Claim dispute

born_again

Aretnap said:

To the OP: you are likely to get better advice from your own solicitor than you will on here but yes, if neither the insurer nor the MIB will put their hand up then taking one or both to court is going to be the only way to force the issue. 

As well as the option to sue the driver. But while that would be a easier win, getting the payout might not be..

Jenni_D

DB1904 said:

Aretnap said:

Robbo66 said:

No Win No fee only covers your Solicitor costs not the solicitor costs of the other parties if they win and costs are awarded 

In most cases a no win no fee arrangement will include an insurance policy that will pay the other side's costs in the event that the claim is unsuccessful. Obviously the OP should clarify that this is in place.

To the OP: you are likely to get better advice from your own solicitor than you will on here but yes, if neither the insurer nor the MIB will put their hand up then taking one or both to court is going to be the only way to force the issue. 

And if the MIB are liable then it will only be for the OP's injuries, they will have an at fault claim for the damage. 

OP doesn't say they were in a vehicle when they were hit. (It is probable, but OP would need to confirm).

KimJongUn88

The MIB are a body of last resort. If there is any insurer which could be on the hook whatsoever, that insurer must deal with the claim whether it is insurer concerned, RTA insurer or Article 75 insurer.

AdrianC

born_again said:

Aretnap said:

To the OP: you are likely to get better advice from your own solicitor than you will on here but yes, if neither the insurer nor the MIB will put their hand up then taking one or both to court is going to be the only way to force the issue. 

As well as the option to sue the driver. But while that would be a easier win, getting the payout might not be..

Yes, the likelihood of getting money from the kind of person who is happy to drive an unregistered, uninsured car while banned is not high.

chrisw

BOWFER said:

Grumpy_chap said:

This is why you should always cancel insurance promptly after selling, or otherwise relinquishing control of, a 

What would have happened if I'd contacted the insurance to tell them I didn't own the first car any more, but didn't have another car to transfer the policy to yet?
Can insurance policies just sit 'dormant' without a car allocated to them?

Yes, this is the correct thing to do. The insurance company will usually suspend the policy until you notify them of the new vehicle.

SoftCentaur

"The issue I have now is the insurance company are saying they aren't liable as the owner had sold it and MIB are saying they aren't liable as the car was insured!"

The car would only be insured IF it was being driven by the previous owner or a named driver on the policy. As the car was being driven by another party, especially a banned one, there would be no cover at the time of the crash. So I think MIB should pick up the tab. 

Car_54

SoftCentaur said:

"The issue I have now is the insurance company are saying they aren't liable as the owner had sold it and MIB are saying they aren't liable as the car was insured!"

The car would only be insured IF it was being driven by the previous owner or a named driver on the policy.

Not necessarily. See Adrian C's and aretnap's posts at the beginning of this thread.

jimjames

BOWFER said:

Grumpy_chap said:

This is why you should always cancel insurance promptly after selling, or otherwise relinquishing control of, a car.

This is interesting.

Can insurance policies just sit 'dormant' without a car allocated to them?

Yes they can, I've done that before

Aretnap

SoftCentaur said:

The car would only be insured IF it was being driven by the previous owner or a named driver on the policy. As the car was being driven by another party, especially a banned one, there would be no cover at the time of the crash. So I think MIB should pick up the tab. 

This is not correct. If there is an active policy covering the car, the Road Traffic Act makes the insurer responsible for settling any successful claim against the driver - regardless of whether the driver is named on the policy or not. Even if the car is being driven by a thief, the insurer that is covering the car is still responsible for settling third party claims.

The MIB usually only pays out of central funds if there is no insurance policy of any sort covering the car.

One of the possible exceptions to this general rule, however, is where the car has been sold. In that case, depending on how the policy is worded, the fact that the policyholder no longer owns the car *might* bring the policy to an automatic end - meaning that there is no insurance policy if any sort covering the car.