Uninsured Driver Claim on my policy

caezar

Hello All,


I am in something of a unique mess. My car was involved in an incident in June 2010 or so. I was not present during the incident; it was my sister's friend who was driving. Indeed, I did not even give my permission for my car to be taken.

Unexpectedly, sometime around July/August, I got a letter from my insurance company asking about an incident on the 4th of June. At this point, I was not even aware that my car had been 'borrowed' or that there had been an incident. It took me completely by surprise and initially, I denied any involvement. But on second thought, I asked my sister and she told me about the incident. She described it as minor to say the least. Her friend Katie had been trying to reverse out of a parking spot when she hit the car behind her. There was no problem, no one was injured and neither car was damaged according to my sister. So I quickly relayed this information to my insurance company.

They replied later on asking for the details of the driver. I gave them her name (Katie - my sister's friend) but I didn't have any other details as she has relocated to South Africa. I also described the incident as it had been described to me. And I emphasized that she had taken the car without my permission and that I was not accepting liability for the incident.

They just got back to me today saying that they had paid out a whooping 14,000 pounds to the claimant and they are now chasing me for that money! I can't believe this is happening. As I said, I was not present during the incident, the driver at the time is not named on my policy and did not have the car with my permission. Also, all that I have been told about the incident makes a claim of 14k quite large because no one was hurt and neither car was damaged!!!

Has anyone ever encountered a similar problem? What do you think I should do?

Thanks in advance for your help.

DUTR

There is no reason why you should be let off, it's a rubbish excuse that she is no longer there, in effect you are liable for who drives your car, that is why you have insurance cover.

dacouch

Under the Road Traffic Act (Which governs claims against you) your Insurer is obliged to pay out the claim if there is a valid policy in place and the driver is identified irrespective of whether they were insured on the policy.

The above is why the Insurer have paid out, the amount is possibly greatly increased from normal due to the Insurer having to pay extra legal fees and investigation fees (For both parties) due to the circumstances of the claim. In addition the messing about may have meant the other driver may have been in a very very expensive credit hire car for much longer than would have happened if you had informed them of the incident straight away.

Unfortunately in these types of cases eg friend borrowed a car, was not insured and had an accident, they tend to play the amount of damage down.

Speak to the Insurer, explain the full details, ask for a break down of costs and seek legal advice

caezar

@DUTR
I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that you think it's fair that I pay out for claims against my car when it was used WITHOUT my permission and WITHOUT my knowledge. I wasn't even aware she had borrowed my car until the insurance company came knocking.

@dacouch
Does this mean I am liable for the costs? I thought that was what the Motor Insurance Bureau is for (I just did some reading).
They have given me a breakdown of the costs and it's about 4,000 for injuries and associated losses, 7,500 for solicistors and 1,755 for NHS charges.

maginot

How did your sisters friend get access to the keys?
Have you filled in a police report?
Has your sister filled in a police report?

Have you given all these details to the insurance company? If she did steal the car then I can understand your point, but if she used your car with implied permission and no charges have been brought I can understand the insurance company point of view.

DUTR

caezar wrote: »

@DUTR
I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that you think it's fair that I pay out for claims against my car when it was used WITHOUT my permission and WITHOUT my knowledge. I wasn't even aware she had borrowed my car until the insurance company came knocking.

@dacouch
Does this mean I am liable for the costs? I thought that was what the Motor Insurance Bureau is for (I just did some reading).
They have given me a breakdown of the costs and it's about 4,000 for injuries and associated losses, 7,500 for solicistors and 1,755 for NHS charges.

So at the time did you report the car stolen?
If not then as the other poster has suggested you via your insurers are liable, what if someone knocked down and killed your close relative, and then the registered keepr of the car gave some feeble excuse as to why they are not liable in anyway, would that be acceptable to you?
Then why should your reasoning be acceptable to the 3rd party, frankly it is not, and hand on heart you know it's not. However keep the blagging up with the insurers, chances are you will never get insured again, it's your life your choice.

dacouch

caezar wrote: »

@dacouch
Does this mean I am liable for the costs? I thought that was what the Motor Insurance Bureau is for (I just did some reading).
They have given me a breakdown of the costs and it's about 4,000 for injuries and associated losses, 7,500 for solicistors and 1,755 for NHS charges.

The MIB are there for people who are hit by Uninsured or Untraced Drivers, the Road Traffic Act.

This is the relevant part of the RTA that makes your Insurer liable to initially pay the claim.

"it is a liability, other than an excluded liability, which would be so covered if the policy insured all persons or, as the case may be, the security covered the liability of all persons, and the judgment is obtained against any person other than one who is insured by the policy or, as the case may be, whose liability is covered by the security.


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/part/VI section 151 2 b)

As such the MIB would refer a claim such as yours to the Insurer of the vehicle to deal with eg the MIB would not pay out.

As I said before, gather as much information as possible, type out a clear time line of events eg

July 2010 - Received letter from Insurer and rang them

August 2010 - Discovered a friend had borrowed car, relayed information to Insurer

etc etc

This will make it easier for you to remember and explain circumstances, try giving the MIB a ring for advice (They will tell you they would not pay but may be able to give you some advice off the record and also seek legal advice (Even the CAB if you cannot afford proper legal advice)

dacouch

DUTR wrote: »

So at the time did you report the car stolen?
If not then as the other poster has suggested you via your insurers are liable, what if someone knocked down and killed your close relative, and then the registered keepr of the car gave some feeble excuse as to why they are not liable in anyway, would that be acceptable to you?
Then why should your reasoning be acceptable to the 3rd party, frankly it is not, and hand on heart you know it's not. However keep the blagging up with the insurers, chances are you will never get insured again, it's your life your choice.

The Insurer would still be liable to pay a fault claim even if the car had been stolen providing the Driver had been identified which they have in this case

raskazz

caezar wrote: »

Hello All,


I am in something of a unique mess. My car was involved in an incident in June 2010 or so. I was not present during the incident; it was my sister's friend who was driving. Indeed, I did not even give my permission for my car to be taken.

Unexpectedly, sometime around July/August, I got a letter from my insurance company asking about an incident on the 4th of June. At this point, I was not even aware that my car had been 'borrowed' or that there had been an incident. It took me completely by surprise and initially, I denied any involvement. But on second thought, I asked my sister and she told me about the incident. She described it as minor to say the least. Her friend Katie had been trying to reverse out of a parking spot when she hit the car behind her. There was no problem, no one was injured and neither car was damaged according to my sister. So I quickly relayed this information to my insurance company.

They replied later on asking for the details of the driver. I gave them her name (Katie - my sister's friend) but I didn't have any other details as she has relocated to South Africa. I also described the incident as it had been described to me. And I emphasized that she had taken the car without my permission and that I was not accepting liability for the incident.

They just got back to me today saying that they had paid out a whooping 14,000 pounds to the claimant and they are now chasing me for that money! I can't believe this is happening. As I said, I was not present during the incident, the driver at the time is not named on my policy and did not have the car with my permission. Also, all that I have been told about the incident makes a claim of 14k quite large because no one was hurt and neither car was damaged!!!

Has anyone ever encountered a similar problem? What do you think I should do?

Thanks in advance for your help.

You need to give more information:

- If you did not give permission for the driver to take the car then how did she obtain the keys?

- If, as is implied, your sister was with the driver at the time of the incident, why did your sister let her drive the vehicle? Is your sister insured to drive the vehicle?

- Have you reported the driver to the police for taking the vehicle without consent? If not, why not?

- Is there any possibility that the driver had arranged any temporary cover whilst she was in charge of the vehicle?

vax2002

If, you have not already spoken to the police, I would seek some immediate legal advice, as you may not like what you hear.
It will follow the lines of stop digging the hole, but it may save you from a spell at her Majesties pleasure.
Make no mistake, you could be in serious hot water here.

DUTR

dacouch wrote: »

The Insurer would still be liable to pay a fault claim even if the car had been stolen providing the Driver had been identified which they have in this case

Yes and that is why we have 3rd party insurance, TBH I don't fully beleive the OPs story and it just seems like a cheap way to blag out of a historic incident.
There is no point being bla-ze about the whole set up, it wouldn't be so bad if the OP felt somebody had to pay out, and if it were not himself, then it should be his insurance company, although the policy would have expired by now.