Car stolen by son - advised not covered

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.

Again I ask what law...the OP's son was charged and convicted...where does the above come into it?

d123

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.

So if what you are saying was right, a person without a licence cant be done for drunk driving?

Incyder

gordikin wrote: »

Again I ask what law...the OP's son was charged and convicted...where does the above come into it?

It comes into it because trying to use the defence of intent to return it could not be used as it was not being driven by someone in a postion to. Hence why the Judge would have and probably did rule any such excuse as inadmissable. Hence the conviction.

Incyder

d123 wrote: »

a person without a licence cant be done for drunk driving?

Yes they can, and no licence and no insurance.

magpiecottage

I am inclined to agree with Dangermac and Mikey on this. There is a chance that FOS would uphold - certainly a case I came was involved with last year ended up with an Ombudsman who interpreted the ambiguity against the insurer that drafted it (though not over motor insurance).

I disagree with Incyder's views - perhaps there is too much cyder inside 'er! You do not have to be qualified to make a decision about your actions.

There is one further point, though. The OP may also have grounds for complaint against the broker if they failed to make her aware that theft by a family member would not be covered. If she can demonstrate that, had she known that, she would have paid a higher premium and taken such cover, they may be liable for the claim - less the excess and the extra premium that would have been paid.

vaio

magpiecottage wrote: »

.........There is one further point, though. The OP may also have grounds for complaint against the broker if they failed to make her aware that theft by a family member would not be covered. If she can demonstrate that, had she known that, she would have paid a higher premium and taken such cover, they may be liable for the claim - less the excess and the extra premium that would have been paid.

there is no evidence that theft by family isn't covered, in fact most of the thread (ex Incyder's contribution) has been concerned with establishing that what I thought was a pretty much universal clause, i.e. excluding cover for theft by family, doesn't seem to appear in the OP's policy

Quote

magpiecottage wrote: »

There is one further point, though. The OP may also have grounds for complaint against the broker if they failed to make her aware that theft by a family member would not be covered. If she can demonstrate that, had she known that, she would have paid a higher premium and taken such cover, they may be liable for the claim - less the excess and the extra premium that would have been paid.

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.

blingbling83

Hope will find your car back soon.:good luck

RuthnJasper

mikey72 wrote: »

"Incyder's Law"

Is this why 'Incyder trading' is illegal...?

d123

Incyder wrote: »

Yes they can, and no licence and no insurance.

I know they can, it was a rhetorical question.

So how does that work when you said:

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.

Your statements directly contradict each other.

Unlicensed drivers can be prosecuted for driving offences.