Sold a car - buyer drove it off without insurance

McKneff

Just a point, if I sold a car, I wouldnt particularly ask if the buyer was insured or not to be honest.

Mistral001

Just to clarify something. If the OP had the car insured and the new lender did not get the car insured under his own insurance before he drove it off, would the OP's insurers cover the car for a period until the new owner got it insurered? This is a genuine question and not retorical. I suppose the new owner could frauduantly claim he was only test driving the car, but other than that I cannot think of a situation where the insurers would pay out. But is there a sort of drive-home clause in insurance conditions

Chopper_Read

Mistral001 wrote: »

Just to clarify something. If the OP had the car insured and the new lender did not get the car insured under his own insurance before he drove it off, would the OP's insurers cover the car for a period until the new owner got it insurered? This is a genuine question and not retorical. I suppose the new owner could frauduantly claim he was only test driving the car, but other than that I cannot think of a situation where the insurers would pay out. But is there a sort of drive-home clause in insurance conditions

No.....................

Mistral001

I suppose you have to give people fredom to make their own mistakes. The person who bought the car is an adult and is well aware of his responsibilty regarding insurance and the fact that the car is not presently insured by the OP is something he does not need to know. The Op might just have well have informed the Op of what his favorite colour was with regard to relevance to the vendor.

Chopper_Read

Mistral001 wrote: »

I suppose you have to give people fredom to make their own mistakes. The person who bought the car is an adult and is well aware of his responsibilty regarding insurance and the fact that the car is not presently insured by the OP is something he does not need to know. The Op might just have just have informed the Op of what his favorite colur was with regard to relevance to the vendor.

You weren't so why assume they are?

Mistral001

Chopper_Read wrote: »

You weren't so why assume they are?

Well he seemed to know his responsibilities. He said he would take the risk. That is what I was going on. Any other comments on my knowledge of car insurance that you want to make? Please feel free by all means.

Quentin

Mistral001 wrote: »

Just to clarify something. If the OP had the car insured and the new lender did not get the car insured under his own insurance before he drove it off, would the OP's insurers cover the car for a period until the new owner got it insurered?

Yes - in certain circumstances there is RTA liability if any insurance is in place.

That is why you ought to ensure any car you dispose of is removed from your policy immediately so that there can be no comeback on you should the new owner not insure it. (An insurer forced to accept liability in these circumstances can come back to you to reimburse them any payments they have had to make because they weren't informed you no longer wanted the car covering)

CKhalvashi

securityguy wrote: »

It might help to actually read the legislation, rather than post it as though it proves your point.

You've just sold it. You have got a receipt. It doesn't belong to you. End of.

Technically, a 143 could still be bought, unless you are able to provide evidence at that time, that this is the case.

I know what the legislation says, but this is, in reality a grey area, especially when OP at this time will still be RO on all the paperwork.

CK