stolen car no payout

twinkle2s

can anyone help? last year my car was stolen by a family friend who had gone to visit my mother who was looking after my house, we have always called him a cousin but he is of no blood realasion. he took the keys from my bedroom draw and locked my mum in the house and off he went. we were on holiday when we were informed and came back straight away. now the insurance company are saying that because he is a cousin we can not claim. this was very stressfull to me as i was very ill at the time hench the holiday. i told my husband just let them have the car. but yesterday a year later i recieved a letter from admiral saying they have sent me a previous letter stating that i have to pay 3rd party fees as when the police ran him off the road he hit another car(i did not reciev a previous letter). surly this is crazy im already 5500 out of pocket and now they want to charge me 3000 for someone else who stole my car hitting another car can they do that? i cant afford to pay this as im already going through an iva due to being ill and losing my job!!! i cant afford a solioter as my husband is still working i dont get legal aid(i dont think). im so stressed! what can i do?

Oscar_The_Grouch

Hi there,

It sounds like you have been run through the mill. Don't panic and don't worry - people here will try to help you.

Let's deal with the letter you've received just now from Admiral. I find it easiest to give people names, so bear with me!!

Let's stick with the fact that your car was stolen by your "cousin" for now, but say that when he was run off the road he hit a car owned by "Fred". Fred has comprehensive insurance, so gets his car repaired by his own insurance company and pays his excess.

Now, Fred was not responsibe for the accident; your cousin was. His insurance company want to get their money back for the repairs (just as they would in a normal claim), but your cousin was not insured to drive your car. Who do they claim off?

The Road Traffic Act says that if the person who is responsible for the accident is identified (your cousin) then the company that provided your policy must pay for the damage, regardless of whether the person was allowed to drive or not.

With me so far? Just to make it completely clear; your insurance company have to pay, not you!! It's the law!!

Now I am guessing from your post that your insurers at the time were Admiral. Am I right? If so, then I think Fred's insurers are also Admiral and that is what is causing the confusion.

No matter what, all you need to do is phone Admiral and tell them the name of the company you were insured with at the time of the loss and your claim or policy number. If I'm right and both you and "Fred" were insured by Admiral, that should be the last you hear from them on that score. If not, you should also phone your insurers and let them know you've received the letter. They will probably ask you to forward it on to them. Feel free to ask them to provide you with a pre-paid envelope - if they want the letter, they can pay for it!!

Moving on to your claim for the car being stolen, would you mind just confirming that you were insured by Admiral at the time of the theft? I want to check through the policy wording first (should be available on line) but I think you should be able to get your money back for your car by writing a couple of letters.

Keep calm and don't worry about the claim. We'll see what we can do here to help you.

instaunt

None of this makes any sense to me.

"He's not a blood relation" and "oh, just let him have the car" are statements I don't think I've ever heard put together before.

Your insurance policy pays out for criminal damage if your car is stolen. Not sure what you mean by 3rd party fees ... but certainly you'll have to pay the excess and you are very lucky if Admiral are paying out anything at all. Most insurers would decline any claim and expect you to pay for the damage to the other car because your car was "stolen" by someone you knew and who knew you were away and knew where to get the keys.

I think you're not giving us the whole story as putting yourself £5500 out of pocket for someone who is not related to you, who came round to steal your car whilst you were away scaring an old woman and who, not once, did you say you like or have to be around seems ludicrous.

Oscar_The_Grouch

instaunt wrote: »

Most insurers would decline any claim and expect you to pay for the damage to the other car because your car was "stolen" by someone you knew and who knew you were away and knew where to get the keys.

Errmmm.... No. Go back and study the RTA - pay particular attention to Section 145.

instaunt wrote: »

"He's not a blood relation" and "oh, just let him have the car" are statements I don't think I've ever heard put together before.

This isn't helpful.

instaunt wrote: »

I think you're not giving us the whole story as putting yourself £5500 out of pocket for someone who is not related to you, who came round to steal your car whilst you were away scaring an old woman and who, not once, did you say you like or have to be around seems ludicrous.

This is just offensive.

Twinkle2s has made their first post on this forum asking for advice and all you can do is have a go. What sort of message do you think that is sending out?

Instuant, this forum allows people with insurance problems and questions to seek assistance from industry members who may be in a position to offer helpful opinions. Unfortunately, some people seem to think it's simply an excuse to put the boot in and bully people who may be less fortunate than themselves.

If you don't want to help, go find somewhere else to play. If you do want to help and there is something that you don't understand, ask questions rather than making rash and, in my opinion, incorrect statements.

Quentin

My reading of the OP is that the insurer has had to pay out a claim from a third party for damage done by their insured vehicle, and don't accept the version given of how the car came to be driven by an uninsured driver and are looking to the policyholder to reimburse them.

But to give detailed advice more info is needed from the OP on this strange case (eg why wasn't the stolen car claimed for?)

dacouch

I read it the same way eg they have denied the theft claim as it wa stolen / borrowed by a family member and are now passing on the rta payment.

I wonder if the "cousin" is under a guardian or is fostered by someone in the family which might give the Insurers the reason to decline the claim / make the recovery.

The Admiral Policy excludes theft by a family member, it also contains a requirement that the theft is reported to the police which sometimes people do not do when a friend / family member steal the car although I assume as the police chased the car the incident was reported by virtue of this.

http://www.admiral.com/policyDocs/AD116%20_policybook_0909.pdf (Page 11)

(It does make you wonder what reason the police chased the car as it would not have flagged up as being uninsured so I would assume it was being driven badly which alerted the police)

Oscar_The_Grouch

Quentin, I think OP did try to claim for the stolen car, but had the claim turned down. It looks as if they didn't chase the insurer because of illness and other issues (OP mentions iva and loss of job).

Quentin

Oscar_The_Grouch wrote: »

Just to make it completely clear; your insurance company have to pay, not you!! It's the law!!

No. You are giving false hope.

Which law says an insurance company cannot be reimbursed when they are able to identify an individual to reclaim from in circumstances like this?

Oscar_The_Grouch

Dacouch - I made the assumption that as he was chased by the police, the car must have been reported as stolen. I could be wrong and as you point out, the driving skill may have been the problem!

Oscar_The_Grouch

Quentin wrote: »

No. You are giving false hope.

Which law says an insurance company cannot be reimbursed when they are able to identify an individual to reclaim from in circumstances like this?

RTA Section 145 means the insurers have to cover the loss. The recovery would be against the driver not the insured; insured did not give consent to driving the vehicle so has no liability for the actions of, essentially, a thief.

Anihilator

Did you press charges or report against your cousin for the theft and imprisonment of your mother etc?

If not this could be the problem