Please help! Insurance nightmare.

thenudeone

ruthiebaby30 wrote: »

My daughter wanted to be insured on her friends car so she could drive it too. My daughter had her own policy on this car, it was not in the friends name. Her friend said that she had her own insurance for her car already (she had been driving around in it for months before my daughter got involved) On the Admiral insurance policy only my daughter was insured and only my daughter paid the premium.
It turns out that my daughter was the ONLY insured driver for the car and that was the reason that the friend lied to the guy she hit.

There is nothing wrong with this situation. Don't believe anyone who says that there can't be two polices on the same car (YOU CAN) or that you can't insure a car you don't own or are the keeper of (YOU CAN).

So this situation, though unusual, would not be reason for a policy to be cancelled (as long as your daughter was honest when buying the policy). Neither was the fact that someone else was attempting a fraudulent claim (and impersonating her) be a suitable reason for cancellation - innocent policyholders shouldn't have policies cancelled for that.

So it sounds like there is a bit more to it than meets the eye.

If your daughter's is the only policy on the car then the insurer can be forced to pay out to third parties even though their policyholder wasn't driving or responsible. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/151
There will almost certainly be a clause in the policy allowing them to pursue her for the costs they have to pay out due to this law, which they aren't contractually liable for.

My suggestion is that your daughter gets some really good legal help very fast, rather than relying on advice from forums.

And separately, she should try to get the cancellation reversed, otherwise she will have to queue up behind drink drivers and serial speeders every time she wants to buy any type of insurance ever again. Many insurers won't touch anyone who's ever had insurance cancelled.

ruthiebaby30

I've just spoken to her about all this and she's 100% certain that they knew from the offset that she wasn't the keeper or owner of the car. The solicitor she spoke to also said that it was unusual that they had agreed to insure her.
She still has all paperwork so we will see what reason they gave officially when she digs it out.
The insurance policy was nearly 1 month old, she paid monthly premiums of £90 approx, when they cancelled she wasn't out of pocket as no more premiums were due. She thought that they cancelled because of the attempted fraudulent claim.
When they told her of the cancellation she was in shock - it was the first time she knew about the accident. She was 20 years old at the time and never thought challenge it!

dacouch

Another question.

How did your daughters friend know sufficient details to satisfy the police she was your daughter? I assume the friend did not have any of your daughter's ID on her so the police tend ask extra questions

Aretnap

thenudeone wrote: »

If your daughter's is the only policy on the car then the insurer can be forced to pay out to third parties even though their policyholder wasn't driving or responsible. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/151
There will almost certainly be a clause in the policy allowing them to pursue her for the costs they have to pay out due to this law, which they aren't contractually liable for.

That's how I'm reading it. It's not the cancellation that's the problem, it's the fact that the daughter held the only policy on the car, and someone who was not covered by that policy was driving it. It would be reasonable for the insurer to cancel the policy when they realised that the car was being driven by an uninsured person, though by then it was a bit late as the accident had already happened.

The daughter seems to be in essentially the same position as someone who lends their car out to an uninsured friend who then causes an accident. The insurer has to pay the third party claim, and can then recover their losses from either the driver or the policyholder, if the policyholder caused of permitted the uninsured person to drive. Given the unusual circumstances I wonder if there's any wiggle room around "caused or permitted", but that would be a question for someone more knowledgeable than me.

As an aside, while the arrangement was not illegal, I can't see why it seemed like a good idea for the daughter to get her own policy on the car rather than asking to be added to her friends' policy (if her friend ever had insurance). It would nearly always be more expensive to take out a second policy than to be added as a named driver, and it has the potential to go horribly wrong if the owner doesn't keep her own policy going...

Quentin

ruthiebaby30 wrote: »

She still has all paperwork so we will see what reason they gave officially when she digs it out.....

The policy paperwork will show if she declared to be the owner of the car.

ruthiebaby30

dacouch wrote: »

Another question.

How did your daughters friend know sufficient details to satisfy the police she was your daughter? I assume the friend did not have any of your daughter's ID on her so the police tend ask extra questions

The girl knew her name and address etc, they were friends.

dacouch

ruthiebaby30 wrote: »

I've just spoken to her about all this and she's 100% certain that they knew from the offset that she wasn't the keeper or owner of the car. The solicitor she spoke to also said that it was unusual that they had agreed to insure her.
She still has all paperwork so we will see what reason they gave officially when she digs it out.
The insurance policy was nearly 1 month old, she paid monthly premiums of £90 approx, when they cancelled she wasn't out of pocket as no more premiums were due. She thought that they cancelled because of the attempted fraudulent claim.
When they told her of the cancellation she was in shock - it was the first time she knew about the accident. She was 20 years old at the time and never thought challenge it!

I'm still skeptical she declared that the car was owned by her friend, registered to her friend and kept at someone else's address.

It's very unusual for an Insurer to accept this as it has a habit of attracting the type of business that costs the Insurers a lot of money as it has in your daughter's case.

What your daughter can do is obtain a copy of the data Admiral have on her including call transcripts for the princely sum of £10.

http://www.ico.org.uk/for_the_public/personal_information

See also section 6 here http://www.admiral.com/car-insurance/your-policy/your-privacy-and-security.php

P.S How did your daughter obtain cover with Admiral? Did she ring them or did she obtain a quote and / or cover via the internet

vaio

Aretnap wrote: »

.........The daughter seems to be in essentially the same position as someone who lends their car out to an uninsured friend who then causes an accident. The insurer has to pay the third party claim, and can then recover their losses from either the driver or the policyholder, if the policyholder caused of permitted the uninsured person to drive. Given the unusual circumstances I wonder if there's any wiggle room around "caused or permitted", but that would be a question for someone more knowledgeable than me.......

The "lending the car to an uninsured friend" isn't a good analogy, having a car stolen would be better.

As the OP didn't own and wasn't RK I struggle to see how they were in a position to cause or permit the actual owners use of the vehicle. Following on from that, I can't see how the costs would be recoverable from the OP given there was no wrongdoing.

As you say, specialist legal advice is needed, a call to the FOS might be a good idea too.

RebekahL

This is my problem.... I was getting out temporary insurance through admiral for a week at a time, after I did this 3 or 4 times they told me I had to get a full policy out and signed me up. I told them throughout that I wasn't the owner or keeper of the car and they signed me up anyway. The reason the lawyer told me not to sign was because he believed that admiral would just put all the cost to me regardless and he told me they'd know they were in the wrong to insure me in the first place. The area is grey, they can't blame me for allowing an uninsured driver to use the car because it belonged to her, she could do what she wanted and she can't steal it because, again, the car is hers. When she called admiral on the day of the crash to ask for recovery (yes she had the cheek) they terminated the call because she failed on the security questions. They then emailed me to ask for further details on the crash and where I want the curtesy car dropped off, to which I was shocked and hadn't a clue what they was on about. I'm at the point now where I wish I had pretended to drive the car and it was me, I wouldn't have this headache and this has still affected every policy I've had for my own cars since.

FlameCloud

vaio wrote: »

The "lending the car to an uninsured friend" isn't a good analogy, having a car stolen would be better.

As the OP didn't own and wasn't RK I struggle to see how they were in a position to cause or permit the actual owners use of the vehicle. Following on from that, I can't see how the costs would be recoverable from the OP given there was no wrongdoing.

As you say, specialist legal advice is needed, a call to the FOS might be a good idea too.

The issue is that the rights of recovery will be a contractual issue. Admirals current policy doesnt require the insured to either permit or cause the use of the vehicle-

Payments made under compulsory Insurance regulations and right of recovery
If the Law in any country in which your policy operates requires us to settle a claim on your behalf, which, if this Law had not existed, we would not be obliged to pay,
we shall be entitled to recover such payments either from you or the driver.

You would need to check the wording for the relevent policy year- it may have changed.