Stolen Car crashed into my wall. Claiming from the Car Insurer refused

stukno

Hello All
I would appreciate hearing your thoughts, especially if someone has informed knowledge on this:-

In brief, a stolen car crashed into my garden wall.The driver was arrested for driving under the influance, careless driving etc. 
The Police gave me details of the Car Insurer and policy number

I made contact with the Insurer and notified them of the damage and supplied two estimates.  11 weeks passed with no communication from the insurer and the builder supplying the cheapest estimate of £1745 indicated that he could do the work in August. I accepted his estimate. The repair has been completed and I have settled the invoice

I recieved a letter from the Courts to say that the driver had been convicted and required to pay £1745 to me in compensation.

In an exchange with the Insurance, I mentioned this and they immediately said 'Case Closed' and said I would be compensated by the driver.  They would be paying nothing.

In my view, I feel tht the chances of receiving an compensation are highly unlikely. I feel that the Insurance should settle my claim and I should sign over the compensation order to them.

Any thoughts on the rights and wrongs of this outcome?

molerat

You should have claimed on your home insurance or through the MIB uninsured driver compensation scheme and let them chase the miscreant for the money, the vehicle insurers are not liable to you as the vehicle was being driven outside the policy conditions by an uninsured driver without the owner's consent.  Since the courts has now apportioned blame and issued a compensation order I doubt either of those options are now open to you.

Grumpy_chap

Is the motor policy liable under RTA cover?

flaneurs_lobster

Who informed the court of the cost of the repair? Can't be coincidence that the compensation order was for exactly the same amount.

stukno

My thanks to those who have responded.  The Courts were informed by the Police prior to the Court case.  It was/is my contention that the damage is all part and parcel of the theft of the car.  I have been informed that the MIB would refer back to the Insurance which covers the car and that they are more involved in injury claims not damage only.

One might think that the award of compensation is a good outcome but there's no getting blood out of a stone.

mta999

you could try small claims againt the driver - it won't cost much. Sounds like the driver doesn't have any assets but you never know and anyway they will have a CCJ against them.

Grey_Critic

You claim from your Home Insurer who will in turn claim from the Drivers Insurer unless you do not have Home Insurance. 

MyRealNameToo

Grey_Critic said:

You claim from your Home Insurer who will in turn claim from the Drivers Insurer unless you do not have Home Insurance. 

The driver was in a stolen car, Driving Other Cars requires the owner's consent 

Grumpy_chap said:

Is the motor policy liable under RTA cover?

Given the driver has been identified then yes however RTA liability technically kicks in after there is a unsatisfied judgement against the driver. Most insurers payout before this to avoid adding the cost of court to the claim but some require the full process to be followed presumably in the hope that some cases drop away and this in the round offsets the higher costs for those that do litigate. 

stukno said:

In an exchange with the Insurance, I mentioned this and they immediately said 'Case Closed' and said I would be compensated by the driver.  They would be paying nothing.

In my view, I feel tht the chances of receiving an compensation are highly unlikely. I feel that the Insurance should settle my claim and I should sign over the compensation order to them.

Any thoughts on the rights and wrongs of this outcome?

You need to make sure you are dealing with the right part of the third party insurer, in most cases this will not be the team that answers the phone if you call the claims line telephone number on their website. 

To them you need to point out that the case is still unsatisfied and therefore you are looking to them as the RTA Insurers of the vehicle to indemnify you for your losses. 

Renfrewman

MyRealNameToo said:

Grey_Critic said:

You claim from your Home Insurer who will in turn claim from the Drivers Insurer unless you do not have Home Insurance. 

The driver was in a stolen car, Driving Other Cars requires the owner's consent 

Grumpy_chap said:

Is the motor policy liable under RTA cover?

Given the driver has been identified then yes however RTA liability technically kicks in after there is a unsatisfied judgement against the driver. Most insurers payout before this to avoid adding the cost of court to the claim but some require the full process to be followed presumably in the hope that some cases drop away and this in the round offsets the higher costs for those that do litigate. 

stukno said:

In an exchange with the Insurance, I mentioned this and they immediately said 'Case Closed' and said I would be compensated by the driver.  They would be paying nothing.

In my view, I feel tht the chances of receiving an compensation are highly unlikely. I feel that the Insurance should settle my claim and I should sign over the compensation order to them.

Any thoughts on the rights and wrongs of this outcome?

You need to make sure you are dealing with the right part of the third party insurer, in most cases this will not be the team that answers the phone if you call the claims line telephone number on their website. 

To them you need to point out that the case is still unsatisfied and therefore you are looking to them as the RTA Insurers of the vehicle to indemnify you for your losses. 

Car Insurance will cover damage caused by the driver of a stolen car.

MyRealNameToo

Renfrewman said:

MyRealNameToo said:

Grey_Critic said:

You claim from your Home Insurer who will in turn claim from the Drivers Insurer unless you do not have Home Insurance. 

The driver was in a stolen car, Driving Other Cars requires the owner's consent 

Grumpy_chap said:

Is the motor policy liable under RTA cover?

Given the driver has been identified then yes however RTA liability technically kicks in after there is a unsatisfied judgement against the driver. Most insurers payout before this to avoid adding the cost of court to the claim but some require the full process to be followed presumably in the hope that some cases drop away and this in the round offsets the higher costs for those that do litigate. 

stukno said:

In an exchange with the Insurance, I mentioned this and they immediately said 'Case Closed' and said I would be compensated by the driver.  They would be paying nothing.

In my view, I feel tht the chances of receiving an compensation are highly unlikely. I feel that the Insurance should settle my claim and I should sign over the compensation order to them.

Any thoughts on the rights and wrongs of this outcome?

You need to make sure you are dealing with the right part of the third party insurer, in most cases this will not be the team that answers the phone if you call the claims line telephone number on their website. 

To them you need to point out that the case is still unsatisfied and therefore you are looking to them as the RTA Insurers of the vehicle to indemnify you for your losses. 

Car Insurance will cover damage caused by the driver of a stolen car.

They arent legally obliged to if the driver is unidentified

Okell

MyRealNameToo said:

Grey_Critic said:

You claim from your Home Insurer who will in turn claim from the Drivers Insurer unless you do not have Home Insurance. 

The driver was in a stolen car, Driving Other Cars requires the owner's consent 

I think(?) what @Grey_Critic meant is that the OP should claim off his own insurance and then it's his insurer's problem - not the OP's - to chase the driver