Hit and run, third party who's trader claiming vehicle was sold?

Nodding_Donkey

I'm insured with Tradex and while this doesn't help the OP I do know that although any new additions show on the MID virtually instantly it can take 24 hours or so for any cars you take off to actually show as uninsured. Whether this is Tradex being slow to take them off or a glitch in the MID I don't know but it could explain why a car that had been sold was still showing.

dacouch

http://insurance.dwf.law/news-updates/2015/06/the-deregulation-act-removes-the-red-tape-but-not-the-need-for-careful-consideration/

Clowpow

Thanks for the responses everyone, much appreciated, also thanks to that link above, I may stand a good chance of getting the third party insurers just coughing up judging by the change of the Deregulation Act of cancelled policies?

It follows that insurers will no longer be required to secure the return of the Certificate or issue proceedings in respect of the failure to surrender the Certificate, to escape their statutory obligation under the compulsory motor insurance regime. Rather, provided the insurer has effectively cancelled the policy in accordance with the policy terms, the insurer will escape its RTA liability for accidents arising after the cancellation (remaining contractually liable for those accidents prior to the cancellation).

I need to find out exactly when the policy holder sold this car and if it was sold many days or weeks ago, why was it that it was still showing as insured on the MID at the time of incident then 24 hours later uninsured. If the policy holder forgot to cancel the policy on the car or the insurers forgot to update the MID in a reasonable time frame, then either one should be held liable.

After the 30 June 2015, insurers will escape:

RTA liability for future accidents following cancellation, provided that cancellation occurred prior to the accident and in accordance with the policy terms; and

Article 75 liability for future accidents following cancellation, provided that prior to the accident the policy has been cancelled in accordance with the policy terms AND also the MID record has been correctly updated in accordance with the MIB’s guidelines.

Insurers will still remain contractually liable for accidents happening prior to the cancellation and in respect of Article 75, accidents happening prior to the MID being updated appropriately. Equally, if the cancellation is not in accordance with the policy terms or the MID is not updated in accordance with the MIB’s guidelines, then insurers may find themselves unable to escape their liabilities.

The Deregulation Act applies to cancellations only and has no impact upon policies which have been avoided for misrepresentation or non-disclosure. In respect of avoided policies, the insurer will still be required to obtain a Declaration from the court to escape its RTA and/or Article 75 liabilities.

Section 9 provides insurers with a more straightforward sequence of processes that need to be followed in order to escape any potential liability following cancellation, though it is essential that insurers carefully consider their own processes to gain the most from the new law:

Following the cancellation of a policy, the insurer needs to ensure that it immediately removes the details of cover from MID. If MID is not updated for 4 – 5 days after cancellation then an insurer may find itself tagged with an Article 75 liability for the period of the time lag.

In instances where the policyholder is given direct access rights to MID, insurers need to ensure that those rights are removed immediately upon the policy being cancelled.

Will quote this to my claim handler tomorrow if they are not aware of it.