Help on insurance issue please.
Discussion
Bought a vehicle insured it a day early the previous owner had an accident on that day I officially took possession of the vehicle the next day which can be proven via the v5. Online vehicle tax application ect.
A month later my insurance contacts me naming the previous owner as the driver of the accident on the day before my ownership. They are saying the only insurance on said vehicle at that time was my policy and not the previous owner I have forwarded my insurance company his details and a copy of my v5 ect. Can they pursue me for a claim even though it was not legally mine till the day after the incident and they know I was not driving. Can they pursue me for costs even though I was not involved? Or will they chase him and charge him for no insurance and legal costs ect?
Any help appreciated, thanks Gary
A month later my insurance contacts me naming the previous owner as the driver of the accident on the day before my ownership. They are saying the only insurance on said vehicle at that time was my policy and not the previous owner I have forwarded my insurance company his details and a copy of my v5 ect. Can they pursue me for a claim even though it was not legally mine till the day after the incident and they know I was not driving. Can they pursue me for costs even though I was not involved? Or will they chase him and charge him for no insurance and legal costs ect?
Any help appreciated, thanks Gary
Tricky one. If there was no other policy in force I wouldn't be surprised if you find yourself on the hook.
What I can't get my head around is what on earth possessed you to insure it before the change of ownership?
I can foresee other issues arising. The guy who was driving may well have been doing so uninsured.
Which might interest the BiB and you might be in trouble for allowing him to do so.
One for the experts methinks.
What I can't get my head around is what on earth possessed you to insure it before the change of ownership?
I can foresee other issues arising. The guy who was driving may well have been doing so uninsured.
Which might interest the BiB and you might be in trouble for allowing him to do so.
One for the experts methinks.
It's not your insurance company who's chasing you, it's the third party (or their insurers) as your policy is the only one in force for that vehicle.
They probably will have to pay out. There's been cases of owners selling a car, not bothering to cancel the insurance because no refund was due, and then being lumbered with a claim.
They probably will have to pay out. There's been cases of owners selling a car, not bothering to cancel the insurance because no refund was due, and then being lumbered with a claim.
CanAm said:
There's been cases of owners selling a car, not bothering to cancel the insurance because no refund was due, and then being lumbered with a claim.
I think that only happens when the MIB, as insurer of last resort, leans on companies to settle so that it doesn’t have to stump up itself.OP - as you went ahead with the purchase, presumably the accident was minor?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
That is not relevant. If the OP has the only extant policy then the OPs insurers are very much on the hook and will pay out. It will also count as a claim for the OP, I would imagine the insurers will suspect fraud/ fronting and this could end up quite messy.nikaiyo2 said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
That is not relevant. If the OP has the only extant policy then the OPs insurers are very much on the hook and will pay out. It will also count as a claim for the OP, I would imagine the insurers will suspect fraud/ fronting and this could end up quite messy.nikaiyo2 said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
That is not relevant. If the OP has the only extant policy then the OPs insurers are very much on the hook and will pay out. It will also count as a claim for the OP,In this case it's the other way around, OP insured it before taking possession and the previous owner crashed it whilst driving uninsured.
But the outcome is the same. OP's insurers will be obligated to pay the tp claim, and if they can't get their money back off the driver (who wasn't covered on the OP's policy), then OP will lose his no claims bonus.
The driver can still be done for driving without insurance, because he was uninsured. Just because OP's policy is legally obligated to pay out doesn't mean driver was insured.
GA22A said:
Bought a vehicle insured it a day early the previous owner had an accident on that day I officially took possession of the vehicle the next day which can be proven via the v5. Online vehicle tax application ect.
A month later my insurance contacts me naming the previous owner as the driver of the accident on the day before my ownership. They are saying the only insurance on said vehicle at that time was my policy and not the previous owner
And? what else if anything did they say.A month later my insurance contacts me naming the previous owner as the driver of the accident on the day before my ownership. They are saying the only insurance on said vehicle at that time was my policy and not the previous owner
Did they say you were negligent due to your bad driving or a claim had been made against you?
Or just what you have said above? Which is just a statement of facts?
kestral said:
Did they say you were negligent due to your bad driving or a claim had been made against you?
It's irrelevant.As Twig said above, if the OP's policy is the only one in place for that vehicle then it's his policy that is claimed on.
Here's an example of a different scenario, but with a similar issue: a policy being in place when it shouldn't have been.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/s...
When you said to the insurer.
I'll be buying the car at about 4pm so I want insurance from the time that the car becomes mine.
Did they say.
We'll put noon down then.
Or did they say
Oh, be careful. Phone us when you buy the car and we will do the transfer then, because oh...your policy would be liable even before you own the car
I suspect that no insurer has ever explained this to any driver. I know that I have added a car to my policy and gone and picked it up after their office waould have closed, so there would be no way of changing over the insurance whilst sitting at the sellers kitchen table.
In which case insurers are failing in thier duty of care. f
k ppi mis-selling this is really a moral issue that insurers and legislators need to solve.
Especially as you can date and time stamp the purchase via the internet as you register it on line.
I'll be buying the car at about 4pm so I want insurance from the time that the car becomes mine.
Did they say.
We'll put noon down then.
Or did they say
Oh, be careful. Phone us when you buy the car and we will do the transfer then, because oh...your policy would be liable even before you own the car
I suspect that no insurer has ever explained this to any driver. I know that I have added a car to my policy and gone and picked it up after their office waould have closed, so there would be no way of changing over the insurance whilst sitting at the sellers kitchen table.
In which case insurers are failing in thier duty of care. f
k ppi mis-selling this is really a moral issue that insurers and legislators need to solve. Especially as you can date and time stamp the purchase via the internet as you register it on line.
Pit Pony said:
I know that I have added a car to my policy and gone and picked it up after their office would have closed, so there would be no way of changing over the insurance whilst sitting at the sellers kitchen table.
When you do a change of car that you are going to pick up in the future, you can phone or contact insurers during office hours and ask them to start it at 9pm, or 7pm Tuesday week, or whenever. Everyone knows this. TwigtheWonderkid said:
When you do a change of car that you are going to pick up in the future, you can phone or contact insurers during office hours and ask them to start it at 9pm, or 7pm Tuesday week, or whenever. Everyone knows this.
And the response is normally 'the time does not matter, we cover both cars for the whole day'. Had this from multiple insurers.TwigtheWonderkid said:
Correct. Usually it happens when people sell a car, don't cancel their policy, and the new owner drives with no insurance. When they crash, the tp gets paid by the only company who had that car as one of theirs on the MID.
In this case it's the other way around, OP insured it before taking possession and the previous owner crashed it whilst driving uninsured.
But the outcome is the same. OP's insurers will be obligated to pay the tp claim, and if they can't get their money back off the driver (who wasn't covered on the OP's policy), then OP will lose his no claims bonus.
The driver can still be done for driving without insurance, because he was uninsured. Just because OP's policy is legally obligated to pay out doesn't mean driver was insured.
ThisIn this case it's the other way around, OP insured it before taking possession and the previous owner crashed it whilst driving uninsured.
But the outcome is the same. OP's insurers will be obligated to pay the tp claim, and if they can't get their money back off the driver (who wasn't covered on the OP's policy), then OP will lose his no claims bonus.
The driver can still be done for driving without insurance, because he was uninsured. Just because OP's policy is legally obligated to pay out doesn't mean driver was insured.
PorkInsider said:
It's irrelevant.
As Twig said above, if the OP's policy is the only one in place for that vehicle then it's his policy that is claimed on.
Here's an example of a different scenario, but with a similar issue: a policy being in place when it shouldn't have been.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/s...
But that is not the point I am making read my post. Where in the OP post does it say he or his insurance is to be claimed on the OP does not say that at all. As Twig said above, if the OP's policy is the only one in place for that vehicle then it's his policy that is claimed on.
Here's an example of a different scenario, but with a similar issue: a policy being in place when it shouldn't have been.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/s...
Other posters have assumed that a claim is being made againts him or his insurance policy. BUT he does not say that.
Also where is the law that states this oddity of not having been involved in a claim in anyway resuts in anyone having a policy becoming liable?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff