Going court need help

JQ.

dacouch wrote: »

No where in a policy wording does an Insurer say it is only for emergencies, even if they did how would they define what an emergency is.

Fair enough - just checked my policy document and there's no such exclusion.

So are there any insurerers still in the market offering such a term to young drivers or were Quinn the only one? Seems pretty stupid to let an 18 year old drive a potentially 300bhp car for the price of Nissan Micra.

AnnaV

YOu could always take everything you have to a local solictor, call first as many will do a free initial consultation. Make sure you take all your insurance documents and court papers.

dacouch

It's just Quinn to my knowledge and in fairness to the OP, Quinn do market their policies to young drivers on the basis they get driving other cars cover for third party cover.

Quinn are a very leftfield Insurer and pride themselves on being different which includes their unusual approach to dealing with claims

There is no reason in the Quinns policy for the OP not to drive his father's car providing it is road worthy.

esmerobbo

Did the OP still have his own car? My policy reads: Driving someone else's car.

1 your current Certificate of Motor Insurance says so
2 you hold a valid Driving Licence and are not disqualified
3 the other car is not owned by you, a rental car, nor hired to you under a hire purchase or leasing agreement
4 you have the owner’s permission to drive the car
5 there is a valid insurance policy in force for that car
6 you are not covered by any other insurance to drive it
7 you still have your car, and it has not been damaged beyond repair, stolen nor sold

Which reads the same as Quinns except clause 5!
Then Quinns have said the reason the claim is denied is that no insurance was in force for the OPs fathers car. Surely if the clause is not there they can not use it?

dacouch

esmerobbo wrote: »

Did the OP still have his own car? My policy reads:

1 your current Certificate of Motor Insurance says so
2 you hold a valid Driving Licence and are not disqualified
3 the other car is not owned by you, a rental car, nor hired to you under a hire purchase or leasing agreement
4 you have the owner’s permission to drive the car
5 there is a valid insurance policy in force for that car
6 you are not covered by any other insurance to drive it
7 you still have your car, and it has not been damaged beyond repair, stolen nor sold

Which reads the same as Quinns except clause 5!
Then Quinns have said the reason the claim is denied is that no insurance was in force for the OPs fathers car. Surely if the clause is not there they can not use it?

Exactly, an insurance policy is no different* from any contract, if it's not in the policy (Contract) then it is normally not enforcable.

Your policy is fairly rare as only a handful of Insurers contain the the requirement you have in 5 (I'm guessing your with one of the Admiral group Insurers).

* An insurance policy differs as you have the protection of Ombudsman as well as the court. The Ombudsman tends to interpret a policy in a way that is fair or reasonable rather than what is strictly written down so it is often fairer than a normal contract

JQ.

dacouch wrote: »

It's just Quinn to my knowledge and in fairness to the OP, Quinn do market their policies to young drivers on the basis they get driving other cars cover for third party cover.

Quinn are a very leftfield Insurer and pride themselves on being different which includes their unusual approach to dealing with claims

There is no reason in the Quinns policy for the OP not to drive his father's car providing it is road worthy.

How on earth do they make money? If they're consitently insuring young people on Imprezas for the price of Micras then in the long term they're always going to lose surely.

With the advent of the internet I'd have thought the days of stonewalling claims would be dead and buried. It took the OP all of 5 minutes to get enough info to fight back. The next victim then just googles this thread and before you know it Quinn have to pay out every claim - a very strange business model ! !

Hammyman

marlot wrote: »

Are there any law students at Uni who might help?

You must be kidding.

Hammyman

dacouch wrote: »

Does your certificate of Insurance cover you to driver other cars not belonging to you

Not sufficient. It can state that and then in the fully policy it may state, like most, that the car has to be insured in its own right.

Hammyman

JQ. wrote: »

Looks to me like you can't afford to insure your car and so have a policy on a cheaper smaller less powerfull car that enables you to drive your car Third Party.

That is exactly the reason the majority of insurance companies now insist on a vehicle being driven under "other vehicles" extension to be insured in their own right.

esmerobbo

Quinns seem to have tagged a little more on which is not in the policy!

http://www.quinn-direct.co.uk/car-insurance/faqs.html