Hit and run, third party who's trader claiming vehicle sold
Discussion
Hi guys, I have been involved in an incident with another car who pulled out on me on a side road and I just want some advice from anyone who knows more about situations like what i'm going through at the moment as it feels like i'm going to explode as it doesn't look good currently!
I am fully comp.
I managed to get a picture of their vehicle registration and the damage to their vehicle before they drove off, police was informed, took a statement was given a reference number.
However the company I am instructing to deal with the claim have stated that the third party's insurers where the vehicle was insured with has stated that their client sold the vehicle prior to the incident and if this is the case - I may have to go through the MID.
I've established the following:
On the night of the incident, the vehicle was insured on the MID, the police on the night said it was insured, my insurers said it was insured.
A day or two after the incident, the vehicle was showing as no longer insured.
When I was contacted by my solicitors, I was told that the third party's insurers that their client had not reported any incident in relation to my vehicle.
This just stinks of trying to pull a fast one where the owner is trying wash his hands of the claim.
My solicitors have asked the third party insurance for an invoice to show vehicle was sold prior to the incident but i'm not optimistic, I mean it's not exactly difficult to write up an invoice showing a sale has taken place, they said they'll investigate any potential invoice that is put forward by the third party but I think I know how this will turn out.
They said because I don't know the name of the driver too this isn't great which I don't understand what difference does it make anyway!
What I don't understand, is the vehicle was shown as insured at the time, regardless if there was a sale at the time which I very much doubt - I've been told trade policy insurance is a bit different to standard motor insurance polices where it will be difficult to claim if the vehicle was sold, but the car was showing as insured so the third party's insurance should pay out and recoup their losses through the policy holder for their negligence of not cancelling their policy prior to the crash, it's just not right!!
I am fully comp.
I managed to get a picture of their vehicle registration and the damage to their vehicle before they drove off, police was informed, took a statement was given a reference number.
However the company I am instructing to deal with the claim have stated that the third party's insurers where the vehicle was insured with has stated that their client sold the vehicle prior to the incident and if this is the case - I may have to go through the MID.
I've established the following:
On the night of the incident, the vehicle was insured on the MID, the police on the night said it was insured, my insurers said it was insured.
A day or two after the incident, the vehicle was showing as no longer insured.
When I was contacted by my solicitors, I was told that the third party's insurers that their client had not reported any incident in relation to my vehicle.
This just stinks of trying to pull a fast one where the owner is trying wash his hands of the claim.
My solicitors have asked the third party insurance for an invoice to show vehicle was sold prior to the incident but i'm not optimistic, I mean it's not exactly difficult to write up an invoice showing a sale has taken place, they said they'll investigate any potential invoice that is put forward by the third party but I think I know how this will turn out.
They said because I don't know the name of the driver too this isn't great which I don't understand what difference does it make anyway!
What I don't understand, is the vehicle was shown as insured at the time, regardless if there was a sale at the time which I very much doubt - I've been told trade policy insurance is a bit different to standard motor insurance polices where it will be difficult to claim if the vehicle was sold, but the car was showing as insured so the third party's insurance should pay out and recoup their losses through the policy holder for their negligence of not cancelling their policy prior to the crash, it's just not right!!
Edited by captainhook on Friday 24th February 10:47
Josho said:
Wha car is it? How old etc?
Some dealers offer drive away insurance and this is the only reason I can think that a dealer would put iton their policy.
You need to find out who was insured and by who.
I wonder if it's a dealers own car and they are claiming it isn't.
Hi, the vehicle was not insured by a dealer i'm 100% sure of this, it was some little ***** that were in the car so it's under like a motor traders policy - the owner of the vehicle must of own a garage/workshop.Some dealers offer drive away insurance and this is the only reason I can think that a dealer would put iton their policy.
You need to find out who was insured and by who.
I wonder if it's a dealers own car and they are claiming it isn't.
it's an old car, Renault on a 04 plate, the insurance/broker is tradex
Well is seems like I know the outcome when my friend sent me this response when why does it matter if I don't know the name of the driver:
"It matters because there are several different schemes to compensate victims of uninsured/untraced drivers, which entitle you to different things depending on which one you can claim on.
If there was an insurance policy of any sort running on the car, and the driver was identified, then the Road Traffic Act requires the car's insurer to pay for damage caused to third partys, whether or not the person driving the car was covered by the policy. So if the trader had sold the car and not cancelled the policy, or even if the car was stolen, you'd be able to claim off the trader's policy - if you knew who the driver was.
However the above does NOT apply if the identity of the driver is unknown - because strictly speaking the insurer doesn't have to pay until you get a court judgement against the driver, and you can't file a court case against an anonymous shadow who disappeared into the night"
This is madness, it's not right, so because I don't know the driver, I can't claim off the third party's insurance, what an absolute farce. I'm not happy having to claim off my own policy, be out of pocket, lose my ncb and suffer from high premiums for an accident which is not my fault and has to be deemed by fault on a technicality of not knowing who the driver of no fault of my own, this scenario must be changed so this doesn't affect innocent drivers.
"My solicitors have asked the third party insurance for an invoice to show vehicle was sold prior to the incident but i'm not optimistic, I mean it's not exactly difficult to write up an invoice showing a sale has taken place, they said they'll investigate any potential invoice that is put forward by the third party but I think I know how this will turn out."
When the dealer sold the car they would have filled out the V5 and sent it off, it will take the DVLA a few days/weeks to update but once thats done the police should have the new keepers details, should match what the dealer has told them ref invoice.
Dealers add and remove vehicles from their policy online so its quite possible they had just sold it and not got round to logging in and removing it from their policy.
Or they could be a bunch of lying chancers and know who was driving the car and are trying cover for them.
When the dealer sold the car they would have filled out the V5 and sent it off, it will take the DVLA a few days/weeks to update but once thats done the police should have the new keepers details, should match what the dealer has told them ref invoice.
Dealers add and remove vehicles from their policy online so its quite possible they had just sold it and not got round to logging in and removing it from their policy.
Or they could be a bunch of lying chancers and know who was driving the car and are trying cover for them.
What we're missing here is there is no need for a car dealer to put it in their insurance.
I buy and sell a few on the side and don't put them on my policy.
I'm covered to drive them and I'm covered for people to have test drives with me in the car.
However my cars are on the traders policy.
I think someone is on an expensive motor traders policy have crashed and are trying to BS their way out of inflated policies.
I think you need to claim off the trade policy but I can't give you any advice on how.
I buy and sell a few on the side and don't put them on my policy.
I'm covered to drive them and I'm covered for people to have test drives with me in the car.
However my cars are on the traders policy.
I think someone is on an expensive motor traders policy have crashed and are trying to BS their way out of inflated policies.
I think you need to claim off the trade policy but I can't give you any advice on how.
captainhook said:
I've been told trade policy insurance is a bit different to standard motor insurance polices where it will be difficult to claim if the vehicle was sold, but the car was showing as insured so the third party's insurance should pay out and recoup their losses through the policy holder for their negligence of not cancelling their policy prior to the crash, it's just not right!!
Traders generally have a requirement to add / remove vehicles to the MID within 14 days of buying / selling them. IIRC the insurers also have 14 days to do the same - ie it could take 28 days
It's simply a guide not a guarantee.
The fact it was removed soon after does seem dodgy - personally I'd go and visit the trader - from experience I can tell you that Insurers / Police / Solicitors don't care about this stuff.
captainhook said:
However the above does NOT apply if the identity of the driver is unknown - because strictly speaking the insurer doesn't have to pay until you get a court judgement against the driver, and you can't file a court case against an anonymous shadow who disappeared into the night"
This is madness, it's not right, so because I don't know the driver, I can't claim off the third party's insurance, what an absolute farce. I'm not happy having to claim off my own policy, be out of pocket, lose my ncb and suffer from high premiums for an accident which is not my fault and has to be deemed by fault on a technicality of not knowing who the driver of no fault of my own, this scenario must be changed so this doesn't affect innocent drivers.
This is exactly what happens if a stolen car crashed into you and the thief isn't caught.This is madness, it's not right, so because I don't know the driver, I can't claim off the third party's insurance, what an absolute farce. I'm not happy having to claim off my own policy, be out of pocket, lose my ncb and suffer from high premiums for an accident which is not my fault and has to be deemed by fault on a technicality of not knowing who the driver of no fault of my own, this scenario must be changed so this doesn't affect innocent drivers.
spookly said:
I'd second the comment about DVLA.
There will only be one of two registered keepers even if it was sold that day. The new registered keeper.... if it ever was sold.... should show up with the DVLA soon.
Trade sale to "Ashraf Abah, 21 The Grove, Bradford" or similarThere will only be one of two registered keepers even if it was sold that day. The new registered keeper.... if it ever was sold.... should show up with the DVLA soon.
The name / address may or may not be real but needless to say they won't have been the driver nor bought the car.
A Trade sale means the dealer / owner keeps the V5 and can sell it later.
V8RX7 said:
Traders generally have a requirement to add / remove vehicles to the MID within 14 days of buying / selling them.
IIRC the insurers also have 14 days to do the same - ie it could take 28 days
It's simply a guide not a guarantee.
The fact it was removed soon after does seem dodgy - personally I'd go and visit the trader - from experience I can tell you that Insurers / Police / Solicitors don't care about this stuff.
14 days is pushing it, you are required to update the MID immediately unless there is a valid reason for them not being added the same dayIIRC the insurers also have 14 days to do the same - ie it could take 28 days
It's simply a guide not a guarantee.
The fact it was removed soon after does seem dodgy - personally I'd go and visit the trader - from experience I can tell you that Insurers / Police / Solicitors don't care about this stuff.
dacouch said:
14 days is pushing it, you are required to update the MID immediately unless there is a valid reason for them not being added the same day
I ensure vehicles are added/removed asap as I would rather not have vehicles on the road showing as not on the MID, even though cover is in place. Easy enough as we amend the MID directly ourselves.Currently have extensive cover in place with Aviva, who recently directed us not to add vehicles to MID that were not being kept permanently! No thanks, we will still update MID regularly ourselves, just as we always have done.
Showing on MID or not, it still all hinges on having a paper Certificate of Motor Insurance!
Check this out from Wiki ;
" The registration number of the vehicle shown on the insurance policy, along with other relevant information including the effective dates of cover are transmitted electronically to the UK's Motor Insurance Database (MID) which exists to help reduce incidents of uninsured driving in the territory. The Police are able to spot-check vehicles that pass within range of automated number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras, that can search the MID instantly. It should be noted, however, that proof of insurance lies entirely with the issue of a Certificate of Motor Insurance, or cover note, by an Authorised Insurer which, to be valid, must have been previously 'delivered' to the insured person in accordance with the Act, and be printed in black ink on white paper. "
MuscleSaloon said:
I ensure vehicles are added/removed asap as I would rather not have vehicles on the road showing as not on the MID, even though cover is in place. Easy enough as we amend the MID directly ourselves.
Currently have extensive cover in place with Aviva, who recently directed us not to add vehicles to MID that were not being kept permanently! No thanks, we will still update MID regularly ourselves, just as we always have done.
Showing on MID or not, it still all hinges on having a paper Certificate of Motor Insurance!
Check this out from Wiki ;
" The registration number of the vehicle shown on the insurance policy, along with other relevant information including the effective dates of cover are transmitted electronically to the UK's Motor Insurance Database (MID) which exists to help reduce incidents of uninsured driving in the territory. The Police are able to spot-check vehicles that pass within range of automated number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras, that can search the MID instantly. It should be noted, however, that proof of insurance lies entirely with the issue of a Certificate of Motor Insurance, or cover note, by an Authorised Insurer which, to be valid, must have been previously 'delivered' to the insured person in accordance with the Act, and be printed in black ink on white paper. "
I recommend you read this...Currently have extensive cover in place with Aviva, who recently directed us not to add vehicles to MID that were not being kept permanently! No thanks, we will still update MID regularly ourselves, just as we always have done.
Showing on MID or not, it still all hinges on having a paper Certificate of Motor Insurance!
Check this out from Wiki ;
" The registration number of the vehicle shown on the insurance policy, along with other relevant information including the effective dates of cover are transmitted electronically to the UK's Motor Insurance Database (MID) which exists to help reduce incidents of uninsured driving in the territory. The Police are able to spot-check vehicles that pass within range of automated number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras, that can search the MID instantly. It should be noted, however, that proof of insurance lies entirely with the issue of a Certificate of Motor Insurance, or cover note, by an Authorised Insurer which, to be valid, must have been previously 'delivered' to the insured person in accordance with the Act, and be printed in black ink on white paper. "
You're right to add non permanent vehicles
https://www.mib.org.uk/media/135974/motor-trade-an...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff