Car stolen by son - advised not covered

vaio

amandar74 wrote: »

I have just found a clause in the policy document. This is below
Section 2 - Third Party Fire and Theft Cover
Payment of Claims for Loss or Damage
A. Loss or Damage
What is covered
Numerous again
What is not covered
11. The unathorised taking away of Your car by a family member.

This is only under Third Party (I have double and triple checked)
I had Comprehensive insurance. I don't know if this helps. (I hope so)

It might be that this is the TPFT part of your comprehensive cover, and so does apply to you, it’s hard to say without seeing the whole document in context.

Like raskazz, (who is an insurance insider and knows his stuff) I thought the family clause similar to the ones quoted above was a standard that appears in pretty much every policy.

If it is, then frankly, you are stuffed.

If it doesn’t appear in your policy then bingo, you are £27k richer.

You really need to sit and read it from cover to cover or better still, find an on-line copy and post it.

jim22

"27,000 pound car." He has good taste. Around here its the £500 bangers they pinch.

lisyloo

"27,000 pound car." He has good taste. Around here its the £500 bangers they pinch.

Without the keys it's easier to nick an older car with poor security.
If you have the keys then of course you can nick a car with a sophisticated security system.

amandar74

vaio wrote: »

It might be that this is the TPFT part of your comprehensive cover, and so does apply to you, it’s hard to say without seeing the whole document in context.

Like raskazz, (who is an insurance insider and knows his stuff) I thought the family clause similar to the ones quoted above was a standard that appears in pretty much every policy.

If it is, then frankly, you are stuffed.

If it doesn’t appear in your policy then bingo, you are £27k richer.

You really need to sit and read it from cover to cover or better still, find an on-line copy and post it.

I have just re-read and the first page of the policy booklet says if you have comprehensive cover refer to section 1,3,4 and the only place the clause "The unauthorised taking away of Your car by a family member" is in section 2. I am going to scan the booklet tomorrow and upload it if I can.

vaio

Have a look at the link raskazz gave, it might be they use the same wording and section numbers on the car policies

mikey72

amandar74 wrote: »

I have just re-read and the first page of the policy booklet says if you have comprehensive cover refer to section 1,3,4 and the only place the clause "The unauthorised taking away of Your car by a family member" is in section 2. I am going to scan the booklet tomorrow and upload it if I can.

I'd go with the phrase they referred you back to in the first place. It seems vague enough to be possibly unenforceable, so I wouldn't try to find others. Let them.
Put a complaint in writing to them, quoting the section they have, and see what they say. If they still refuse to pay, complaint to the FOS, using the same phrase.

My car insurance has the phrase excluding family members, children, anyone else in the house, etc, all the way through, so it's well covered.
My motorhome has no exclusions at all, apart from drivers with my permission who aren't named on the insurance.

amandar74

vaio wrote: »

Have a look at the link raskazz gave, it might be they use the same wording and section numbers on the car policies

Hi I've had a look and it is the same insurance company, however in my policy book under the Comprehensive cover my policy is the same to section 10 and then from 11 changes to above posting. The third party is almost the same and contains the clause 10 which is clause 11 on my policy.

vaio

I’d still like to see the whole thing but it sounds like you might have a result, keep that policy safe!

For now I’d go with what mikey says

mikey72 wrote: »

I'd go with the phrase they referred you back to in the first place. It seems vague enough to be possibly unenforceable, so I wouldn't try to find others. Let them.
Put a complaint in writing to them, quoting the section they have, and see what they say. If they still refuse to pay, complaint to the FOS, using the same phrase...........

But not on the grounds that it’s too vague to be enforceable, I’d go with it just doesn’t apply in your case as the damage wasn’t intentional and you neither gave permission or encouraged your errant offspring.

.

mikey72

vaio wrote: »

I’d still like to see the whole thing but it sounds like you might have a result, keep that policy safe!

For now I’d go with what mikey says



But not on the grounds that it’s too vague to be enforceable, I’d go with it just doesn’t apply in your case as the damage wasn’t intentional and you neither gave permission or encouraged your errant offspring.

.

Well picked up.
That's what I meant to raise the complaint on, as per my first post.
The clause doesn't seem to apply in this case.

mikey72 wrote: »

As usual, I read it differently.
It was theft of the car 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.

Incyder

Originally Posted by mikey72
As usual, I read it differently.
It was theft of the car 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.

He has no driving licence so will not be deemed in a position to make any decisions on what he wanted to do.