Do I need to declare car theft on insurance renewal?

Iceweasel

I'm afraid Brenda that fairness doesn't come into it.

A mobility car, a company car, a car belonging to someone else - it's all the same.

The car was stolen from you - or if you prefer stolen while you were responsible for it/ in your keeping.

No 'blame' is attached to you - but it was in your care and it got nicked - so the result is that you are now seen as a higher risk that someone who has never had a car stolen from them.

That's how insurance works.

Edit: Why did you put the word 'renewal' in the thread title. As I understand your post you are not renewing a policy but making a first/new proposal.

eddddy

AdrianC wrote: »

Not really that confusing. It's very simple.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uberrima_fides

No long the case for consumer insurance:

The law commission have now announced that the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure & Representations) Act 2012 will come into force on 6th April 2013

....

No longer is a consumer insurance contract a contract of the utmost good faith, but rather consumers are required to take reasonable care when answering the insurers’ questions at renewal and inception.

Link: https://www.keoghs.co.uk/files/Other_Publications/ConsumerInsuranceActArticle_update_-_08_02_13.pdf

arcon5

If the car was owned by the mobility people and money went to them then op made no claim, they did. A loss is less black and white, but I'm struggling to see what loss op has had since it was not his asset which was taken.

facade

If the OP suffered no loss, then when it disappeared the OP would not have needed a replacement.

So if you lend me your car, (insured any driver) and I write it off, you happily claim for the loss, and I don't need mention it to anyone, as my car didn't crash, my car wasn't written off and I didn't lose a penny?


The OP simply explains what happened to the insurance agent at the inception of the policy, and if it makes no difference everybody is happy.

RS2000.

facade wrote: »

If the OP suffered no loss, then when it disappeared the OP would not have needed a replacement.

So if you lend me your car, (insured any driver) and I write it off, you happily claim for the loss, and I don't need mention it to anyone, as my car didn't crash, my car wasn't written off and I didn't lose a penny?


The OP simply explains what happened to the insurance agent at the inception of the policy, and if it makes no difference everybody is happy.

Poor example as you were involved In an accident to write it off.

dacouch

RSA under the Motobility scheme are members of the Claims and Underwriting Exchange (CLUE) where Insurers record details of claims and incidents which will include thefts.

Part of the agreement between you and Motobility (RSA) is that they will check CLUE (and other databases such as MIAFTR) for claims and incidents and also that they will report claims and incidents to CLUE.

George_Michael

RS2000. wrote: »

Poor example as you were involved In an accident to write it off.

And in the case of the OP, they were involved because a vehicle was stolen whilst in their care.
In the example given, the car was written off and in the case of the OP, the car was stolen and never recovered and its value was written off by the insurers.

I can't see any downside in informing the insurance company about the stolen vehicle. As AdrianC stated, if the insurers don't consider the loss relevant then they won't charge extra but if they think it's important then they will charge.

With insurers often using every bit of small print to avoid paying out, it's best to cover your ar5e as much as possible.

facade

RS2000. wrote: »

Poor example as you were involved In an accident to write it off.

OK, if we must:

You lend me two cars.

I park them on a street somewhere.
Some naughty boys set fire to one. Nothing to do with me, I don't have to declare anything to anyone ever.

A lorry drives straight over the other. Nothing to do with me, I don't have to declare anything to anyone ever.

Yet I have gotten a car vandalised and written off, and another one written off in an accident (when I wasn't driving, so it isn't my accident ), because of where I parked them, and the insurance people won't need to know that I am in the habit of parking in unfortunate places?????

(But you will be penalised for being daft enough to lend cars to people who leave them in unfortunate places, which is fair enough I suppose...)

RS2000.

facade wrote: »

OK, if we must:

You lend me two cars.

I park them on a street somewhere.
Some naughty boys set fire to one. Nothing to do with me, I don't have to declare anything to anyone ever.

A lorry drives straight over the other. Nothing to do with me, I don't have to declare anything to anyone ever.

Yet I have gotten a car vandalised and written off, and another one written off in an accident (when I wasn't driving, so it isn't my accident ), because of where I parked them, and the insurance people won't need to know that I am in the habit of parking in unfortunate places?????

(But you will be penalised for being daft enough to lend cars to people who leave them in unfortunate places, which is fair enough I suppose...)

Which is the same as the ops theft if mobility made the claim.

dacouch

arcon5 wrote: »

If the car was owned by the mobility people and money went to them then op made no claim, they did. A loss is less black and white, but I'm struggling to see what loss op has had since it was not his asset which was taken.

The excess the OP contributed towards the theft claim would be a loss to her