Going court need help

Wig

esmerobbo wrote: »

In your letter it says "you carried out an assessment of MY car. Change it to the vehicle I was driving or my fathers car!

Add to the letter asking them to confirm if they refuse to act for you that you wish them to confirm that this is their final decision. You will need that confirming before you can go to the ombudsman.

I believe here the OP is referring to Quinn assessing his own car (not his dad's) to make sure it is roadworthy and has not been damaged beyond economical repair, which would have given them a 'get out' on the claim.

dacouch

Wig wrote: »

I believe here the OP is referring to Quinn assessing his own car (not his dad's) to make sure it is roadworthy and has not been damaged beyond economical repair, which would have given them a 'get out' on the claim.

I agree, interestingly the relevant wording from the Quinn policy for the above from the driving other cars section is the following.

"you still have your vehicle and it has not been damaged
beyond cost-effective repair".

The above reference to "damaged" would indicate accident / fire / theft as the cause rather than mechanically broken down.

Quinn do have an overall clause (Page 19 of their policy)in their policy about the car being roadworthy / having a current MOT. However this clause is largely redundant as is not really enforcable as they can only deny an own damage claim where the unroadworthyness of the car directly or significantly caused the accident. This does not stop Quinn trying to hide behind it.

The Ombudsman has rules on the above and Quinn have backed down on claims they have thrown out using the above clause when the policyholders had sought advice on MSE (See previous links earlier in this thread)

Wig

This post from a thread in 2009 has me a little worried for the OP
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=23535779&postcount=97

OP poorstudent,
Is your own car insured by Quinn as third party only or third party fire &theft?

Does Your policy booklet definately not have the exclusion clause "the other car must be insured"? You have been saying this all along and Quinn have said you were insured in the past and they initially took up your claim so I guess it must do.

Just don't understand why that other poster who was with Quinn was saying her policy required the other car to be insured.

poor_student1234

He was probably just misguided by other people who dont really know. Policy Booklet 100% does not say anything about the car being insured nor does anything on Quinns website. Quinn just like to have easy pickings on easy claims to make money. Just need to wait a response from them now and will keep everyone updated

forgotmyname

What happened to the car after the accident? How much damage?

Does make you wonder about insurance companies, But also does make you wonder how many scams are being
used on a daily basis to avoid paying car insurance. Several methods mentioned in this thread alone.

poor_student1234

Quinn categorised the car a cat c when their engineer came out and we sold at a heavily discounted price

JimmyTheWig

OP, can you confirm my assumptions, please? If not, this may put a different angle on things.

poor_student1234 wrote: »

My dads car didnt need to be taxed as we bought the car the same month as i was driving it. It had 6 months tax on it.
My dad was just waiting to sell his other car then would have insured the peugeot afterwards

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

This is good news.
Presumably you can back this up, e.g. proof of an advert of your dad's other car up for sale before you had the accident? Again, not for us - it doesn't matter what we think - but you might need this.
Might also help if you had proof that you'd been driving your own car as your main car during this time. Can you think of anything?
I think that anything that will help show that this was a legitimate use of the "driving other cars" cover will be very useful.

And I presume that there is a typo in your post above and you meant "he" rather than "we". I really do hope that you didn't contribute to the purchase of the new car. I hope that there's nothing that might look like it links you to it, such as a cheque, bank transfer or large cash withdrawal at the time.

If all is still ok with this I suggest you try your insurance company one more time and tell them this. They might be assuming, as others on here have, that you were driving it as your main car and that the policy would be invalidated.

poor_student1234

Yes there is a proof of a ad on gumtree that i can recall.
Im sure if need be i can get proof that i was indeed driving my own car. Also i didnt contribute to the car in any way, my insurance company didnt ask me if i was indeed using this car as my own car, they just basically told me to go away because the car didnt come up insured

JimmyTheWig

Sounds good, OP.

MrLizard_2

esmerobbo wrote: »

That's what is confusing me. If you park and leave the car its uninsured?

Please feel free to correct me if im, wrong, but from my understanding, the car has No policy held on it and its in the fathers name!

So when not being driven an offence has occured namly with the owner of the vehicle failing to insure it.

Pursuant to Section 143 of the 1988 Road Traffic Act, any person who uses, causes or permits a person to use a vehicle on the road, must have an insurance policy in place. Parking a vehicle on the road falls within the category of "uses".

So its all down to the wording in the third party insurance documents. I've checked mine and it does state about the other vehicle having to be insured.

But has the point been raised about the offence committed by the father. Allowing the vehicle to be on the road!

Im very interested to see what happens here.