Car insurance wants £26,260.00.

vaio

Bangton wrote: »

........Personally I am not assured that the father IS the owner of the car. To me it doesn't make any sense why the OP would manage to register the owner correctly but not the RK. However, regardless the RK needs to be the same person as the PH (unless spouse or partner). This isn't randomly making something up..if it were why would the insurance company now be able to void the policy and chase an o/s debt.......

Yep, but again, is that knowledge or guess work (schadenfreudeic or otherwise)? Unless it is *knowledge* it might be more helpful if you addressed the actual case as presented by the OP

The case the OP has presented is that they bought a car as a gift for their father but made a mistake and ended up as RK. Another sibling then insured it for the father assuming that the father was RK.

To my mind this is a simple paperwork error and would qualify as "innocent" non disclosure so the insurer would be required to pay whether or not they would have offered cover in the first place.

Finally, I understand about registering as RK but how does one "register the owner correctly"?

spacey2012

If they attempt legal action the defendant can enter the insurance bond holder as is written on the certificate of insurance (not the broker or company) as either counter claim or joint defendant.
The District judge will then decide if the OP had insurance, not some clerk from an insurance company.
This is probably why they have not attempted legal recovery.

I have seen a similar situation where the district judge threw out all the schedules and asked the insurance company to point to where inside the box on the insurance certificate itself it states the insurance contract was not valid.
When the Insurance company solicitor began to argue about schedules and rules, the judge threw them out and dismissed the case.

The actual part of insurance for third party risks is separate to other schedules and is very hard to undue once it is written, hence why many will pay the claim, as has happened and then try weasel methods to recover.
If the insurance company thought there was no insurance in force they would have told the third party to whistle.
They have not, they have paid the third party aspect.
Nasty letters and debt collectors but will they try a hand in court ?
I would say not or they would have just hung the OP out to dry from the start.

Quentin

spacey2012 wrote: »

........Nasty letters and debt collectors but will they try a hand in court ?
I would say not or they would have just hung the OP out to dry from the start.

The OP states they sent a LBA saying they are going to court unless....! (Which was the reason for startong the thread)

tbourner

Quentin wrote: »

The OP states they sent a LBA saying they are going to court unless....! (Which was the reason for startong the thread)

Well actually all we have is:

iEKOS wrote: »

They want to take both me and my father to court and they want paying by the 25th of September 2013 (next Wednesday).

iEKOS wrote: »

They want to apply to the courts on the 25th (5 days).

So it could just be the usual letter saying "You owe us this money, pay by 25th or we may start legal proceedings!!1!", same as all the usual scare tactics they try.

iEKOS wrote: »

Also, the letter from a solicitors firm is addressed to both me and my dad.

Who are the 'solicitors'?

Prothet_of_Doom

The legal owner does not need to be the same as the Keeper on the V5, and the main driver, does not need to be the same as the keeper on the V5. and a named driver could be the keeper and/or the legal owner.

For example, most priovate companies, the car would be owned by the lease hire company, the V5 would be in the name of the finance director, and the main driver would be an employee, and the MD might be a named driver.

The risks that the insurance company are UNCHANGED, provided the main driver and the named driver are listed correctly. The risks to them because there has been an administration !!!! up are no higher.

Their agruement is that because you are named on the V5, you must be the main driver. On a previous car I my wife and I swapped the use of that car so that she was the main driver twice in 12 years and I was the main driver 3 times in 12 years, but after changing the V5 from her name and then into my name, I just couldn't see the point. We ware never asked when taking out the insurance who was on the V5, although I never read the T&C's in enough detail to see if I should have changed the V5 another 3 times.

The problem is that the person assisting the main driver to take out thier insurance was not really aware of the facts, and made a mistake, so the insurance company is trying to use the name on the V5 as an indicator that fronting has occurred.

You have to prove that it was an innocent mistake,

spacey2012

The first thing any Judge will ask IMO, is if they had no insurance, !!!!!! did you pay the other party for.

vaio

spacey2012 wrote: »

The first thing any Judge will ask IMO, is if they had no insurance, !!!!!! did you pay the other party for.

to comply with RTA s151?

tbourner

Any news today from OP? Did they send the boys round?