It was not my sons insurance cover.

Therefore he was driving the Car unknowingly without insurance.

We believe that the Police did not pursue my son at the time was due to him having valid insurance on his own vehicle that was being repaired.

 

 

As I said above, the DVLA know absolutely nothing about who owns the vehicle - just who the RK is. Nothing at the DVLA is evidence of ownership.  There is no register of car ownership in this country.   If he has no documentation about the purchase, what does the garage have?  Usually with a car purchase there'd be a bill of sale or at least some sort of receipt or invoice.  Does he remember signing anything?   (If he's only paid a deposit, how would the garage get him to pay the balance if no paperwork or proof of agreement exists?)  The garage can't have unilaterally sold it to him without him knowing.

 

If he doesn't own it the garage must and their insurance ought to cover it.  If they cancelled the insurance after being informed of the accident, so what?  The accident already happened and the police say he was insured.  (How do you know the police think he was insured?  Is that what your son told you?).

 

Even if it turns out he was insured, he must learn NEVER EVER to drive a car without being categorically certain he's covered to do so.

 

NB - I'm not saying he didn't need to insure the car because he's only the RK not the owner.  What I'm saying is if he's not the owner and the garage is, it ought to be their responsibility.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, we've been through all of this in this thread – but it doesn't seem to cut any ice.

The OP seems really quite unwilling to engage with this thread


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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 by Ethel Street
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes – a definite possibility – but of course we are not really being told very much more about it. Apparently there is video of the accident – but if we are not given better details, then there's probably nothing we can do


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

beetlejuice - a couple of other points:

 

1.  If you have CCTV/dashcam footage showing the third party (who did a runner) caused the accident, simply sue her insurers.  You don't need to be insured yourself to do that, and you don't need a lawyer either.

 

2.  You really do need to sort this out because you mentioned in passing in an earlier thread that the driver of the vehicle your son crashed into might have suffered personal injury.  If they were injured, they have up to three years to claim against your son.  If they do so, your son may have an expensive problem if it turns out he really wasn't insured.

 

3.  If your son drives an expensive car and people might think he's loaded, why is he buying a used courtesy car from what sounds like a dodgy garage?  I know you say he's been made redundant, but that only happened last Friday.

 

If your son has seen a solicitor you may be best to leave well alone and let him sort it out first hand himself.  (I'd like to know the outcome though).

 

PS - Cross-posted with Ethel Street and BF.  Interesting observation from Ethel Street.  It would be better to hear from the son first-hand.  Mind you, it's very difficult if you get father and son posting like a wrestling tag team.  BankFodder knows the thread I mean!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Ethel Street - I see what you mean and it's certainly plausible, but I took the OP to mean that his son went onto buy the car after the accident because they felt honour bound/obliged/had agreed to do so.  But that doesn't make sense either if the garage are now saying he'd already bought it before the accident(!).

 

Unfortunately none of it makes much sense and as a sequence of events it stretches belief a bit.

 

And yes - it would be nice to see what paper evidence now relates to the sale to the son and when that was - before or after the accident.

Edited by Manxman in exile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry but i cannot give details of the company. My son is adamant that there would be recriminations. He felt compelled to pay them for the Car as they are not the kind of people we want to mess with. They have also warned him that if he tries to pursue a claim against them. They will come looking for him because they have a 6 grand excess on their policy. They have told him that he would have to pay that.

As i have gone through this thread with you. I have found out more information, so i have been learning the details at the same time as you.

I do not have internet access during the day as i am at work, so i have replied when i get home.

My son had agreed to buy the Car after his own vehicle had been repaired and sold. He signed the DVLA document to transfer ownership of the Car when he picked it up. He was confident that the vehicle was insured and paid them a fee of £200.00 cash. They agreed to let him use the Car whilst his own Car was repaired. He paid the fee for the insurance so he thought everything was above board.

When he informed them of the accident. They removed the vehicle from their policy. This was clearly to prevent anyone claiming against their traders insurance policy.

They are now saying that they had a legal right to remove the vehicle from their policy because it was no longer their vehicle as it had been sold to my son. The signing of the DVLA document is proof that the sale had been agreed.

This is their standpoint. They are stating that there is no legal basis which says that they have to sell Cars with insurance on them. 

I am afraid the more i have learned about this. The less confident i have become.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you say "they will come after him" are you talking about physical threats or are you talking about coming after him for money?

Obviously if it's physical threats then you will have to make your own judgement they sound like a pretty nasty bunch of people. If it is coming after him for money then we can help you. There is absolutely no way that they have a £6000 excess. This is simply not a likely story at all. They are inventing the situation simply to dissuade you from taking any action.

Apart from that, I disagree that you should be pessimistic. If you have the CCTV – as you have said – of the third party who caused the accident and if you can find out who she is then that is probably all you need. We can attach responsibility to her by means of a claim and then she will be obliged to sort everything out. What steps have you taken so far to find out her identity?

That's all you need. A name. You have an address and you have her car registration details. You simply need to know her name.

In terms of the video footage that you have, you say that it shows everything clearly. I can imagine that you don't want to post up here at the moment and so I would propose that if you'd like to send it to me at our admin email address, I could look at it in confidence and make a judgement as to how useful it is. As I say, I would receive it confidentially – and you would need to worry about that.

If you wanted you could also let me know the name of the company – once again in confidence – because I might be able to manage a few discreet background checks. There is no way that they would ever find out that you had shared this information with me.

We can do everything possible here to help you – but you have to help us a little.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...