Boring Insurance Question v5.32.3.2
Discussion
I've sold my car.
I went to the insurance provider's portal and attempted to cancel- - £50 fee to cancel.
As I've only 1 month left on the policy and my monthly payment is £25 I'm going to let the policy run its course.
The new insurance company only want to see proof of no claims in the event of a claim.
Is there any disadvantage to me in doing this?
Cheers
I went to the insurance provider's portal and attempted to cancel- - £50 fee to cancel.
As I've only 1 month left on the policy and my monthly payment is £25 I'm going to let the policy run its course.
The new insurance company only want to see proof of no claims in the event of a claim.
Is there any disadvantage to me in doing this?
Cheers
Mahoolah said:
I've sold my car.
I went to the insurance provider's portal and attempted to cancel- - £50 fee to cancel.
As I've only 1 month left on the policy and my monthly payment is £25 I'm going to let the policy run its course.
The new insurance company only want to see proof of no claims in the event of a claim.
Is there any disadvantage to me in doing this?
Cheers
The new owner doesn't insure it and crashes into a bus full on nuns. I went to the insurance provider's portal and attempted to cancel- - £50 fee to cancel.
As I've only 1 month left on the policy and my monthly payment is £25 I'm going to let the policy run its course.
The new insurance company only want to see proof of no claims in the event of a claim.
Is there any disadvantage to me in doing this?
Cheers
id advise against that.
recently a guy sold his motorbike, let his insurance continue. the scroat that bought the bike didn't insure it, crashed it, pretty sure he died. then the original owner is being sort after for all insurance costs, even though he wasn't riding/no longer owned it.
http://www.visordown.com/motorcycle-news--general-...
recently a guy sold his motorbike, let his insurance continue. the scroat that bought the bike didn't insure it, crashed it, pretty sure he died. then the original owner is being sort after for all insurance costs, even though he wasn't riding/no longer owned it.
http://www.visordown.com/motorcycle-news--general-...
As there is no insurable interest (ie. you no longer own it) surely the insurance is void anyway. I would not think that allowing it to lapse will be a problem. The insurance company have some neck charging for cancellation (in effect a cessation of their financial responsibilities) anyway.
Pip
Pip
Isn't this the time for old fashioned pen and paper advising the insurance company that you have sold and no longer own said vehicle and that therefore wish to cancel the policy wef today (or whenever). They would then have to send you an invoice if there were a cancellation fee (unlikely I think) and you have made appropriate notification in the event of a mishap with the new owner. Too much reliance on electronic communication sometimes IMHO.
Pip1968 said:
As there is no insurable interest (ie. you no longer own it) surely the insurance is void anyway. I would not think that allowing it to lapse will be a problem. The insurance company have some neck charging for cancellation (in effect a cessation of their financial responsibilities) anyway.
Pip
As above, whilst the own damage part is void the Insurer is still carrying the compulsory RTA requirement risk (in rare circumstances)Pip
Edited by Jimmyarm on Thursday 27th November 19:25
As long as you can prove a genuine transfer of ownership, PRIOR to any claim made by a third party on the policy, then there is no claim to be made against the insurer. The difficulty is when you don't send of the V5c immediately, and or don't obtain some sort of written commitment that the vehicle was sold at x time on y date. Ie you put the v5c in the post, and the guy crashes on the way home, and then doesnt appear ever again to give any evidence that the vehicle was sold to him, and you, having failed yet to cash cheque/pay in cash cant show the time/date of transfer and the DVLA remain oblivious. The cancellation of the policy is often considered additional proof of transfer of interest in the vehicle.
I've certainly never had a claim where I could prove a transfer of ownership prior to collision, going against me as Article 75 insurer, RTA, or contractual insurer. It's one for the MIB.
Of course, I need to point out that ownership and being the registered keeper are not the same, the V5c only goes to provide part, but compelling evidence of the ownership change - ie you can change a registered keeper without changing ownership.
The rules are from a bystanders point of view, complicated. An uninsured driver is not always one for whom RTA insurance cover doesnt apply. For example, an undisclosed but identified driver, where there is a policy in place, such us a stolen vehicle where the thief is apprehended, or a friend/family member not on the policy of a person properly insured, is considered to simply be an undisclosed additional driver, whereas the first example of the OP, there can't be any additional drivers when the vehicle doesn't belong to someone who had access to the keys or couldnt have been put onto the policy. Someone with no interest in the vehicle cant add someone else with no interest. Basically, in the event of a stolen vehicle, or one where someone unauthorised borrows it, they still have an interest, but when they've disposed of it, and received a payment which can be evidenced, they dont.
I've certainly never had a claim where I could prove a transfer of ownership prior to collision, going against me as Article 75 insurer, RTA, or contractual insurer. It's one for the MIB.
Of course, I need to point out that ownership and being the registered keeper are not the same, the V5c only goes to provide part, but compelling evidence of the ownership change - ie you can change a registered keeper without changing ownership.
The rules are from a bystanders point of view, complicated. An uninsured driver is not always one for whom RTA insurance cover doesnt apply. For example, an undisclosed but identified driver, where there is a policy in place, such us a stolen vehicle where the thief is apprehended, or a friend/family member not on the policy of a person properly insured, is considered to simply be an undisclosed additional driver, whereas the first example of the OP, there can't be any additional drivers when the vehicle doesn't belong to someone who had access to the keys or couldnt have been put onto the policy. Someone with no interest in the vehicle cant add someone else with no interest. Basically, in the event of a stolen vehicle, or one where someone unauthorised borrows it, they still have an interest, but when they've disposed of it, and received a payment which can be evidenced, they dont.
Jimmyarm said:
Pip1968 said:
As there is no insurable interest (ie. you no longer own it) surely the insurance is void anyway. I would not think that allowing it to lapse will be a problem. The insurance company have some neck charging for cancellation (in effect a cessation of their financial responsibilities) anyway.
Pip
As above, whilst the own damage part is void the Insurer is still carrying the compulsory RTA requirement risk (in rare circumstances)Pip
Edited by Jimmyarm on Thursday 27th November 19:25
Blue Oval84 said:
I don't think that's right, see the link to Visordown.
I don't wish to sound snotty, but given that the "advice" was from MCE Edwards, who are only a broker, and who's "claim" staff I can't publically comment on, but know of well, and the headline is "may" rather than will, I suspect neither the full story has been reported, the full facts not explained, and that it's total b
ks, actually. Given that MCE won't be dealing with the claim anyway, tells you everything. It's probably a story generated just to generate a shock headline. The issue is clearly the dead biker can't give evidence that he bought the bike, the seller probably cant prove a transfer of ownership, and so if someone (the victim) says "you didn't sell it, or you'd have a receipt, or a cash payment deposit slip, or some other bank statement entry, you've just said that to get out of your obligations" theres nothing to disprove it.
Oh, and after posting the first reply here, I looked at the "comments" below the visordown story, and it seems everyone agrees with my point of view, that the guy in the story had been badly advised and as long as transfer of ownership was proved, theres no interest. See replies 3, 5 and 7.
Edited by Jujuuk68 on Thursday 27th November 21:56
Yeah but this had it's own thread a while back and I'm pretty sure that our resident tame legal and insurance bods confirmed that the risk was very real.
Could be remembering it incorrectly and CBA to Google for it to be honest, just pointing out that I would be very cautious of assuming that it can't happen!
Could be remembering it incorrectly and CBA to Google for it to be honest, just pointing out that I would be very cautious of assuming that it can't happen!
Blue Oval84 said:
Jujuuk68 said:
As long as you can prove a genuine transfer of ownership, PRIOR to any claim made by a third party on the policy, then there is no claim to be made against the insurer.
I don't think that's right, see the link to Visordown.Our resident (now resigned, sadly)expert at the time, (let us call him aloonywithanR1) reckoned that there was not a cats chance in hell that the original insured could be held responsible.
750turbo said:
We had a thread on this a while back from memory.
Our resident (now resigned, sadly)expert at the time, (let us call him aloonywithanR1) reckoned that there was not a cats chance in hell that the original insured could be held responsible.
Fair enough, obviously remembering that thread incorrectly, was convinced he'd said it could happen!Our resident (now resigned, sadly)expert at the time, (let us call him aloonywithanR1) reckoned that there was not a cats chance in hell that the original insured could be held responsible.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff