Car stolen by son - advised not covered

mikey72

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


Only by yourself.
Not by anyone else.

adamc260

amandar74 wrote: »

I know that, it just seems unfair that as I am the victim I never thought that small print like this would exist. I now may have to find £27k for something I had no control over.

Aye its a clause in the polciy as said by other posters =/ Hope something gets sorted for you though. I had a case before when I worked for an insurer... the insurers wouldnt pay out unless the parent were happy for their child to be prosecuted or something along those lines.

Incyder

By law. Someone with no licence and has not passed a test cannot be deemed to make judgements on their own ability, intent, desires or anything else to do with driving. It will all be irrelevant.

mikey72

Incyder wrote: »

By law. Someone with no licence and has not passed a test cannot be deemed to make judgements on their own ability, intent, desires or anything else to do with driving. It will all be irrelevant.

Give it a rest.

Incyder

mikey72 wrote: »

Give it a rest.

stop making it up as you go then.

property.advert

thorsoak wrote: »

But we, as other policy holders with the insurance company, would have to bear the brunt of your son's illegal activity through higher premiums - would you consider that to be fair?

But isn't this the excuse the insurance companies use to justify why the premiums have already gone up, not why they may go up, if they start paying out on this sort of claim.

I don't see where the problem lies. The son stole the car as evidenced by the police charge and conviction. That itself is surely sufficient to warrant a pay out. Now were he not prosecuted, it would be a different matter.

gordikin

Incyder wrote: »

By law. Someone with no licence and has not passed a test cannot be deemed to make judgements on their own ability, intent, desires or anything else to do with driving. It will all be irrelevant.

...what law?

mikey72

gordikin wrote: »

...what law?

"Incyder's Law"

Incyder

gordikin wrote: »

...what law?

The law that was applied when he was convicted in court. If the Judge had been convinced he intended to bring it back and had just borrowed it then he would not have found him guilty of aggravated theft.

Incyder

Its a shame the mother of the criminal won't give the full conviction and penalty but she did state he has been done for aggravated theft. So if you think an insurance company is now going to cough up 27k because mummy said to them her little soldier was going to bring it back when Judge has deemed he wouldn't, then you are clearly mad or drunk.