help i dont know what to do. they want £5000.

huckster

Hi

You cannot be held financialy liable for something over which you had no control. The company pursuing you has no legal basis for this. If you google law on remoteness, there is plenty of information on this.

The person who is liable is the driver of the car at the time of the loss being incurred.

The only caveat would be if the company could prove that you sold the car knowing it had a defect and that defect was the primary cause of the accident. e.g. if you sold a car knowing it had defective brakes and did not tell the buyer. They they drove the car away and the condition of the brakes led to an accident.

raskazz

shinobi247 wrote: »

i sold a car 3 years ago. The people i sold the car to crashed the vehicle the same week i sold it to them. Because i never told my insurance company i sold the vehicle and only told them i have sold it after i bought another one 2-3 months after selling it, i am liable for the damage , so my insurance company is now pursuing me for £5000.
The vehicle was registered to the new owner, but because ther was valid insurance on the car , my old insurance company paid ou the 3rd party and now wants money from me. Surely i cant be responsibile for other peoples accident, even if the car was insured, the most i should have to pay is excess? please help i dont know what to do.:embarasse

This is why you should always inform your insurer if you sell your car. It is also why advice which is sometimes given to let a policy run after the vehicle has been sold in order to obtain another year of NCD is poor advice. There is always the possibility that the new owner will not insure the vehicle and then things like this happen.

If your policy wording contains clauses akin to the below then technically they are quite entitled to recover costs from you:

"If the law of any country obliges us to make payments which we would not have made under the terms of the policy, we reserve the right to recover those payments from you or the person who incurred the loss"

"Changes to your policy. You must tell us immediately if any of the following details change:
Ownership of your vehicle"

No idea where Huckster is coming from. The right to recover arises from the contract terms.

If the OP could tell us which insurer they are with, then we can look at the policy wording.

PennyPinchingMiser

shinobi247 wrote: »

i wouldn't have a problem with it being on my record or even having to pay excess , they want me to pay for the whole damadge to the 3rd party which i believe was a building. My insurance company know the vehicle was registered to the new owner on the day of the accident, my problem is why are they pursuing me for the costs of the accident.

I think you need to seek legal advice on this matter.

Anihilator

PennyPinchingMiser wrote: »

I think you need to seek legal advice on this matter.

and incur more costs.

The OP is almost certainly in the !!!! here for not informing the insurers and breaching the terms hence they can seek to recover their losses from him.

mattymoo

raskazz wrote: »

If your policy wording contains clauses akin to the below then technically they are quite entitled to recover costs from you:

"If the law of any country obliges us to make payments which we would not have made under the terms of the policy, we reserve the right to recover those payments from you or the person who incurred the loss"

"Changes to your policy. You must tell us immediately if any of the following details change:
Ownership of your vehicle"

The uninsured owner is known though. The accident occured the same week the vehicle was sold so I personally feel the insurer ought to be pursuing the new owner in the first instance rather than going after the OP. Of course, if this fails they can still go after the OP.

I appreciate your claims knowledge is more up to date than mine (1994) and I also know claims depts tend to take a far harder line these days.

raskazz

mattymoo wrote: »

The uninsured owner is known though. The accident occured the same week the vehicle was sold so I personally feel the insurer ought to be pursuing the new owner in the first instance rather than going after the OP. Of course, if this fails they can still go after the OP.

I appreciate your claims knowledge is more up to date than mine (1994) and I also know claims depts tend to take a far harder line these days.

Yes, but as the OP said:

shinobi247 wrote: »

i sold a car 3 years ago.

Then I think we can quite safely assume that attempts to recover from the driver have come to nought.

huckster

Raskass

"No idea where Huckster is coming from. The right to recover arises from the contract terms."

My point is that the in law you cannot be held liable for something you had absolutely no control over. It does not matter that the OP had an Insurance policy that they had forgotten to cancel. The OP had sold the car and it was up to the new owner to take out Insurance to cover themselves against potential liability.

The issue of remoteness in law is fundemental when looking at liability. The OP had no connection to the accident other than he use to own the car and had a policy still running in error. The Insurers have made a payment, but this does not give them the right to seek a recovery from the policyholder.

If I were in the OP's situation, I would obtain some legal advice about this and then respond to the company concerned in writing.

raskazz

huckster wrote: »

Raskass

"No idea where Huckster is coming from. The right to recover arises from the contract terms."

My point is that the in law you cannot be held liable for something you had absolutely no control over.

The OP is being held liable for a breach of policy condition which resulted in the insurer being forced by the law of the land to make payments that it would not have otherwise paid. The OP clearly has control over whether they notify the insurer of the sale of the vehicle, as required by contract terms (assuming a notification condition as above).

huckster wrote: »

It does not matter that the OP had an Insurance policy that they had forgotten to cancel. The OP had sold the car and it was up to the new owner to take out Insurance to cover themselves against potential liability.

Of course it matters. If the OP had informed their insurer of the sale then the policy would have been cancelled and the certificate returned, and thus the insurer would not have then been liable to the third party under the Road Traffic Act. This is the whole basis of the recovery.

huckster wrote: »

The issue of remoteness in law is fundemental when looking at liability.

Remoteness as you are using it is related to the law of tort not the law of contract. Under which specific point of law would you deem the recovery clause unenforceable in this case?

huckster wrote: »

The OP had no connection to the accident other than he use to own the car and had a policy still running in error. The Insurers have made a payment, but this does not give them the right to seek a recovery from the policyholder.

Yes it does. The payment was due to the OP failing to comply with policy terms. Hence the application of the right of recovery.

huckster

Raskass

I think you are wrong on this point.

If you took your argument to an extreme position, you might then think about this a little more.

Say you sold a car yesterday, but had not managed to phone the Insurers to cancel the cover. The owner then today crashed the car into a coach load of A-list celebrities, killing them all. They were at fault for the accident as they had lost control of the car due to excess alcohol. They had not arranged insurance for the car.

From your point of view if the Insurers paid out £2 million for liability, as your insurance was the only cover in force, you would be liable for this. So you would have to sell your house and possessions to pay the Insurers, when you had absolutely no control over the drivers actions or the accident.

This issue is about liability and not contract. A court using the law would decide whether you could be held liable. It is about 25 years since I studied this area of law, but I am sure that if you consulted someone with up to date knowledge, they would say that remoteness is a relevant issue to deciding on liability.

Anihilator

huckster wrote: »

Raskass

I think you are wrong on this point.

If you took your argument to an extreme position, you might then think about this a little more.

Say you sold a car yesterday, but had not managed to phone the Insurers to cancel the cover. The owner then today crashed the car into a coach load of A-list celebrities, killing them all. They were at fault for the accident as they had lost control of the car due to excess alcohol. They had not arranged insurance for the car.

From your point of view if the Insurers paid out £2 million for liability, as your insurance was the only cover in force, you would be liable for this. So you would have to sell your house and possessions to pay the Insurers, when you had absolutely no control over the drivers actions or the accident.

This issue is about liability and not contract. A court using the law would decide whether you could be held liable. It is about 25 years since I studied this area of law, but I am sure that if you consulted someone with up to date knowledge, they would say that remoteness is a relevant issue to deciding on liability.

Yes but it isnt one day.

If it was the insurers would likely accept the OP wasn't withholding or failing to disclose facts and it was an unfortunate timing incident.

In this case the OP has clearly neglected the contractual obligations to the Insurers detriment.