Smart Car Stolen

jk0

I bought my gf a 2017 Smart forfour back in October, and she has to park it on the street in East London. She was surprised to be phoned by the police last week to ask if she'd been involved in an accident. She hadn't, but the car had. It had smashed into a parked car, and the young driver ran off. She went over to investigate and the owner of the other car confirmed it was not her. The police have towed the Smart car away, and it looks to be a write-off.

The problem is that her insurers don't believe she was not in on it. They say they won't pay out, unless the police charge someone.

Presumably it would be impossible to start the engine without the correct key, wouldn't it? It's not one of these keys that you can clone electronically from outside the house, as it requires to be inserted in the car to start it. The door & steering lock barrels are undamaged, so it looks like the thief had a key. GF only received one key when she got it from a garage, so I can only imagine the previous owner('s  son) must still have a key.

Any thoughts?

Grumpy_chap

Was it a private purchase?
Did you buy locally?

jk0

Grumpy_chap said:

Was it a private purchase?
Did you buy locally?

No. It was from a garage quite some distance away. I've suggested gf look up previous owner to see if they maybe live nearby.

Grumpy_chap

Even if the previous owner's son had the second key, the likelihood of him finding the car that was purchased from a garage some distance away seems rather remote.

How do you even know the previous owner has a son?

jk0

Grumpy_chap said:

Even if the previous owner's son had the second key, the likelihood of him finding the car that was purchased from a garage some distance away seems rather remote.

How do you even know the previous owner has a son?

I know. But I'm grappling for any alternative explanation.

Grumpy_chap

It's probably as well to discount the previous owner('s son) having the key and happening to stumble across the car and having ill-intent.  Most people are actually honest.

Did the advert or sales paperwork say only one key?  Can the supplying dealer say only one key?  If you can get evidence that you / your GF only ever had one key, which you still have, and the driver of the other car / Police are satisfied it was not you / your GF driving, then get the Police report as well and that should be enough to challenge the insurance company.

It is not surprising the the insurance company put some hurdles in the way if there is a possibility of fraudulent claim.

parking_question_chap

Why does it matter who was driving the car?

Unless she only has TPF and T insurance?

AdrianC

parking_question_chap said:

Why does it matter who was driving the car?

Unless she only has TPF and T insurance?

Did you read the post?
Because the insurers think she crashed it and is fraudulently claiming it was stolen, and are refusing to pay out...

This is one for the ombudsman.

facade

AdrianC said:

parking_question_chap said:

Why does it matter who was driving the car?

Unless she only has TPF and T insurance?

Did you read the post?
Because the insurers think she crashed it and is fraudulently claiming it was stolen, and are refusing to pay out...

This is one for the ombudsman.

I suspect they think she allowed a driver not covered by her insurance to use it and ultimately crash it, and is claiming it was stolen as witnesses can state she wasn't the driver.

oh_really

facade said:

I suspect they think she allowed a driver not covered by her insurance to use it and ultimately crash it, and is claiming it was stolen as witnesses can state she wasn't the driver.

If the insurer suspects this surely they should put their case for, to their insured. They could simply be claiming customer colusion whenever it suits their position without having evidence.

jk0

oh_really said:

facade said:

I suspect they think she allowed a driver not covered by her insurance to use it and ultimately crash it, and is claiming it was stolen as witnesses can state she wasn't the driver.

If the insurer suspects this surely they should put their case for, to their insured. They could simply be claiming customer colusion whenever it suits their position without having evidence.

I think this is what they are implying, as we can't understand how the car was driven.