Insurance & Test driving a privatly bought used car

dacouch

Here is the relevant case courtesy of Raskazz.

"Newbury -v- Davis [1974] RTR 367
1974
QBD
Lord Widgery CJ, MacKenna J Road Traffic, Insurance Casemap

The owner of a vehicle agreed to lend it to someone else on condition that that person insured against third party risks. In the owner's absence, that person drove the car on a road without insurance. Held: The appeal against conviction was allowed: "the defendant did not permit Mr Jarvis to use the car. The defendant gave no permission to use it unless Mr Jarvis had a policy of insurance to cover its use, and he had none. Having no policy of insurance, he took the vehicle without the defendant's permission. In other words, permission given subject to a condition which is unfulfilled is no permission at all. It may be that the difference is a small one between a case where the owner gives unconditional permission in the mistaken belief that the use is covered by insurance, or in the disappointed hope that it will be covered, and the case where the permission is given subject to a condition and that condition is not fulfilled. But to my mind there is a difference and it is one of legal substance. On this view of the case the defendant committed no offence."
Road Traffic Act 1972"

bigjl

Not far from what I thought might be true, my point being that the offence was commited with mitigation and a judge would have to make the judgement on a case by case basis.

This a good bit of case law for anybody that is in such a position.

Rolandtheroadie

vaio wrote: »

I suppose the same way as any other discussion is dealt with in court, maybe written down, maybe witnesses, maybe cctv, maybe the driver confirms it.

Whatever, it doesn’t alter the basis of what I am saying, conditional consent will protect against a “allowing” offence

All I am saying is I would want to be able to prove it somehow or at least show a court that I had satisfied myself they were covered.
We're not talking about a friend or relative that may put their hands up, this is a stranger who may lie to you then refuse to come clean when it all goes wrong.

vaio

scotsman4th wrote: »

All I am saying is I would want to be able to prove it somehow or at least show a court that I had satisfied myself they were covered.
We're not talking about a friend or relative that may put their hands up, this is a stranger who may lie to you then refuse to come clean when it all goes wrong.

That’s fine, if you want to poke your nose in and take it on yourself to start checking whether “a stranger who may lie to you” is insured then you can, but you have to accept that if you get it wrong then you have no defence to an “allowing“ offence and no chance that your insurance will pay out under the theft policy if the driver damages your car.

On the other hand, if you mind your own business, go with the conditional consent and leave the responsibility with the stranger (where it belongs?) then you have a very good defence to an “allowing“ offence with the added bonus that the driver also gets done for taking your car without consent which will increase your chance of a payout under the theft policy.

dacouch

vaio wrote: »

That’s fine, if you want to poke your nose in and take it on yourself to start checking whether “a stranger who may lie to you” is insured then you can, but you have to accept that if you get it wrong then you have no defence to an “allowing“ offence and no chance that your insurance will pay out under the theft policy if the driver damages your car.

On the other hand, if you mind your own business, go with the conditional consent and leave the responsibility with the stranger (where it belongs?) then you have a very good defence to an “allowing“ offence with the added bonus that the driver also gets done for taking your car without consent which will increase your chance of a payout under the theft policy.

That's good advice Vaio but it's worth pointing out that a large amount of policies now contain an exclusion for theft by deception with some specifically wording it for theft by deception when selling a car. (I think last time I checked there are some without these exclusions).

If there was an exclusion, obviously your advice would make it easier to take action throw the county court for damages assuming the other person has assets to pursue.

vaio

Yep, that’s why I said increase the chances rather than guarantee a payout. How do most companies treat a car damaged by an uninsured driver where there is no consent from the policy holder but no intention to “permanently deprive” by the driver?

I know for example elephant exclude members of family from no consent theft claims but say friend of son took my car to get some fags without my consent and had an accident on the way back?

Quentin

That would be a TWOC. Insurer would cover the damage if you had comprehensive cover, and try to get it back off the culprit.

dacouch

vaio wrote: »

Yep, that’s why I said increase the chances rather than guarantee a payout. How do most companies treat a car damaged by an uninsured driver where there is no consent from the policy holder but no intention to “permanently deprive” by the driver?

I know for example elephant exclude members of family from no consent theft claims but say friend of son took my car to get some fags without my consent and had an accident on the way back?

Your Elephant policy does not have the theft by deception wording which surprises me as Admiral companies tend to like exclusions (They have one about family members though).

I know you like your small print so you may find their exclusion about the Nurburgring Nordschleife which is as follows "used on the Nurburgring Nordschleife, or for racing, pace-making, competitions, rallies, track days, trials or speed tests either
on a road, track, or at an off-road
4x4 event"

Raskazz who is an underwriter so has very good technical knowledge found this exclusion in a policy being discussed on MSE (Not sure if it was Elephant or not). The exclusion actually had the wrong official name for the Nurburgring (I may be making the same mistake in myspelling). In his opinion this made the exclusion invalid and he had contacted them as a potential customer to discuss the exclusion. He posted his questions and the Insurers answers on MSE. Maybe if he reads this post he could post a link to the relevant thread as it was amusing and you would appreciate it

Quentin

dacouch wrote: »

Maybe if he reads this post he could post a link to the relevant thread as it was amusing and you would appreciate it

MSE provides a (far from perfect) search.

The thread you are on about was where razkazz was getting upset to learn that swiftcover are a which? best buy for car insurance.

Many of us piled in to point out why swiftcover seemed a strange choice as best buy.

With nothing better to do the rascal had a go at them directly about the misprint, and bullied their cs agent who didn't realise he was just being a little scamp and did try to help him (others maybe wouldn't have bothered).

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/29066649#Comment_29066649

Rolandtheroadie

It appears my uncle has points for no reason and could also have claimed for his car then.
You live and learn.