No registered keeper...who pays damages?

Sonnyru

Hi everyone thank you so much for your advice, I was feeling a bit hopeless this afternoon but am a bit more positive now.

Yes the £500 was our savings to treat the little !!!8216;uns which we had to spend repairing the fence! Just after the accident I checked the DVLA website and the vehicle came up as taxed and MOT!!!8217;d unfortunately now (that he!!!8217;s had the opportunity to make up a sale presumably) when you search the reg on the DVLA website it comes up as not found so looks like he!!!8217;s sent all the forms off etc.

I will check out RTA 51 2b (if I can try and understand it!) any othe advice to help my cause would be much appreciated! I!!!8217;d really love justice to be done

debtdebt

foxy-stoat wrote: »

RTA 151 2) b says different......

Although not in plain english !

Then read 152 which gives exceptions to 151.

dacouch

tastyhog wrote: »

it matters not if he sold the car, there was a live insurance policy on the car so you claim off of that. who was driving doesn't matter, for the purpose of the road traffic act there was 3rd party cover in place.

what the insurance company does is up to them, whether they pursue the policy holder for reimbursement, track down the 'new' owner et etc if they claim to have sold the car and left a policy on it but you are legally able to claim off that policy.

you don't have to find the 'owner' all you need is an active policy that is on the car to make a claim from it.

it doesn't matter if a sale was made or if the sale was before the accident, all you need to concern yourself with is that there is a policy any policy on the car at the time of the accident.

put in a claim with the insurance company that was on the car, if they refuse to settle file a claim in the small claims court, or you can get a no win no fee type outfit to do it for you.

foxy-stoat wrote: »

As stated, am long as the insurance was in force at the time of the incident then they will pay out. Make sure you buy the kiddies something nice with the £500 when you get paid out.

That is not how the Road Traffic Act works.

The Insurer is liable for the accident if the driver is "Identified" which by the sounds of it they were not as they drove off and the RK says they "sold" the vehicle.

If this is the case, the vehicle Insurer might pay the claim as it is relatively low to save potential admin costs or they may refuse the claim as they are not liable under the Road Traffic Act (Although they may be liable under MIB)

tastyhog

dacouch wrote: »

That is not how the Road Traffic Act works.

The Insurer is liable for the accident if the driver is "Identified" which by the sounds of it they were not as they drove off and the RK says they "sold" the vehicle.

If this is the case, the vehicle Insurer might pay the claim as it is relatively low to save potential admin costs or they may refuse the claim as they are not liable under the Road Traffic Act (Although they may be liable under MIB)

No, the insurer is liable because there's a valid policy on the car, regardless of who was driving there was a live policy giving 3rd party cover at the time of the incident.

if the driver can't be found for whatever reason or they don't have insurance, any policy on the car that is valid, i'e hasn't been cancelled before the event can be used to ensure the innocent 3rd party can make a valid claim for losses.

whether the insurer pursues the new 'owner', the policy holder or any other 3rd party is of no concern to the op, there is a valid policy on the car that can be claimed from.

dacouch

tastyhog wrote: »

No, the insurer is liable because there's a valid policy on the car, regardless of who was driving there was a live policy giving 3rd party cover at the time of the incident.

if the driver can't be found for whatever reason or they don't have insurance, any policy on the car that is valid, i'e hasn't been cancelled before the event can be used to ensure the innocent 3rd party can make a valid claim for losses.

whether the insurer pursues the new 'owner', the policy holder or any other 3rd party is of no concern to the op, there is a valid policy on the car that can be claimed from.

You do not understand how the Road Traffic Act works.

I will give you a clue, read RTA 151 (2) A and B

151 B is the relevant part here.

For the word "Judgement" substitute the word "Identified" for the way an Insurer will interpret 151 (2) B

The Insurer may be liable, but not under the RTA for the OP's loss, as it is not a RTA liability it may fall to the MIB

The "Famous" non cancelled motorbike policy claim that is often sited as evidence that you are liable for accidents on your vehicle if you sell it and do not cancel the policy is being litigated by a contributer on MSE. The last time I discussed it with him it was still not settled after 3+ years.

Many Insurers purposely state in their policy that all cover ceases on the sale of a vehicle as a result of the motorbike case as it gives the Insurer a get out of jail card for RTA liability (But not necessarily MIB liability).

The Deregulation Act has clouded the waters slightly if the MID was not updated but it does not affect RTA liability in these circumstances.

I assume you are aware that RTA 151 2 b also means if your car is stolen and the thief causes damages to third parties property. Then if they are identified the Insurer is liable but if they are not identified the Insurer is not liable

dacouch

tastyhog wrote: »

No, the insurer is liable because there's a valid policy on the car, regardless of who was driving there was a live policy giving 3rd party cover at the time of the incident.

if the driver can't be found for whatever reason or they don't have insurance, any policy on the car that is valid, i'e hasn't been cancelled before the event can be used to ensure the innocent 3rd party can make a valid claim for losses.

whether the insurer pursues the new 'owner', the policy holder or any other 3rd party is of no concern to the op, there is a valid policy on the car that can be claimed from.

You do not understand how the Road Traffic Act works.

I will give you a clue, read RTA 151 (2) A and B

151 B is the relevant part here.

For the word "Judgement" substitute the word "Identified" for the way an Insurer will interpret 151 (2) B

The Insurer may be liable, but not under the RTA for the OP's loss, as it is not a RTA liability it may fall to the MIB

The "Famous" non cancelled motorbike policy claim that is often sited as evidence that you are liable for accidents on your vehicle if you sell it and do not cancel the policy is being litigated by a contributer on MSE. The last time I discussed it with him it was still not settled after 3+ years.

Many Insurers purposely state in their policy that all cover ceases on the sale of a vehicle as a result of the motorbike case as it gives the Insurer a get out of jail card for RTA liability (But not necessarily MIB liability).

The Deregulation Act has clouded the waters slightly if the MID was not updated but it does not affect RTA liability in these circumstances.

I assume you are aware that RTA 151 2 b also means if your car is stolen and the thief causes damages to third parties property. Then if they are identified the Insurer is liable but if they are not identified the Insurer is not liable