Car insurance claim help

nolaface

Hi,

I am unsure whether this is the correct forum but here it goes...

Back in May 2019 I was burgled whilst in bed and had my car keys and car stolen. As soon as I realised this I reported it to the police. I gave a statement to the officer and received a CRN.
I contacted my insurance company (Debenhams) to notify them of the theft but due to the low value of the vehicle I didn’t make a claim as it wasn’t worth the excess and I didn’t want to lose my NCD for a couple of hundred pounds.

I was informed by the police that due to lack of evidence the people responsible would not be prosecuted as they couldn’t prove which of the 3 people involved did it. My car was recovered by the police and they said they wouldn’t proceed no further.

Since then my car insurance provider said that while my car was stolen it was involved in an accident and the victims were making a personal injury claim against my policy. I can fully empathise with the 3rd party’s as they shouldn’t have to suffer, however I also feel that I am being penalised as I have lost part of my NCD, my premiums have substantially increased and no one was prosecuted for it. I don’t understand why when I wasn’t the one who was driving and I never put a claim against my policy.
My insurer says by law they have to settle the claim as my vehicle was insured by them at the time of the accident. Surely this cannot be right? Can anyone sign post me in the right direction or at least what my rights are as I’m a victim in this aswell? I keep being passed around by my insurance company..

Thankyou for reading and fingers crossed someone can help??

Thanks

Nicola

[Deleted User]

nolaface wrote: »

Surely this cannot be right?

It surely can.

It's fortunate you had kept the vehicle insured, or there would be a claim against you personally.

You would be able to seek recompense from those driving, but only if you knew who they were.

Aylesbury_Duck

nolaface wrote: »

Hi,

I am unsure whether this is the correct forum but here it goes...

Back in May 2019 I was burgled whilst in bed and had my car keys and car stolen. As soon as I realised this I reported it to the police. I gave a statement to the officer and received a CRN.
I contacted my insurance company (Debenhams) to notify them of the theft but due to the low value of the vehicle I didn’t make a claim as it wasn’t worth the excess and I didn’t want to lose my NCD for a couple of hundred pounds.

I was informed by the police that due to lack of evidence the people responsible would not be prosecuted as they couldn’t prove which of the 3 people involved did it. My car was recovered by the police and they said they wouldn’t proceed no further.

Since then my car insurance provider said that while my car was stolen it was involved in an accident and the victims were making a personal injury claim against my policy. I can fully empathise with the 3rd party’s as they shouldn’t have to suffer, however I also feel that I am being penalised as I have lost part of my NCD, my premiums have substantially increased and no one was prosecuted for it. I don’t understand why when I wasn’t the one who was driving and I never put a claim against my policy.
My insurer says by law they have to settle the claim as my vehicle was insured by them at the time of the accident. Surely this cannot be right? Can anyone sign post me in the right direction or at least what my rights are as I’m a victim in this aswell? I keep being passed around by my insurance company..

Thankyou for reading and fingers crossed someone can help??

Thanks

Nicola

It is right. They are obliged to cover the innocent third party's costs. Put yourself in the third party's shoes: From whom should they claim their losses, if not from you?

Unless and until the police can ascertain who was responsible for the accident, you the policyholder are deemed 'at fault'. Effectively the theft and the subsequent accident are part of the same incident. That you chose not to exercise your insurance for the theft does not remove your "liability" for the second part of the incident.

It sucks, but I'm afraid that's the situation.

AdrianC

nolaface wrote: »

I contacted my insurance company (Debenhams) to notify them of the theft but due to the low value of the vehicle I didn’t make a claim as it wasn’t worth the excess and I didn’t want to lose my NCD for a couple of hundred pounds.
...
Since then my car insurance provider said that while my car was stolen it was involved in an accident and the victims were making a personal injury claim against my policy.
...
however I also feel that I am being penalised as I have lost part of my NCD, my premiums have substantially increased and no one was prosecuted for it. I don’t understand why when I wasn’t the one who was driving and I never put a claim against my policy.

The costs of the theft are not just the value of the car.
The costs of the theft include what the car was involved in after being stolen.

And, yes, your insurance is paying for them - as the MIB insurer-of-record, they are legally liable, with no way out. Nor should there be any way out. As you say, innocent people have suffered as a result of the theft of your car, and your insurance is dutybound - legally and morally - to pay them.

Shaun_of_the_Dead

Deleted_User wrote: »

It surely can.

It's fortunate you had kept the vehicle insured, or there would be a claim against you personally.

You would be able to seek recompense from those driving, but only if you knew who they were.

Really, what liability would the OP have?

jimbo6977

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTA_Insurer

The above Wiki is a good place to start.

Car_54

Shaun_of_the_Dead wrote: »

Really, what liability would the OP have?

AIUI the insurer would still be liable (as the last known insurer of the vehicle), but could seek to recover the costs from the OP.

Shaun_of_the_Dead

Car_54 wrote: »

AIUI the insurer would still be liable (as the last known insurer of the vehicle), but could seek to recover the costs from the OP.

How is the owner liable?

Uxb1

Well that the OP would be in any way liable is news to me.

I additionally have always understood that once the Insurance Co was informed the vehicle had been stolen they removed it from their books as "insured for travel on the roads" ASAP.
This was precisely because they could then no longer be held liable when the car was in all likelihood being driven without any due regard for anybody or anything by persons unknown and was crashing into everything. If it remains insured then as stated above the Insurance Co has to pay out to the third parties.
In practice though the wreckage/damage all gets done even before the car's owner let alone the insurance Co finds out about it.

nolaface

Thanks for all your responses.

I guess I was just confused as I thought I had done everything right, it was stolen in the morning I rang the police and reported it that same morning, also made my insurance company aware. The car was involved in accident in the early hours of the next day and police recovered it but couldn’t prove which of the 3 people in the car had actually stolen it.
I was always under the impression that my insurer provided insurance whilst I was driving it, and it has been proven I wasn’t.
They advised me initially that I wouldn’t lose my NCD as I hadn’t made a claim it was just an “incident” I also thought that if the person driving was unidentifiable that the 3rd party claim would be dealt with by the MIB.

Learn something new everyday.

Thanks

Aretnap

It is correct that your insurer is liable to pay out to the victims of the accident. There are a number of measures in place to ensure that the victims of uninsured drivers are not left out of pocket. The (very rough) principle is that the insurer with the closest connection to the car has to cover the costs, unless the car has no insurance at all, in which case the Motor Insurers Bureau pays.

(The measure will be either Section 151 of the Road Traffic Act, if the driver was identified, or Article 75 of the MIB agreement if he wasn't identified. Probably the latter if nobody was charged over the incident - though not necessarily as liability would be determined under the civil standard of proof, which is lower than the criminal standard).

I'm less convinced that your insurer is right to reduce your NCB however. A claim has NOT been made against your policy. Your policy does not cover Johnny Scrote to drive, so it does not cover any damage he might do. You haven't made a claim, either for damage to your own car, or for your own liabilities to other people (which are zero - you were not at fault here). Instead your insurer has been required to pay out under a measure (either s151 or A75) which is independent of the terms of your policy, and is between them and the government (and the MIB). As there has been no claim on your policy, your NCD should be unaffected - unless the terms of the policy specifically allow them to reduce the NCD in these circumstances.


That's the argument I'd be putting to them anyway. I have a feeling I've seen an Ombudsman decision in similar circumstances in which they followed this logic and ordered the customer's NCD to be restored - but the Ombudsman website isn't working very well for me at the moment. Certainly it will cost you nothing to make a formal complaint, and to take your case to the Ombudsman if your insurer doesn't restore your NCD.

nolaface wrote: »

I also thought that if the person driving was unidentifiable that the 3rd party claim would be dealt with by the MIB.

You were right - sort of. It is a MIB claim in those circumstances, dealt with under MIB rules. However under Article 75 the insurer which does actually have a policy on the car deals with the claim on behalf of the MIB, and pays any money due. Only if the car has no insurance whatsoever, or if the car can't be identified either, does the MIB pay out of central funds.