Car stolen by son - advised not covered

magpiecottage

Quote wrote: »

I think you'd struggle with this one. Would you expect a broker to run through every single policy exclusion with every single policyholder? I'm fairly convinced that the policyholder would have been told to check their documents, and even after checking them I can't imagine the OP would have been kicking up too much of a fuss about it.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, after all.

I have seen FOS say "it is not sufficient that it was in the policy terms and conditions" and uphold complaints before now. I am not saying they should, only that I have seen them do it.

MichaelCR

amandar74 wrote: »

My son stole my 3 month old car worth £27,000 whilst I was asleep and crashed it and wrote it off. I reported it to the police immediately and he has been in court and punished. I have just been advised by my insurance company that as he is a member of my family I am not covered. I have just read through the point that the insurers mentioned and they refer to an exclusion under loss or damage, this says

"Loss or damage caused intentionally by You or any member of Your family or loss or damage someone else caused with Your permission or encouragement. "

The car was on contract hire by my company but I had insured it personally and explained all of the circumstances to the insurance company when I signed up.

Can this be correct I was never made aware of this and it seems very vague. I feel that although I am the victim I am being punished because he is related to me.

Ouch, bet the conversation at the dinner table is awkward.

He should be prosecuted for,

- TWOC (Taking without Owners Consent)
- Driving without a license (If he doesn't have one) or Driving whilst unsupervised and driving otherwise than in accordance with a license (if he has a provisional)
- If he has a full license then of course driving without insurance.

As for the insurance, Surely you have a Fire & Theft coverage ?

ayayay

simple answer is refer it to the ombudsman - it won't cost you anything. What have you got to lose?

pvt

Incyder wrote: »

They can. But let me give you an example you may understand. A person that has not passed a test will not be charged with careless driving for instance.
As they have not been proven (tested) to a certain level then they will not be judged against that level. They may be charged with the relevant no licence/insurance/damage caused/drunk etc charges but will not be judged on their ability to drive, e.g careless/reckless

It's a while since I passed my test - quite a while - but I don't recall the bit during my test where the examiner established that I understood that I should not take my Mother's car keys from her handbag and drive her car dangerously.

My instructor may also have forgotten to run through such things as not using a neighbour's car as a getaway vehicle for bank robberies unless I was sure it was appropriately insured for that particular use (presumably "business purposes") by me.

I believe a driving licence actually indicates you have been tested and found competant to drive a motor vehicle, and not that you understand common law.

I despair, but nevertheless await further revelations, of how absured your interpretations of the law are.

pvt

rodttt

Im a newbie and have just read this thread up to 12.07am. I agree that intent needs to be proved for the exclusion to be applied. However, the definition of theft as opposed to taking and driving away (TDA/TWOC) are two different things entirely.

Have a quick search on Wikipedia for "Theft" and look at this in the basic term and for motor vehicles.

Rod

d123

rodttt wrote: »

Have a quick search on Wikipedia for "Theft" and look at this in the basic term and for motor vehicles.

Rod

I'd probably recommend reading the Theft Act 1968 rather than Wikipedia (for all we know Incyder has been at the wiki and changed it to the "law" as applied on his planet).

Section 12A would cover what the OP's son did.

noh

d123 wrote: »

I'd probably recommend reading the Theft Act 1968 rather than Wikipedia (for all we know Incyder has been at the wiki and changed it to the "law" as applied on his planet).

Section 12A would cover what the OP's son did.

Here it is to save searching
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/12A

jim22

"No licence therefore cannot be done for drink drive". Wasnt a Wales rugby player charged for drink driving having driven a golf cart down the M4?

d123

jim22 wrote: »

"No licence therefore cannot be done for drink drive". Wasnt a Wales rugby player charged for drink driving having driven a golf cart down the M4?

Yes, it was about a year ago. Player was Andy Powell.

Outpost

d123 wrote: »

Yes, it was about a year ago. Player was Andy Powell.

Who is known to his mates as "Braindead".