car hit by stolen vehicle - Liability

howieuk1878

hi all
Mine and my stepdads car were hit by a stolen vehicle yesterday, the driver fled the scene and has not yet been identified.

looking at an older post i seen alot of people claiming the owner of the stolen car would be liable for my claim, yet my insurance advised me i am liable and all that can be done is try to recover the costs from oweners insurance (if successful i retain my ncb and recover excess, but no guarentee it will be)

the other option was going through motor insurance beuro but this can take up to 3 years

id appreciate any help, tips or information that could help me get my car back on the road yet not cost me in the process

thanks

magpiecottage

Unfortunately, the owner of the vehicle is, like you, a victim. He had no control of, nor responsibility for, the actions of the thief.

You can only claim against the owner if you can demonstrate that the driver had their authority to use the car.

I appreciate this is not the answer you wanted but it is not going to help you to have a false expectation.

vaio

magpiecottage wrote: »

Unfortunately, the owner of the vehicle is, like you, a victim. He had no control of, nor responsibility for, the actions of the thief.

You can only claim against the owner if you can demonstrate that the driver had their authority to use the car.

I appreciate this is not the answer you wanted but it is not going to help you to have a false expectation.

Nah, I’m pretty sure that RTA s151(2)b http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/151 extends any policy to include third party cover for "all persons" (including thieves) so if the driver is identified then the vehicle owners insurance will pay for the damage to the OPs car plus consequential costs.

OP………

If he’s not identified then you have the option of claiming on your own insurance or claiming on the MIB.

Claim on your own insurance and you’ll lose NCB and get a future premium loading for a “fault claim” and you’ll only be entitled the benefits that your policy provides for.

Claim on the MIB and your NCB stays and you only end up with a “non fault” claim on your record so likely much less (if any) future loading. You’ll also be able to get car hire and consequential costs that you probably won’t get from your own policy.

I’d be surprised if the MIB are taking three years to settle simple claims, might be worth giving them a ring to check that and discuss matters generally before you make a decision.

Mr_Brownstone

The MIB is a fund of last resort. If they identify an insurer then they will get them to act as RTA insurer or Article 75. Ultimately insurance is there to pay out to settle claims.

vaio

yep, but that doesn't affect the options the OP has as there is no obligation on him to claim on his own insurance rather than against the MIB under the untraced drivers option.

Obviously if the driver is identified then the stolen vehicle owners RTA insurance will pay out under s151.

Mr_Brownstone

I agree, you dont need to claim on your own insurance. If it is non fault then nobody should make a claim on their own insurance. Always get the TPI to pay!

vaio

Ahh, I read

Mr_Brownstone wrote: »

The MIB is a fund of last resort. If they identify an insurer then they will get them to act as RTA insurer or Article 75. Ultimately insurance is there to pay out to settle claims.

as meaning the OP should (needed?) to claim on his own insurance rather then going to the MIB.

Apologies

Mr_Brownstone

I mean if the MIB identify an insurer who can pay, in this case the OP's own insurer then the MIB wont pay out. The MIB will take the case if an insurer cannot be identified. In this case there is an insurer, sadly the OP's. The OP insurer may not be able to indemnify the OP policy but will get the OP insurer to act as Article 75 and pay the claim.

vaio

Sorry if I'm being a bit thick but if you are saying that the OP is obliged to claim on his insurance rather than using the MIB untraced driver option then I think you are wrong.

Obviously fulsome apologies will be heading your way if you can point out where in the MIB articles/agreements they have the option to decline a claim under the untraced driver scheme just because the claimant has another policy he could claim from.

magpiecottage

vaio wrote: »

Nah, I’m pretty sure that RTA s151(2)b http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/151 extends any policy to include third party cover for "all persons" (including thieves) so if the driver is identified then the vehicle owners insurance will pay for the damage to the OPs car plus consequential costs.

In theory yes except for two points. The first is that, as you note, the driver must be identified because it is the driver, not the policyholder, who is liable.

The second is that my policy, at least, only insures me or any other named driver if at the time the vehicle has not been stolen and not recovered. If, at the time of the accident, it is being driven by the thief then, by definition, it has not been recovered.

In other words, the policy seems to withdraw cover under S145 of the Act until such time as the vehicle is returned to the custody of a person lawfully entitled to custody of it. With no cover under S145, the thief appears unable to rely on S151 to indemnify him.

vaio

That maybe what your policy says, but RTA is clear and nothing your policy says can override that.

Along the same lines, your policy might well say (in fact most do) that cover is removed if you don’t have the correct licence. S151(3) overrides that condition and your insurance company will still have to pay third party costs.