Motor insurance mess-up, legal implications :(

wontfallforit

Sorry for the length of this post, I needed to get all the facts in.

Background - my partner is in the motor trade. He is covered to drive any car at any time (provided the useage is for business purposes), under his employer's business motor ins. policy. He also has a motor ins. policy for his own car, for general useage. He has 3rd party only insurance, yet has always had an agreement with his ins. company to drive other cars, in exchange for slightly higher insurance premiums.

My partner was pulled a few days ago driving my car, as part of a routine seasonal campaign. As is usual, the officer asked on what grounds my partner was insured to drive my car, and my partner responsed "through my own policy", which the officer seemed to accept. However, when the officer in question searched the Motor Ins. Bureau, he found that my partner was NOT insured to drive my car. My partner called his motor insurance company, who agreed that he was NOT insured, and the reason they gave was the fact that he is in the motor trade, and thus represents a higher insurance risk (apparently).

My car was impounded, and I (he!) had to pay £170 to have it released.

Now the thing is, my partner has ALWAYS been upfront about his occupation to his MI company (it is stated on his policy document), and has always been under the impression that they permit him to drive other cars, and he routinely checks with them via telephone, before commencing driving of another person's car (i.e. for useage that will not fall under business purposes).

We have proof of a phonecall to the ins. company (in the form of a BT phonebill), dating from the day that my partner called his insurance, to check that he was still OK to drive other cars, as this was the day he was to commence driving my car on an occasional basis, whilst he worked on it (he's a mechanic). The ins. company have no record of this call whatsoever.

Now my partner is about to be summonsed for driving without insurance, for which he is sure to be convicted (on the grounds that even though he thought he was covered, he technically commited the 'crime'). However, I'm in the process of writing a letter to both the insurance company, and the courts, because of the following facts:

- My partner is permitted to drive any car for business purposes. Had he chosen to be dishonest, he could've told the officer the car was a customer's (technically it is, my car was being worked on during business hours, on business premises), and been on his way scot-free. His boss would've backed him up without question. I realise that this is no real defence, but I think it serves as evidence that my partner was not attempting to circumvent insurance rules - he genuinely thought he was covered.

- My partner was added to my insurance policy (officially) shortly after the 'offence', for no extra financial cost to my existing policy. Again, I feel this is evidence that he was 100% sure he was covered, yet upon finding he wasn't, took every step to cover himself immediately, for the future. Our cars are almost identical, and as such, cost exactly the same to insure (added to that, my partner has 20 years' driving experience, with no penalty points, so his motor ins. is reasonably priced anyway). My partner had no financial gain from not being on my policy originally (again, he wasn't looking to save money anyway, he's very much a "by the book" guy).

- Again, we have proof that he called the insurance company a couple of months ago, something he does every few months, to check that everything is still kosher

Our biggest problem is that we have nothing in writing to confirm this agreement, and that the ins. company has conveniently lost all record of this phonecall, so we can't prove what it's about.

What I want advice on is the following:

- Whose responsibility is it to prove what this phonecall was about? If only they had a record, we wouldn't be in this mess

- What are the chances of the MI company backdating their cover until before my partner was pulled by the police? (and having the MI company refund the £170 recovery cost!?!)

- If the MI company refuses to backdate cover, is the court likely to be sympathetic to my partner? We understand that conviction is extremely likely, but the lightest possible sentence would be a godsend

Naturally, my partner feels a little stupid about this, and to add insult to injury, his job may be at risk due to the fact that he must drive other cars on a daily basis. His employer is struggling with costs enough as it is, so the cost of insuring an employee with 6-8 penalty points may prove to be the straw that breaks the camel's back. We have always known that he could be insured on my policy for no extra cost (ironically, he was insured, until February), but repeated telephone calls to the MI company assured him that he was already covered through his own policy

Anyway, he's fully covered now (and is going to completely avoid driving other people's car's until this mess is cleared up), but naturally, it's put a bit of a dampener on our Christmas

Any advice would be most appreciated. We're hoping for the MI company to back down (not too bothered about the money), so it needn't go to court, and we can carry on as normal. But having never been in this situation before, we're not sure if the company will back down, or even if it's legal for them to do so?!?

If they can't/won't back down, we're hoping to limit the legal damage as much as possible. My partner is happy to take a fine (he understands the mistake he's made and is prepared for punishment), but it's the penalty points on his licence that could potentially screw his job up. What's most annoying is the fact that he's always taken steps to try to ensure he's covered - we just wish we'd gotten written confirmation!

dacouch

Every Insurer I know of excludes the Driving Other Cars benefit for people in the motortrade for obvious reasons.

You can request a copy of your file and phone recordings / transcripts (Assuming they record the calls) under the Data Protection Act for a nominal fee. http://www.ico.gov.uk/

Were your calls to a broker or direct to the Insurer?

wontfallforit

dacouch wrote: »

Every Insurer I know of excludes the Driving Other Cars benefit for people in the motortrade for obvious reasons.

We understand that (now!), but are totally confused as to why they would agree verbally (knowing his occupation) to give him this permission, but refuse cover when it's crunch time. My partner has always had this agreement, in exchange for slightly higher premiums (i.e. slightly more expensive than 3rd party only, but cheaper than fully comp.), or at least he thought he had!

You can request a copy of your file and phone recordings / transcripts (Assuming they record the calls) under the Data Protection Act for a nominal fee. http://www.ico.gov.uk/

We're looking to do that asap, but the MI company claims to have lost all evidence in any case!

Were your calls to a broker or direct to the Insurer?

No broker involved - cover was arranged directly with the company, and all communication has been direct.

dacouch

It would be highly unusual for an Insurer to grant the Driving Other Cars benefit to someone in the motortrade especially if they specifically request it. The person he has spoken to may have made a mistake.

Put in an official request under the Data Protection Act for your file, if they have advised him he is covered there may be something they can do

wontfallforit

dacouch wrote: »

It would be highly unusual for an Insurer to grant the Driving Other Cars benefit to someone in the motortrade especially if they specifically request it. The person he has spoken to may have made a mistake.

If it makes any odds, the insurer in question is a rock-bottom priced, cheapo, budget insurer. Requesting only 3rd party only cover (neither mine nor my partner's car are at all valuable), we're usually happy to use budget insurers - as long as we're covered to the legal minimum, that's all we care about.

We realise that there could well have been a mistake, but this is what we need to get to the bottom of. If it was a mistake, then it's one that has been made dozens of times, over the last couple of years. My suspicion is that their repeated verbal agreements have been granted simply to retain his business, and preventing him from shopping elsewhere.

The reason why my partner specifically requests this cover is because as a mechanic, he's often called upon to help out family and friends in a pickle, which obviously involves driving their cars.

In the new year, he's moving to a reputable insurer, and is going to request that his new insurer confirms everything in writing. Naturally, though, we're anxious to solve this problem first.

Put in an official request under the Data Protection Act for your file, if they have advised him he is covered there may be something they can do

Will do - hopefully they'll have a record somewhere. Our worry is that they won't have a recording!

Thanks for your advice x

starrystarry

wontfallforit wrote: »

What I want advice on is the following:

- Whose responsibility is it to prove what this phonecall was about? If only they had a record, we wouldn't be in this mess

- What are the chances of the MI company backdating their cover until before my partner was pulled by the police? (and having the MI company refund the £170 recovery cost!?!)

- If the MI company refuses to backdate cover, is the court likely to be sympathetic to my partner? We understand that conviction is extremely likely, but the lightest possible sentence would be a godsend

Q1: Yours, unfortunately. If your partner's insurance certificate/schedule don't state that he can drive other cars then his only hope is to prove that the phonecall took place. The insurance company isn't obliged to record the calls.

Q2: I would guess at somewhere between very slim and zero.

Q3: The court might take into account the points you've raised above, but to be honest 6 points is pretty much standard for driving without insurance so I don't think it'll make much difference. I suspect the court will say it was your partner's responsibility to make sure he was insured, and clearly his insurance documents did not state that he was covered to drive other cars.

lincroft1710

If your partner was insured to drive any vehicle not belonging to him on his own policy, it would state this fact on his certificate of insurance. If he is in the motor trade and has been driving for 20 yrs a court would find it hard to believe he wasn't aware of this.

wontfallforit

starrystarry wrote: »

Q1: Yours, unfortunately. If your partner's insurance certificate/schedule don't state that he can drive other cars then his only hope is to prove that the phonecall took place. The insurance company isn't obliged to record the calls.

As stated, we have proof that the call took place, but no proof (yet) about what the call was about.

Q2: I would guess at somewhere between very slim and zero.

Q3: The court might take into account the points you've raised above, but to be honest 6 points is pretty much standard for driving without insurance so I don't think it'll make much difference. I suspect the court will say it was your partner's responsibility to make sure he was insured, and clearly his insurance documents did not state that he was covered to drive other cars.

I suspected so...Just obviously extremely frustrated that 1) he was under the impression that he was covered, as per the telephone call, and 2) he has got other motor insurance, in his own right. It's really annoying that a driver who is completely uninsured could get exactly the same penalty, if convicted in a case where they have literally no MI in place. I guess there's a lesson to be learned - always get everything in writing!

Thanks x

starrystarry

Yeah, always get things in writing and don't just go for the cheapest quote!

wontfallforit

lincroft1710 wrote: »

If your partner was insured to drive any vehicle not belonging to him on his own policy, it would state this fact on his certificate of insurance.

In hindsight, the omission of this clause from his ins. policy is glaringly obvious, and is a silly mistake on his behalf. But it is also the reason why he has telephoned the ins. company a number of times, to double-check that he is "covered". When he purchased this policy, he did so on the (verbal) agreement that he would be covered for other cars. Again, he's made a mistake in not having this confirmed in writing, but the insurance company did state (time and time again) that he is covered. As I said before, I suspect that they were fobbing him off, to ensure that he purchased the policy and stays insured with this particular company.

If he is in the motor trade and has been driving for 20 yrs a court would find it hard to believe he wasn't aware of this.

He has nothing to do with the insurance side of things in his line of work. He is a mechanic, not an insurance expert. When it comes to driving other cars for work purposes, his employer simply arranges cover for my partner and his colleagues. My partner has no particular need to delve into the particulars of his work-based insurance policy. It's simply not part of his job.

When it comes to his own private insurance policy, as stated above, he has never attempted to conceal the fact that he works in the motor trade, and his occupation is clearly listed on his insurance certificate. As he often drives old, clapped-out (and frankly quite embarrassing!) cars, he has been pulled by the police on numerous occasions, driving both his own and other people's cars. As per the verbal agreements given by previous insurance companies he has used, he has never been accused of or charged with driving without insurance. All other previous insurers have honoured their agreements (verbal and otherwise) to cover him for driving other people's cars.

DCFC79

Surely as your partner works in te trade then he should have been aware of not being able to drive another persons car whatever he was told by the ins co