car hit by stolen vehicle - Liability

lisyloo

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!

This is true, but what is missing here is any note of the practicalities.
If you claim on your own insurance then repairs commence staright away or as soon as the garage can start and often you will get a courtesy car.
For some people this is simply convenient, for others who don't have other transport options e.g. someone severely disabled, then it may be impossible to get by without a car.

I don't think we actually know in this case whether the car(s) is/are driveavble or not.

Going through TP insurance can take some time. Years in some cases.
For some people it may not be acceptable to be off the road for this period of time.

So whilst I agree in principle, then you have to consider the practicalities.
In some cases it maynot be possible to be off the road whilst things get sorted.

Quentin

lisyloo wrote: »

This is true, but what is missing here is any note of the practicalities.
If you claim on your own insurance then repairs commence staright away or as soon as the garage can start and often you will get a courtesy car.

You can only ever claim off your "own insurance" if you have comprehensive cover!

A claim handler can help out getting immediate action (temp replacement car, immediate repairs etc), if you are involved in an incident where you aren't at fault and you are intending to use the MIB or third party to claim against.

lisyloo

You can only ever claim off your "own insurance" if you have comprehensive cover!

I agree.

A claim handler can help out getting immediate action (temp replacement car, immediate repairs etc), if you are involved in an incident where you aren't at fault and you are intending to use the MIB or third party to claim against.

Unfrotunately some of them charge very high fees for the cars and then people find they are taken to court or faced with a huge bill.
This is not scaremongering but a warning.
Here's a very recent thread with someone being chased from 6 years ago.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3200782

So if you do get a replacement vehicle then I would check that the charges aren't a complete rip-off (because that may come back to haunt you when the insurer won't accept them) and also check the extent of your own liability.
Many make you ultimately liable in small print, whatever they say to your face, so be be careful to check it out.
I am not saying don't do it, but to check it out thoroughly and don't rely on what you are told verbally.

Personally I'd rather get the bus that face all that hassle, but of course that's a personal decision.

magpiecottage

vaio wrote: »

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.

Although I agree that the RTA will take precedence, S151(3) is not relevant to this case.

In any event, unless it is academic unless the driver can be traced and pursued because the owner is not personally liable.

vaio

magpiecottage wrote: »

Although I agree that the RTA will take precedence, S151(3) is not relevant to this case.

In any event, unless it is academic unless the driver can be traced and pursued because the owner is not personally liable.

S151(3) was just quoted as an example of RTA overriding anything your policy says.

E.g. Your policy says no cover without licence, S151(3) says lack of licence can’t be used to avoid RTA risks and so your policy would have to pay.

I agree S151 discussion is academic unless the driver can be identified but even in academic discussions it’s best to have the correct info posted.

Sadly, unless the driver is identified the poor old OP has to choose between claiming on their own insurance or on the MIB under the untraced driver scheme

howieuk1878

Thanks for all the help, i appreciate all points made, just as further information:
-Both me and my step dad are fully comp on insurance
-my car is drivable, his is not (also his damage appears enough to write off the car, does this alter the claiming process at all, through TP, MIB or own)
-as it stands still no identity
-in my moment of madness i unfortunatly didnt take the reg of TP vehicle, now the police want £20 for this information (from myself) in order to go ahead with claim

now a few more points i would like help with if possible
obviously i am hopeful i find identity of thief to make full claim against TP insurance (s151 as above) but if this is not the case MIB apears best option. do i have a route to go down were i can start repairs etc yet claim from TP if and when the thief is brought forward?

are the police within their right to ask me for money for this? (obviously i will try to claim it back)

my car needs a new wheel to really be road legal, if i pick 1 up cheap when i send the car in for repairs will they replace it with a new one, and recover my losses for buying the temp?

vaio

I don’t think it’ll make any difference to you if you start a claim with the MIB under the untraced driver scheme and the driver is subsequently identified as I think the MIB will be able to recover their costs from either the driver (if he has assets) or the vehicle owners policy under S151.

Not sure about the police charging for giving you info, doesn't seem right but these days who knows

If you need a wheel to make your car legal (and thus avoid hire charges) then go buy one and add it to the claim