We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Do you HAVE to cancel car insurance
Comments
-
Er, I know the implications of section 147(1) of the Road Traffic Act, thanks.
You might want to do some further reading, notably the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risk) Regulations 1972, the piece of legislation that actually lays down which conditions have to be specified upon the certificate of motor insurance.
You might want to also recognise that these are statutory obligations that do not in any way impinge the insurer's right to insert contractual terms as they see fit. Have you read a policy booklet yet? Perhaps you could link to one which contains no exclusions under the 'liability to others' section that do not appear on the certificate. I won't be holding my breath on that one.
I ought to let to know that I am a motor insurance underwriter. I'd be interested to know of any relevant experience you have yourself.
The law states all conditions were third party securities are withdrawn are stated clearly on the certificate. Doesn't matter what the policy booklet states if the certificate offers drive other cars extension and doesn't list exclusions of cover.
As an underwriter you must agree with that, the insurer would be liable for the third party damage by its own certificate wording.0 -
The law states all conditions were third party securities are withdrawn are stated clearly on the certificate.
"Third party securities"? What are they? Do you mean "Third party liabilities"?
The law does not state that all conditions are stated clearly on the certificate.
What the law actually does is:
- specify which details have to be present on the certificate (i.e. certificate number, policyholder name, vehicle description, effective date/time of commencement and expiry, entitlement to drive, limitations as to use, declaration/signature) [Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks) Regulations 1972].
- specify several conditions which exclude or purport to exclude third party liabilites which the insurer cannot rely upon to avoid a third party liability [s.148 Road Traffic Act 1988].Doesn't matter what the policy booklet states if the certificate offers drive other cars extension and doesn't list exclusions of cover.
Absolute, complete and utter garbage. The operation of RTA liabilities under the driving other cars extension is not the same as the operation of RTA liabilities for the vehicles specifically referred to in the certificate.
It is a matter of fact that where an insurer specifies that driving other cars is contingent upon the possession of the specified vehicle, no liabilities (RTA or otherwise) will attach to them if the insured is not in possession of the specified vehicle and drives another vehicle under the mistaken belief that the extension is still in operationAs an underwriter you must agree with that, the insurer would be liable for the third party damage by its own certificate wording.
No, I do not agree with that, because it is not in fact correct.0 -
"Third party securities"? What are they? Do you mean "Third party liabilities"?
The law does not state that all conditions are stated clearly on the certificate.
What the law actually does is:
- specify which details have to be present on the certificate (i.e. certificate number, policyholder name, vehicle description, effective date/time of commencement and expiry, entitlement to drive, limitations as to use, declaration/signature) [Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks) Regulations 1972].
- specify several conditions which exclude or purport to exclude third party liabilites which the insurer cannot rely upon to avoid a third party liability [s.158 Road Traffic Act 1988].
Absolute, complete and utter garbage. The operation of RTA liabilities under the driving other cars extension is not the same as the operation of RTA liabilities for the vehicles specifically referred to in the certificate.
It is a matter of fact that where an insurer specifies that where driving other cars is contingent upon the possession of the specified vehicle, no liabilities (RTA or otherwise) will attach to them if the insured is not in possession of the specified vehicle and drives another vehicle under the mistaken belief that the extension is still in operation
No, I do not agree with that, because it is not in fact correct.
You have so far failed to offer any substance to your debate other than your own personal opinion.0 -
-
Ah, so instead of addressing the points that I raise you are going to take your ball home and dismiss them as 'opinion'? I 'thanked' your post as it did make me laugh.
What more can I do, have have stated the law. I am just repeating myself, if the wording on a certificate offers cover the exclusions must also be on the wording.
Nowhere in the road traffic act does it allow insurers to offer cover on the cert and not note the exclusions.0 -
What more can I do, have have stated the law. I am just repeating myself, if the wording on a certificate offers cover the exclusions must also be on the wording.
Nowhere in the road traffic act does it allow insurers to offer cover on the cert and not note the exclusions.
You are either being ignorant or disingenuous, I'm not sure which. Have you actually read the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks) Regulations yet? Or have you found a policy wording which has no exclusions under the 'liability to others' section other than those on the certificate of insurance?
Even if we do carry on in ever-decreasing circles on these points, what cannot be disputed is that your advice to the OP was incorrect and irresponsible. Even if somehow an RTA liability did attach from the OP's use of another vehicle (which it would not do for the reason I gave above), the insurer would exercise its right of recovery against the OP, potentially resulting in financial ruin. I suggest that you stop digging.
Again, may I ask what relevant expertise/qualifications you hold, this may assist impartial forum members in deciding whose argument they should attach any weight to?0 -
You are either being ignorant or disingenuous, I'm not sure which. Have you actually read the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks) Regulations yet? Or have you found a policy wording which has no exclusions under the 'liability to others' section other than those on the certificate of insurance?
Even if we do carry on in ever-decreasing circles on these points, what cannot be disputed is that your advice to the OP was incorrect and irresponsible. Even if somehow an RTA liability did attach from the OP's use of another vehicle (which it would not do for the reason I gave above), the insurer would exercise its right of recovery against the OP, potentially resulting in financial ruin. I suggest that you stop digging.
Again, may I ask what relevant expertise/qualifications you hold, this may assist impartial forum member in deciding whose argument they should attach any weight to?
I am a personal lines underwriter.
Recovery from the OP would be paid at very low weekly amounts and would be of no benefit to the insurance firm or cause financial ruin.0 -
I was under the impression that if you drive another car on your policy, that car still has to be insured by someone else anyway. So it's kind of irrelevant if the subject car exists or not as it wouldn't be valid anyway for that reason.0
-
I am a personal lines underwriter.
Personal lines? Does that include motor or is that simply a slippery way of saying 'household' but implying that you also deal with motor? Any CII qualifications, specifically including Motor Insurance units?Recovery from the OP would be paid at very low weekly amounts and would be of no benefit to the insurance firm or cause financial ruin.
Really? Do you know what assets the OP holds and what income he or she earns then?
I really think you should stop now. This is embarrassing. Again, your advice to the OP was incorrect and irresponsible. Why not just admit it? I cannot believe that any competent motor underwriter would make such a glaring error.0 -
What more can I do, have have stated the law. I am just repeating myself, if the wording on a certificate offers cover the exclusions must also be on the wording.
Nowhere in the road traffic act does it allow insurers to offer cover on the cert and not note the exclusions.
You remind me of the "doorstep lawyer" types I used to meet all the time when I worked as a county court bailiff.If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards