stolen motorbike & insurance premiums

missile

skater_kat wrote: »

The police have recovered it and it has gone to their storage place for forensic testing. they haven't said anything about me needing to pay a fee (yes that would be even more annoying!).

I had a motorbike stolen about 3 yrs ago from outside my partners office. Even though it was a no fault claim my premiums still shot up.

I did not consider that this new theft might further impact the van because the bike was stolen from right next to where my van is parked up at night. I also live in a gated development so i have no idea how they got in and out :mad:

So i am guessing from these posts that I just report the theft to insurance and see what they advise re: dvla etc. I suppose the insurance are going to charge a blimming cancellation fee too!! ggrr!!!

It is a condition of your insurance that you must report and declare as and when you come to renew your van insurance.

It does seem harsh.

Last year, my wife's car was vandalised. On her protected NCD policy vandalism claims are "free". Nevertheless she had to pay her excess and her premium went up as did mine as she is a named driver. We will both be paying for this "free" vandalism claim for the next five years :mad:

Richard53

skater_kat wrote: »

I had a motorbike stolen about 3 yrs ago from outside my partners office. Even though it was a no fault claim my premiums still shot up.

Worth remembering that an NCD is a no-claim discount, not a no-blame discount.

Aretnap

Plus fault isn't really relevant to a theft claim - your insurer ends up paying whether you did anything wrong or not.* And the fact that you have to park your bike in a place where thefts are known to have happened in the past is obviously relevant to the risk of it happening again.

*Unless you did something seriously wrong, like leave your keys in the ignition, in which case they may well not pay at all.

mttylad

So it got nicked from somewhere else then?

And report it but advise no claim is being made.

owen_money

!!!!!! wrote: »

An insurance company will probably write it off if reported but there is nothing stopping the owner recovering the vehicle and rebuilding it.

Not true, if its a Cat A or B you can't rebuild it (Ok, Cat B you can use some parts, but not many, most of it will be scrapped)


Cat A - The vehicle should be scrapped and no parts can be taken from it.

Cat B - The vehicle should be scrapped but certain parts can be taken from it.

Cat C&D - These are normally used for non economical repairs. I.E Not dangerous to drive but the insurance company doesn't want to shell out repairing them.

vaio

owen_money wrote: »

Not true, if its a Cat A or B you can't rebuild it (Ok, Cat B you can use some parts, but not many, most of it will be scrapped)


Cat A - The vehicle should be scrapped and no parts can be taken from it.

Cat B - The vehicle should be scrapped but certain parts can be taken from it.

Cat C&D - These are normally used for non economical repairs. I.E Not dangerous to drive but the insurance company doesn't want to shell out repairing them.

That's certainly the view that we often see but if it is true then I don't understand why the VIC regulations require a VIC if cat A, B or C vehicles are being returned to the roads

thenudeone

UsernameAlreadyExists wrote: »

So not confident then?

I have highlighted the reasonable possibility that the insurer obtains these updates. How am I (or anyone else here) supposed to know what information the OP's insurance company has decided to buy from the DVLA, and the frequency of updates they've paid for?

UsernameAlreadyExists wrote: »

So that's a good result ... no?

Given that the a policy being voided usually only occurs once a claim has been made and an insured loss has already been incurred, in what circumstances can a policy being voided (and therefore the claim not being paid) ever be a good result (when it has to be declared to any prospective insurer for years)?

UsernameAlreadyExists wrote: »

For what? The policy never existed ... right?

You obviously haven't the faintest idea about voided motor insurance policies. If you had bothered to look at the FOS link I provided you might have learned something on the subject rather than demonstrating your ignorance to everyone here.

To quote FOS

If there is a problem when the policy is being sold, it may only become apparent when the driver makes a claim under the policy. The insurer may refuse to pay part or all of the amount claimed – or may "void" the policy altogether, treating it as if it has never existed.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/motor-insurance.html
Although the insurance contract can be treated as if it never existed as far as the policyholder is concerned, the insurer will still have to meet third party claims under the Road Traffic Act 1988 because they issued a certificate providing cover to third parties under that Act. The insurer can recover these costs from the policyholder because they are not contractually obliged to provide indemnity to the policyholder, having legitimately voided the policy.

UsernameAlreadyExists wrote: »

Why?

Because by failing to disclose material information in order to obtain insurance cheaper than you should have (or to obtained insurance for which you weren't actually eligible), the insurers may, with justification, take the view that you were committing fraud, and may report that suspicion to insurance industry fraud databases such as this one http://www.experian.co.uk/consumer-information/insurance-hunter.html. Any insurers which subscribe to those databases may refuse to provide cover. Again, No-one here knows how any individual insurer might use the information on the databases in the future.

UsernameAlreadyExists wrote: »

To confirm what? I can't even be bothered to click the link. your post says nothing ... so how can it be confirmed?

I have no idea how the OP's insurer will deal with this incident and neither do you, but my post does give some outcomes which could reasonably and foreseeably occur in the circumstances.

It's a pity you couldn't be bothered. The link lists some specific cases referred to the FOS where insurers have actually done some of the things I mentioned above, and been supported in their decisions by the FOS.


It's easy for anyone to come on here and spout forth an opinion, or, as you have done, simply rubbish whatever anyone else has said but without demonstrating any knowledge or providing the slightest justification for why they disagree with what's been said.

If I give an opinion I'll usually provide a link to a reputable source if I can (and I usually can), in order to justify why I have come to that opinion, so that people can make their own mind up about whether my conclusions are reasonable or not.

I'm sure people can make their own mind up about which of us has provided the most useful and well-supported post.