Please help! Insurance nightmare.

SimonSays

RebekahL wrote: »

This is what I'm saying, I can't answer why they did it, I just went along with what they said and offered.

So if the operator at Admiral asked for Nude topless photos, You'd have sent them?

I guess there is a dumper load more to this story.

RebekahL

Yes that's exactly what I'd have done, obviously

notanewuser

RebekahL wrote: »

This is what I'm saying, I can't answer why they did it, I just went along with what they said and offered.

Can you please scan and upload the docs (remove any identifying information) relating to your temporary cover and policy later?

Something here isn't right.

RebekahL

Yeah I'll come back to it later, getting the boss huffing a puffing at me on my phone. Watch this space...

SimonSays

Anyone else notice that Mother and daughter don't post at the same time?

ruthiebaby30

SimonSays wrote: »

Anyone else notice that Mother and daughter don't post at the same time?

Really? What is that supposed to mean? Are you suggesting that we are one and the same person?

Just to let you know that I have never been seen in the same room as Michael Jackson/Elvis Presley/Lord Lucan. Does that that mean that I could also could have been them too?

My daughter doesn't live with me, she works (in an office - not at my house) and we are not joined at the hip.

I have a suspicion that you may live at home still.:rotfl:

SimonSays

I really don't live at home

Its just funny you stop posting and appear offline when your daughter posts. Thats all

vaio

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.

FlameCloud wrote: »

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.

I disagree....

By my reading of RTA 1988 the insurer is liable to pay under s151 (2)(b), and the right of recovery under s151 (8) is against the driver or policy holder but (8)(b) limits the liability of the policy holder unless they "caused or permitted the use"

If it was otherwise then there would be a right of recovery against you if someone stole your car and your insurer had to pay out under s151 (2)(b) for damage the thieves did whilst driving your car.

If the insurer tried to go beyond RTA and use the term in the policy to enable recovery from the policyholder in the absence of wrong doing I'd be sure the FOS would toss it as unfair

thenudeone

SimonSays wrote: »

As for wanting to drive the vehicle is not an acceptable interest for anything than a cover note.

Rubbish.

What do you think these companies are offering:
http://www.aviva.co.uk/short-term-car-insurance/
http://www.wearemarmalade.co.uk/learner-driver-insurance
amongst many others.

Wanting to drive someone else's car with their permission creates an insurable interest, because a) you are legally obliged to be covered and b) you are legally liable if you injure someone or damage their property through your fault; which is exactly why it is perfectly acceptable to offer and buy such a policy

SimonSays

Its not rubbish. If you read what I said fully before jumping on it You'll see I acknowledge temporary insurance, But a full policy requires an insurable interest...