ECar insurance - Theft Claim

[daarab]

Hi all

I have a fully comp policy with southern rock, through ECar insurance.

On 27th Jan 1am.. My step son who is 16 years old decided it would be a good idea to take the keys and go for a drive, he was also under the influence of alcohol, at 5am the police called at the door to tell me they had stopped the car and my step son was driving and they had arrested him on suspicion of theft, as well as drink driving, driving without a license and without insurance, and had i given him permission to drive my car.

I said i hadn`t and that i wanted him charged i signed an evidence slip for the key to say it had been stolen.

Later that day i phoned the claims line and told them everything that happened, and they told me i could claim as a theft.

the car was taken to an approved repairer by the insurance and following an external examiners report on 7th Feb, the car has been declared a total loss.

 

NOW

Since 3rd Feb i`ve rung insurance almost everyday trying to get some sort of sense out of them. But just getteing fobbed off with "we`ll chase it up" 19th Feb i actually got somewhere and found out insurance had report from 8th Feb.

20th Feb I was told that because there was no sign of forced entry and because my step son stole my car they would not pay out on the claim unless he was prosocuted and they would claim back off of him. and i had to send proof that he was being prosocuted.

21st Feb Told because i could not get proof then my claim will not be honoured.

 

Can anyone help me with advice please.

[Yorkyclaims]

Your son does not need to be prosecuted. That is not your decision to make. You only have to show you will support a prosecution if it is made.

 

You say you are struggling to proof that your son is being prosecuted. You should give them a Crime Reference Number. Advise them that this is the proof they require, and if they want to follow it up, to ring the Policeman dealing with the incident. If they advise that the police are quoting the Data Protection Act at them, then ask them to complete an "Appendix B".

 

If they refuse, ask them for a "final notification for the purposes of the FOS" Letter, and once you've got it complain to the Ombudsman.

 

If they refuse, start the complaints process.

 

As long as you are supporting the prosecution you will be reimbursed.

 

Let me know how you get on.

[Planner]

Im not convienced that you are correct on this one, isnt it the same type of argument when peoples sons/daughters run up massive bills on their credit cards after stealing them? I believe the credit card companies will credit the money back as its theft, on the condition that as they know who is responsible prosecution has to occur?

[xrchris]

Yes but it is the police and CPS who have to prosecute NOT the victim of the crime, they just have to support the case.

 

As CW has pointed out the insurer (with the aid of the crime ref no) should be liaising with the police on this one.

[daarab]

I told them that they should be contacting the police, and they did the police confirmed the crime ref number but could not give any more info because of data protection.

they also quoted me an exclusion in my policy handbook "We will Not pay for any of the following:

(f) loss or damage to your car arising from it being taken by, or driven by, a person who was not an insured driver under this policy, but was a member of your family or household or any other person known to you, unless you can prove that the driver intended to permantly deprive you of your car"

 

I`m going to fight them all the way because i think it`s unfair, and they are also trying to put this as an own fault claim and not a theft claim.

[xrchris]

(f) loss or damage to your car arising from it being taken by, or driven by, a person who was not an insured driver under this policy, but was a member of your family or household or any other person known to you, unless you can prove that the driver intended to permantly deprive you of your car"

 

I am not 100% on this as i am not a legal expert but i think you will find that a person cannot be prosecuted for theft unless they intended to permanently deprive the owner of their property whether they are family or not makes no difference. Therefore if the police/CPS prosecute him for this you should be ok assuming he is convicted of course.

 

Looking at the above - the intention of that clause is to stop you claiming if say, for example, your son had borrowed the car and had an accident whilst uninsured and then you later claim he stole it so that you could attampt a valid claim.

[daarab]

Thanks xrchris, you`re given me the will to fight0on. And i hope one day i`ll be able to repay you.

[Advoc8]

The tricky bit will be proving the intention - the CPS won't prosecute for theft unless there's a reasonable prospect of conviction and it all depends on the evidence. There are alternative charges that may be levelled against him but they might be of any help to you.

[Rob S]

It doesn't matter what the CPS finally decide, the fact that the matter has been reported and a crime reference obtained should be sufficient for Ecar.

[Advoc8]

It doesn't matter what the CPS finally decide, the fact that the matter has been reported and a crime reference obtained should be sufficient for Ecar.

 

I disagree. The insurers have already stated their intention to rely on this clause:

 

(f) loss or damage to your car arising from it being taken by, or driven by, a person who was not an insured driver under this policy, but was a member of your family or household or any other person known to you, unless you can prove that the driver intended to permantly deprive you of your car"

Intention to permanently deprive is a lot easier to prove with a theft conviction. The OP may well have an uphill battle to prove intention or to have this clause ruled out for some other reason.

[daarab]

If they advise that the police are quoting the Data Protection Act at them, then ask them to complete an "Appendix B"

What is an "appendix B" ?

[Rob S]

The CPS don't have to prove theft, they can prefer a charge under S12 of the Theft Act 1968, which relates to taking a conveyance. The fact is that no car is classified as stolen by most police forces until 1 month after the event.

[Advoc8]

The CPS don't have to prove theft, they can prefer a charge under S12 of the Theft Act 1968, which relates to taking a conveyance. The fact is that no car is classified as stolen by most police forces until 1 month after the event.

 

TWOCing does not require intention to permanently deprive. How do you propose the OP satisfies the requirement to show intent that his insurers seem to want to impose on him?

[Rob S]

I doubt the OP would have to prove that his stepson intended to permanently deprieve him of the car. He has been given conflicting advice by Ecar and it could be argued that such a term in the contract is unfair, especially if you look at the condition in More Than's policy wording for a similar eventually which reads as follows:-

 

"Stolen or taken away without permission provided that, if this is done by a member of your family or a person who normally lives with you, such person has been reported to the police for the purpose of criminal prosecution and no subsequent statement is made indicating that such a person did in fact have your permission"

 

Norwich Union's policy document doesn't even have such a condition. All they say is that they will not cover the loss if the car is driven by someone who is not named on the policy, but with the exception of if the car is stolen or taken without permission.

 

I think the OP should have a good case against Ecar if they refuse the claim. Their condition in the policy is unreasonable, especially when compared with 2 of the more established insurers and how they word their policies to cover the situation the OP has the misfortune to be in.

 

Edit. I just checked the Direct Line policy wording. Their position is exactly the same as More Than and Norwich Union. If the family member or person living in the same household is reported to police for taking the car without permission then they will cover the loss.

[Advoc8]

Interestingly other insurers take a harder line - Admiral for instance will not cover for loss or damage "where the car is taken or driven without your consent by a family member, spouse or partner".

 

I don't want to start playing insurance term ping-pong or try to alarm the OP, but I do think that he needs to see a solicitor if his claim is turned down. I can think of ways of arguing that the term is reasonable.

[Yorkyclaims]

An Appendix B is a form where they can obtain a full police report, for a fee.

 

Only insurers can ask for it

[daarab]

thanks for that graig.

Just been on phone to ecar again, they claim they have investigated the claim fully, yet when i queried about if they had a full police report they said they didn`t need one and couldn`t get one because of Data Protection.

I know they are trying to fob me off, so now i`m off to write a letter with all my complaints listed and queries.

[Rob S]

They might not be able to get one, but you could certainly make a subject access request for a copy of the police report, and then pass it on to them.

[daarab]

*****LATEST UPDATE******

Garage just returned car with flat battery, I refused to accept the car because when it was recovered it was running, Phoned Garage they said they will get it running but will leave it in a council car park. To say I`m FURIOUS is an understatement.

[daarab]

Good news

I sent complaint off to the claims service (4 pages) , and got quite a shock when they replied saying that they would honour the claim. received cheque Friday Morning.