stolen car no payout

Cazza

Have the insurance company been confused into thinking he is a family member by you calling him a cousin, when he isn't?? I think this is something you need to clarify with them. Were the police involved by you when this happened? What action did they take against him for TWOC? I would have thought if you had a crime number and you can clarify that you are not related then the insurance company would have to pay out?

Quentin

Oscar_The_Grouch wrote: »

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.

The point is that the insurer seems not to be accepting that the car was stolen!

And no wonder when no claim for theft has ben pursued during the year (at least) since the incident! (And presumably no prosecution, as none has been metioned??)

dacouch

Cazza wrote: »

Have the insurance company been confused into thinking he is a family member by you calling him a cousin, when he isn't?? I think this is something you need to clarify with them. Were the police involved by you when this happened? What action did they take against him for TWOC? I would have thought if you had a crime number and you can clarify that you are not related then the insurance company would have to pay out?

In these circumstances it can be a case of the police advising the policyholder / car owner that the police have two options. The car was taken without consent thus they prosecute for theft or the car was taken with permission and they prosecute the driver for no insurance and sometimes the owner for aiding and abetting.

If the police chased the car and there was also a collision the police would definately want to obtain some type of conviction possibly including failing to stop which is a fairly serious conviction which can include a custodial sentance so it could be they reported it as a theft assuming the insurance would cover them for theft by a "family" member

It would be interesting to find out how the police dealt with the incident as this would have a major bearing on the matter.

Oscar_The_Grouch

Quentin wrote: »

The point is that the insurer seems not to be accepting that the car was stolen!

And no wonder when no claim for theft has ben pursued during the year (at least) since the incident! (And presumably no prosecution, as none has been metioned??)

If the insurer has evidence that the vehicle was driven with consent, I still feel that the recovery of costs would be against the driver rather than the insured. I honestly can't think of anything short of invoking the fraud condition that would result in the insured being responsible for third party costs. Any ideas?

Anihilator

Oscar_The_Grouch wrote: »

If the insurer has evidence that the vehicle was driven with consent, I still feel that the recovery of costs would be against the driver rather than the insured. I honestly can't think of anything short of invoking the fraud condition that would result in the insured being responsible for third party costs. Any ideas?

I would imagine if the OP didnt prosecute or report this person to the police this could be the problem. I.e the OP didnt comply with the insurance companies reasonable requests to prosecute hence they wont cover the losses.

Quentin

Oscar_The_Grouch wrote: »

I honestly can't think of anything short of invoking the fraud condition that would result in the insured being responsible for third party costs. Any ideas?

Maybe the insurer is of the firm belief that there has been a breach of the policy conditions!

(eg, the insured has not supplied "true and complete info about any incident of loss/damage which involves them as the insurers")

twinkle2s

ok let me put a few things right, as for being my cusion its like some people call there mums best friend an auntie no blood tie. where did (u let him take the car come from) i was on holiday i had my keys with me, my spare key was hidden in my underwear draw. he went through my draws and took them without anyones permission. i did claim and they said because i classed him as a cusion that they would not pay out so i thought that was all i could do this is my first ever issue with issurance no crashes or anything. the letter i got this week was saying the car he hit whilst in the police chase had claimed off my insurer and now my insurer is claiming off me. thats where im saying it must be wrong.

twinkle2s

it was reported stolen straight away whilst i was still on holiday he had it for a week before the police chased him he was only 15 so all he got was community order thing.

mluton

You should pursue the incident as you would if "Jo Bloggs" had stolen the car.

huckster

Twinkle2's

You need to refer this to the FOS and ask them to decide on the two issues. Firstly can Admiral consider that the person who stole the car to be a family member and therefore decline the claim. And secondly in relation to this can Admiral make a recovery from you.

You should write to Admiral and advise them of your intention to submit this to the FOS, asking them to issue a final letter of response. I say this as I am not sure what correspondence you have had from Admiral regarding any complaint. Send the letter to Admiral by recorded delivery.

When you receive their response, send the complaint off to the FOS. The FOS will take months to decide on this and in the meantime Admiral should not do anything until the FOS have issued their decision.

If you don't bother to complain to the FOS, I would expect Admiral to start taking legal proceeding in a matter of weeks. Atleast complaining to the FOS should give you some breathing space and while the matter is being reviewed by them, perhaps you should seek some legal advice.