Car stolen by son - advised not covered

Quote

This may well be a stupid question, is he named on the policy to drive the vehicle? The "loss or damage" exclusion sounds like it has more to do with vandalism/malicious damage than theft and/or a crash.

amandar74

No he was not on the policy as he does not have a license. Antrobus and Quote thank you, he didn't intentionally roll the car and almost kill himself and a passenger. The only thing he did intentionally was take the car.

dunstonh

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.

You are a victim. You are a victim of a crime and your son was the criminal. You need to take action against your son to recover your losses. That is the bluntest it can be put to you I'm afraid.

he didn't intentionally roll the car and almost kill himself and a passenger. The only thing he did intentionally was take the car.

One thing leads to another....

Basically, you are paying for the indiscipline of your child. You have three options. 1) do nothing 2) get him to pay you back monthly for the next x number of years or 3) take a civil claim against him.

As 3 is unlikely, you are left with 1 or 2.

Sorry that this sounds blunt but it does appear that you are still feeling emotional about this. We don't have the emotions on this issue as you do. So, I think putting it bluntly serves you better than trying to wrap it up in cotton wool. Cruel to be kind!

sulkisu

How old is your son? Has he done anything like this before? Was the accident his fault?

mikey72

As usual, I read it differently.
It was theft of the call by a member of the family.
It wasn't intentional loss or damage if he intended to bring it back.
If he had took it and burnt it out maybe, but if he was joyriding it's worth asking the FOS to decide on it. Make a complaint to the insurer, and then to the FOS.

As to Quentin's kids being able to find £27K, he must have a different set of circumstances to mine.

starrystarry

mikey72 wrote: »

As usual, I read it differently.
It was theft of the call by a member of the family.
It wasn't intentional loss or damage if he intended to bring it back.
If he had took it and burnt it out maybe, but if he was joyriding it's worth asking the FOS to decide on it. Make a complaint to the insurer, and then to the FOS.

As to Quentin's kids being able to find £27K, he must have a different set of circumstances to mine.

I read it differently again. I agree that the damage wasn't intentional, though his actions were clearly reckless given he doesn't have a licence, but the original loss (theft) of the vehicle was intentional. The exclusion refers to intentional loss or damage.

If the car had been stolen by the OP's son and never found/returned, the exclusion would apply because the loss was intentional. The fact that the car was accidentally written off is almost incidental. Unfortunately.

mikey72

starrystarry wrote: »

I read it differently again. I agree that the damage wasn't intentional, though his actions were clearly reckless given he doesn't have a licence, but the original loss (theft) of the vehicle was intentional. The exclusion refers to intentional loss or damage.

If the car had been stolen by the OP's son and never found/returned, the exclusion would apply because the loss was intentional. The fact that the car was accidentally written off is almost incidental. Unfortunately.

Maybe.
Still worth a punt with the FOS though.

raskazz

We need to know which insurer is concerned so that we can check the actual policy wording, as the exclusion quoted by the OP is almost certainly not the one that they are relying on to reject the claim.

starrystarry

raskazz wrote: »

We need to know which insurer is concerned so that we can check the actual policy wording, as the exclusion quoted by the OP is almost certainly not the one that they are relying on to reject the claim.

I thought the same thing raskazz. If that is the actual policy wording then whoever writes their policies should consider an alternative career.

gravitytolls

Has he been arrested and charged? This could make the world of difference to 'intention'. If he hasn't, why not? He must face the consequences of his actions.