what to do?

glitterstar

thank you for your replies.
He took the insurance out where you pay a deposit then pay monthly, only on the second month the insurance company took two months worth of payments out and then said they wouldnt charge him for the 3rd month, he did get his insurance certificate and there was nothing to say he was only insured for one month and they never asked him to send the certificate back. Plus the only time they bothered to contact him properly was after the car was taken away, and that was a letter saying he owed them money? But i would of thought they should of at least gave him some notification that they had cancelled his insurance?

He would of tried getting insured on the car after it had been taken away, but he couldnt get the money together within the 14 days.

anewman

Sounds a little to me like he *was* insured, but later couldn't afford the insurance monthly payments and decided to continue driving uninsured?

glitterstar

yeah he definatly was insured, and the insurance company were meant to take out about £95 a month by direct debit, so maybe they stopped taking the payments but never notified him about it? As he would of never drove the car if he knew that he wasnt insured as he had too much to loose with it as it was his only method of transport to see his kid, and the police always used to pull him over as he is young with a very fast car but most times he always had all his documents with him too prove the car was his and that he was insured and had MOT. Even a couple of weeks before getting his car taken away he was pulled over and he did have his insurance certificate with him, the police radioed through and it came up with no insurance, and he said that he was and told them who he was with and where they were based and they said it was fine, surely the police would of done something then?

iolanthe07

he is young with a very fast car

Then the police have probably done us all a favour.

glitterstar

Just because someone is young and has a fast car doesnt mean they are going to race around in it like most little boy racers out there, infact when he got pulled over before getting his car taken away, it was for his tyres squeaking when going round a tight corner in a car park, they never saw him go round the corner, but tried claiming that he was driving dangerously and that he had done a wheel spin?! (ive sat in the same car park many times and seen people of all different ages and different type cars that have gone round the same corner and there tyres have squeaked!) They made him go on a driving course where the instructors actually told him to try and get a job in the police force driving as they were so impressed with how well he drives!

iolanthe07

Statistically young people, especially men, are far more likely to have serious accidents than anyone else - hence their high insurance premiums. This is an undeniable fact. IMO anyone under 25 should be limited to, say. 50 BHP - much like inexperienced motorcyclists asre limited to less powerful machines.

cyclonebri1

Wig wrote: »

Well maybe one day you or I will have a definitive answer. I am also happy to be corrected, but I would need the law spelled out infront of me before I agree.

I agree Wig, there should be a definative answer but I know for a fact that on every single motor insurance policy I've had over 38 years driving and that probably covers at least 10 different insurers, it has categorically stated that I am only insured in another vehicle if it is ensured by the registered keeper for his/her self, and then only TPFT,

Any insurer/broker give a view???

On the subject of "new" drivers, I feel that the displaying of post learner plates should be made compulsory for at least a year, (just so I can avoid them,):rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Wig

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

I agree Wig, there should be a definative answer but I know for a fact that on every single motor insurance policy I've had over 38 years driving and that probably covers at least 10 different insurers, it has categorically stated that I am only insured in another vehicle if it is ensured by the registered keeper for his/her self, and then only TPFT

A couple of policy books I have lying around
Prudential/Nationwide have the exact same wording, they are both underwritten by Churchill.

Driving other cars
If your certificate says so this policy provides the same cover as 1a above when you are driving any other car as long as it is not a car belonging to you or hired to you.
This cover only applies if
*There is no other insurance in force which covers the same claim
*You have the owners permission
*The car is being driven in UK
*You still have the insured car and it is not damaged beyond economical repair.
What is not covered
*Loss or damage to any other car you drive.

Wig

BTW OP,

I think your claim will be against the insurer when you finally do find that they stopped insuring the policy holder without notifying him.

The police were allowed to take the vehicle. What did the police say when he showed them his certificate of insurance? Anyway, if the insurer was to blame then you should recover all losses from them. Submit your case to them and wait for their refusal then ask the Financial Ombudsman service to look at it (it's free and alledgedly independent).

mrbadexample

glitterstar wrote: »

Another thing is that the police officer told my friend he would probably have to go to court and pay a fine plus get 3 points on his licence due to driving without insurance -

This is one thing that's definitely incorrect. Minimum points for no insurance is 5 - he could get 8.