Will car insurance go up if I stop driving for a short time?

DullGreyGuy

Sea_Shell said:

I wonder if the widespread charging of cancellation fees is driving instances where people have been caught out?

Plus the increase in uninsured drivers generally.

Rather than anything fundamentally changing in the legislation?

Even having worked in the industry, it's not something I'd ever come across, so must have been pretty rare.

Client's used to sell cars, and keep their policies running all the time.  Usually with an eye to buying another one shortly.

Widespread fees were in part a response to negative selection, if you are the only one not charging fees then the guy thats had their car impounded for no insurance buys from you, uses the certificate to get their car out and then cancels the policy.

Uninsured drivers certainly went down from 1991 levels, in part helpde by auto-renewal for those forgetful types who inadvertently didnt renew. I've not seen any recent stats to show its gone back up (not doubting it, just not seen it).

It was intended that the continuous insurance regulations would continue to drive the numbers down given the DVLA could easily see vehicles that were uninsured and issue letters/fines etc. However the problem with that is that if the person has sold the vehicle and not cancelled it then we return to an insured vehicle but uninsured driver which the DVLA system cannot identify. 

The MIB talks of an annual "big push" by police on uninsured drivers but it anecdotally feels like they are much less interest in insurance these days now that a computer can tell if the vehicle is insured.

As long as you took the vehicle off the policy then thats fine... its why when you cancelled a policy you used to have to ask for the certificate back. The RTA has other circumstances where a vehicle insurer may be required to payout despite there being no cover under the terms of the policy. 

HillStreetBlues

On further reading on an "unknown driver" and there is case law

There was a court case on this issue
Cameron (Respondent) v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd (Appellant)
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2019/6.html


Cameron took the car insurers to court claiming they should pay out as they had insured the car (but not the person driving)
The insurers refused to pay out, claiming that the person driving needed to be insured, not just the car and the person driving was unknown.

Cameron lost but took the case to the appeals court

The appeal court ruled (2017) in Cameron favour, stating that the insurer of the car should pay out, in the case of a unknown driver

So this ruling mean that insurers were libel for costs of a RTA  even in the case of a unknown driver, as they had insured the car.



But the case went to the Supreme Court (2019) as insurers appealed.

The Supreme court ruled that the insurer wasn't libel as  you can not sue an "unknown persons" .



So if your car is stolen by a "unknown person" then neither you or the insurer is libel,  the only one that would  libel is the unknown driver.

And as DullGreyGuy  states if the thief is known then they would have to go after them,  not a persons insurance.


So after reading that, I can't see how if car is stolen, you or insures will be libel if the thief is either known or unknown.




Now if you know the driver and gave permission to drive, that would be a different issue, but my question was about a stolen car.

DullGreyGuy

HillStreetBlues said:

On further reading on an "unknown driver" and there is case law

There was a court case on this issue
Cameron (Respondent) v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd (Appellant)
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2019/6.html


Cameron took the car insurers to court claiming they should pay out as they had insured the car (but not the person driving)
The insurers refused to pay out, claiming that the person driving needed to be insured, not just the car and the person driving was unknown.

Cameron lost but took the case to the appeals court

The appeal court ruled (2017) in Cameron favour, stating that the insurer of the car should pay out, in the case of a unknown driver

So this ruling mean that insurers were libel for costs of a RTA  even in the case of a unknown driver, as they had insured the car.



But the case went to the Supreme Court (2019) as insurers appealed.

The Supreme court ruled that the insurer wasn't libel as  you can not sue an "unknown persons" .



So if your car is stolen by a "unknown person" then neither you or the insurer is libel,  the only one that would  libel is the unknown driver.

And as DullGreyGuy  states if the thief is known then they would have to go after them,  not a persons insurance.


So after reading that, I can't see how if car is stolen, you or insures will be libel if the thief is either known or unknown.




Now if you know the driver and gave permission to drive, that would be a different issue, but my question was about a stolen car.

S151 of the RTA technically requires there to be a judgement against the driver to force the insurer to act under the section. By default therefore if the driver is unidentified there is a big problem for the TP as you cant obtain against an unknown person.

The reality, as mentioned, is that not many thieves have £80,000 laying about to pay a claim off and hence the insurer, when the thief is identified, steps up and pays the TP and then has a right of recovery but often fails to make a recovery. 

By failing to advise your insurers that you've sold the vehicle and not cancelling the policy you have already been complicit it allowing an unorthorised driver (the buyer) to use the vehicle. I think there is a question to be asked as to if that happens and the car is then subsequently stolen if the insurer can argue that you were still complicit as had you cancelled the insurance then they wouldnt have been liable.  Its not a case I've ever dealt with so never gone for legal advice on it. I'd certainly be more hopeful that a policyholder has the means to repay our monies, even if thats done via a charge against their home and a long wait until they decide to sell.

Of cause here we are simply talking about the RTA legislation, many Motor policies also have their own clauses about recovery of outlay if operating outside of the terms of the policy adding a contractual right of recovery on top of the statutory one. 

Not sure what you think your insurer may publish about you @hillstreetblues to make them libel  

Aretnap

HillStreetBlues said:

So if your car is stolen by a "unknown person" then neither you or the insurer is libel,  the only one that would  libel is the unknown driver.

The insurer still quite likely ends up paying where the driver is unknown, because in that case the victim can make a MIB claim, assuming he doesn't have insurance of his own which would cover his losses. And under Article 75 of the MIB agreement if the car in question has a live policy on it, the insurer of the car has to pay any claim on the MIB's behalf. The MIB itself only pays out of central funds if the vehicle as well as the driver is untraceable, or if it has no insurance on it whatsoever.

D924

I have personally noticed that there is a massive reduction in premiums when I say I have owned my car for more than two years, compared to less than two years. All else being equal.

Result is I will now never buy another car, to save insurance money.

sevenhills

The first year that you insure a different car, the insurance premium is likely to be higher.