Help please.Accidentally uninsured car hit by insured driver whilst parked

Quentin

interstellaflyer wrote: »

I would have thought that these days when insurers are looking for reasons not to pay out, that running a check for insurance would be the first thing a claims handler woulkd do.

Why?

It makes no difference to the liability issue.

What would be your thought if the car was insured but had no tax or no mot?

Are there any other situations where you think you can safely drive into other peoples cars with no liability for your actions?

TerryAdams

Hello everyone, many thanks for your replies. Very helpful.

Would people suggest that we inform the company that crashed into the cars insurance people to arrange the repairs. This would mean that there would be no need for the insurance my end to get involved. What should I say if they want to get my insurance involved?

P.S The car is now insured.

Lum

The other guy's insurance company will not want to get your insurance involved as this just means more back and forth bureaucracy and increased costs. Don't worry about it.

Quentin

TerryAdams wrote: »

Hello everyone, many thanks for your replies. Very helpful.

Would people suggest that we inform the company that crashed into the cars insurance people to arrange the repairs. .

Contact them and see if they have an "innocent third party" claim department. If so you will find them bending over to please!

Otherwise see if their claims department offer to help.

If not then you will need to get a quote and send it to them, stating you hold their insured responsible, and ask them to deal with the repairs etc. Then take it from their response.

scooby75

I believe insurance companies will give you a grace period so that they will accept liability so long as the customer agrees to pay the premiums due, but I think this is only a couple of weeks at most. A similar situation happened with my uncle a week after his policy lapsed (my uncle was at fault). His insurer accepted the claim on the basis that he paid the premium due to date. May not be totally relevant to the OP in his case though.

Flyboy152

andygb wrote: »

No it is not the same, because the law regarding keeping uninsured vehicles on a road has changed, and the MIB (Motor insurance bureau) stipulate that the owner of an uninsured car, or passengers in an uninsured car cannot make a clain for injury or damage caused to the uninsured car or its occupants.

That's a new development. When did that become law?

Flyboy152

andygb wrote: »

These are my thoughts:
The OP has been dishonest not informing the other party that the car does not have insurance, and therefore the other party has admitted liability, something which would not have happened if he knew the full facts. The police have not been made aware of the full facts by the OP, which is failure to disclose information relevant to the vehicle.
For the rest of us who struggle to tax and insure our vehicles and keep them legal, I hope that this comes back to bite the OP (or his brother?), which I think it will because:
The other party's insurance will run a check on the uninsured car and - bingo! They will not pay out, and will probably inform the police.

This post is a bit silly

property.advert

Quentin wrote: »

The MIB don't come into this scenario!

The OP can claim directly off the third party!

Exactly. No need to inform your insurer at all, even if you did have one !

raskazz

andygb wrote: »

No it is not the same, because the law regarding keeping uninsured vehicles on a road has changed

No it has not!

The legal position re: a vehicle being used in a road without insurance/security against third party risks (which includes merely being parked as per cases like Elliiot v Grey and Pumbien v Vines) is exactly the same today as when the Road Traffic Act 1988 came into force. It is an offence as per s.143 of the Road Traffic Act.

You are getting this mixed up with the implications of continuous insurance enforcement, which requires that all vehicles without insurance be declared SORN.

raskazz

interstellaflyer wrote: »

I would have thought that these days when insurers are looking for reasons not to pay out, that running a check for insurance would be the first thing a claims handler woulkd do.

Why? As has been stated ad infinitum on this thread and others, the insurance status of the third party has no effect on liability so there would be nothing to be gained by doing this.