Uninsured driver woes
Discussion
I was driven into in early December (third party turned on to a main road from a side road without looking properly). We both pulled over, exchanged some details, took some photos and I left my insurers to deal with it.
I looked up the TP reg, and it showed as insured and taxed.
Liability was in no doubt, and the crash was recorded on dashcam.
In a bid to try and reduce costs, I paid for an MID check, and found out who was insuring the car.
Car was repaired, I had three weeks of hire car (would have been shorter, but it was Christmas).
I then was notified that my insurers had instructed a firm of solicitors to claim back costs, as the TP insurers were dragging their heels. I passed on all the info I had, and left them to deal with it.
Yesterday, the same firm contacted me to say that the TP car had been sold to the crash driver 2 weeks before the crash, but the previous owner hadn’t cancelled the insurance. As such, they were going to pursue the TP themselves to get my insurer’s costs back. I asked if the insurers covering the TP car at the time of the crash were liable for costs (then for them to claim back from TP/car’s previous owner); I was told no.
The TP vehicle reg is now not showing up on the DVLA database (it was a 56 plate Volvo S40, so not worth much).
So my questions are:
1) how successful are these types of firms usually at clawing back costs?
2) is the above about the TP vehicle’s previous insurance correct? I could have sworn I’d read differently somewhere…
3) does someone need to inform the police that this TP driver was not properly insured at the time? If so, is there any point?
I looked up the TP reg, and it showed as insured and taxed.
Liability was in no doubt, and the crash was recorded on dashcam.
In a bid to try and reduce costs, I paid for an MID check, and found out who was insuring the car.
Car was repaired, I had three weeks of hire car (would have been shorter, but it was Christmas).
I then was notified that my insurers had instructed a firm of solicitors to claim back costs, as the TP insurers were dragging their heels. I passed on all the info I had, and left them to deal with it.
Yesterday, the same firm contacted me to say that the TP car had been sold to the crash driver 2 weeks before the crash, but the previous owner hadn’t cancelled the insurance. As such, they were going to pursue the TP themselves to get my insurer’s costs back. I asked if the insurers covering the TP car at the time of the crash were liable for costs (then for them to claim back from TP/car’s previous owner); I was told no.
The TP vehicle reg is now not showing up on the DVLA database (it was a 56 plate Volvo S40, so not worth much).
So my questions are:
1) how successful are these types of firms usually at clawing back costs?
2) is the above about the TP vehicle’s previous insurance correct? I could have sworn I’d read differently somewhere…
3) does someone need to inform the police that this TP driver was not properly insured at the time? If so, is there any point?
E-bmw said:
I do not know the answers definitively but would be quite certain that the previous owners insurance in 100% not liable, why would they be?
It is not their owner, not their insured driver and so nothing to do with them.
Yes, that’d the logical conclusion; you’re probably right.It is not their owner, not their insured driver and so nothing to do with them.
(I still feel like I’ve read differently somewhere… maybe I dreamt it…)
bobsavage789 said:
Yes, that d the logical conclusion; you re probably right.
(I still feel like I ve read differently somewhere maybe I dreamt it )
I remember reading this one from 2024 don't know the outcome though.(I still feel like I ve read differently somewhere maybe I dreamt it )
https://www.visordown.com/news/general/biker-may-b...
I see it was a while ago, the link below says 11 yrs ago But can't find if they went through with it.
It's the 3rd party costs they have to pay out for, ie damage to the Yaris.
MCE insurance was the company.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.whitedalton.co.uk...
It's the 3rd party costs they have to pay out for, ie damage to the Yaris.
MCE insurance was the company. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.whitedalton.co.uk...
Edited by sixor8 on Tuesday 24th March 09:34
I thought the insurance policy of the original (previous) owner would have to pay out for 3rd Parties.
https://www.whitedalton.co.uk/motorbike-blog/2013/...
The above references EU Law, so I don't know if it's still correct.
https://www.whitedalton.co.uk/motorbike-blog/2013/...
The above references EU Law, so I don't know if it's still correct.
bobsavage789 said:
I was driven into in early December (third party turned on to a main road from a side road without looking properly). We both pulled over, exchanged some details, took some photos and I left my insurers to deal with it.
I looked up the TP reg, and it showed as insured and taxed.
Liability was in no doubt, and the crash was recorded on dashcam.
In a bid to try and reduce costs, I paid for an MID check, and found out who was insuring the car.
Car was repaired, I had three weeks of hire car (would have been shorter, but it was Christmas).
I then was notified that my insurers had instructed a firm of solicitors to claim back costs, as the TP insurers were dragging their heels. I passed on all the info I had, and left them to deal with it.
Yesterday, the same firm contacted me to say that the TP car had been sold to the crash driver 2 weeks before the crash, but the previous owner hadn t cancelled the insurance. As such, they were going to pursue the TP themselves to get my insurer s costs back. I asked if the insurers covering the TP car at the time of the crash were liable for costs (then for them to claim back from TP/car s previous owner); I was told no.
The TP vehicle reg is now not showing up on the DVLA database (it was a 56 plate Volvo S40, so not worth much).
So my questions are:
1) how successful are these types of firms usually at clawing back costs?
2) is the above about the TP vehicle s previous insurance correct? I could have sworn I d read differently somewhere
3) does someone need to inform the police that this TP driver was not properly insured at the time? If so, is there any point?
You've been told the wrong thing OP. I was hit from behind in November.I looked up the TP reg, and it showed as insured and taxed.
Liability was in no doubt, and the crash was recorded on dashcam.
In a bid to try and reduce costs, I paid for an MID check, and found out who was insuring the car.
Car was repaired, I had three weeks of hire car (would have been shorter, but it was Christmas).
I then was notified that my insurers had instructed a firm of solicitors to claim back costs, as the TP insurers were dragging their heels. I passed on all the info I had, and left them to deal with it.
Yesterday, the same firm contacted me to say that the TP car had been sold to the crash driver 2 weeks before the crash, but the previous owner hadn t cancelled the insurance. As such, they were going to pursue the TP themselves to get my insurer s costs back. I asked if the insurers covering the TP car at the time of the crash were liable for costs (then for them to claim back from TP/car s previous owner); I was told no.
The TP vehicle reg is now not showing up on the DVLA database (it was a 56 plate Volvo S40, so not worth much).
So my questions are:
1) how successful are these types of firms usually at clawing back costs?
2) is the above about the TP vehicle s previous insurance correct? I could have sworn I d read differently somewhere
3) does someone need to inform the police that this TP driver was not properly insured at the time? If so, is there any point?
Long story short, their car had no tax or MOT since Feb 2024, but was showing as insured on MID. Driver and passenger were a right pair; think 'The Slobs' from Harry Enfield. Passenger got chippy, started shouting, waving her fat piggy arms around and swearing at passers by and a witness who stopped, so I called the police who turned up in a few mins!
[url]
Police seized their piece of s
t car. Copper said it's insured, but not to the driver, and he'd get a colleague from Traffic to call me to explain how to claim for my damage.Sure enough, traffic officer called. Told me to use Ask MID, get a case number, pay £10, write to the insurer. They are the 'Road Traffic Act Insurer' and insure the car. They (TP insurer) then usually approach the policy holder to see if he gave permission for Slob to drive, if so, recover costs from TP, if not, have him report for TWOC and recover costs from Slob. Not sure how that works if the TP sold the vehicle however, but that wouldn't change the insurer's liability under the RTA.
TP insurer was Trinity Lane Insurance Co. Ltd., C/O Hadleigh Claims Mgt. Ltd., and they have accepted the claim so far and been fairly good. I've sent them photos and dashcam which has all been acknowledged. I've been busy with pneumonia so haven't even managed to get a quote yet. Damage is on a T6, rear bumper cover, towbar and a couple of reversing sensors. See from the photos negligible damage to the Honda! Piece of crap.
I've done all the leg work here, and haven't involved my insurer as they're generally a bit useless at seeing these things through when there's complexities. I have declared a no fault on a couple of renewals since, and it doesn't seem to have made a difference to my premium.
bobsavage789 said:
............
Yesterday, the same firm contacted me to say that the TP car had been sold to the crash driver 2 weeks before the crash, but the previous owner hadn t cancelled the insurance. As such, they were going to pursue the TP themselves to get my insurer s costs back. I asked if the insurers covering the TP car at the time of the crash were liable for costs (then for them to claim back from TP/car s previous owner); I was told no.
..................
That info is semi-relevant but we're missing the critical info of, was the driver at the time of your crash, insured? It is possible for 2 (or more) insurers to be detailed on the MID database, although the later insurer will have known about this because when the entries are added, it will flag up a message clearly saying "this car is already insured, are you sure you want to add it?" That's when its done manually one-by-one on a fleet policy, I am guessing insurers do it by batch process and they might get a notification back, of the anomolies - and this might not have reached the insurance company or been dealt with.Yesterday, the same firm contacted me to say that the TP car had been sold to the crash driver 2 weeks before the crash, but the previous owner hadn t cancelled the insurance. As such, they were going to pursue the TP themselves to get my insurer s costs back. I asked if the insurers covering the TP car at the time of the crash were liable for costs (then for them to claim back from TP/car s previous owner); I was told no.
..................
If there's 2 insurers then you'd hope the insurer of the actual driver would step up as the one to cover it.
But yes, if the new owner/driver who crashed into you never got insurance, but the previous owner never cancelled it, the previous insurer has an obligation to honour third RTA claims.
catfood12 said:
You've been told the wrong thing OP. I was hit from behind in November.
Long story short, their car had no tax or MOT since Feb 2024, but was showing as insured on MID. Driver and passenger were a right pair; think 'The Slobs' from Harry Enfield. Passenger got chippy, started shouting, waving her fat piggy arms around and swearing at passers by and a witness who stopped, so I called the police who turned up in a few mins!
Police seized their piece of st car. Copper said it's insured, but not to the driver, and he'd get a colleague from Traffic to call me to explain how to claim for my damage.
Sure enough, traffic officer called. Told me to use Ask MID, get a case number, pay £10, write to the insurer. They are the 'Road Traffic Act Insurer' and insure the car. They (TP insurer) then usually approach the policy holder to see if he gave permission for Slob to drive, if so, recover costs from TP, if not, have him report for TWOC and recover costs from Slob. Not sure how that works if the TP sold the vehicle however, but that wouldn't change the insurer's liability under the RTA.
TP insurer was Trinity Lane Insurance Co. Ltd., C/O Hadleigh Claims Mgt. Ltd., and they have accepted the claim so far and been fairly good. I've sent them photos and dashcam which has all been acknowledged. I've been busy with pneumonia so haven't even managed to get a quote yet. Damage is on a T6, rear bumper cover, towbar and a couple of reversing sensors. See from the photos negligible damage to the Honda! Piece of crap.
I've done all the leg work here, and haven't involved my insurer as they're generally a bit useless at seeing these things through when there's complexities. I have declared a no fault on a couple of renewals since, and it doesn't seem to have made a difference to my premium.
That's a different set of circumstances. If the driver was driving the vehicle with (or without) the owners/insured's permission then they would be RTA insurer as there is contractual insurance in place. If the vehicle has been sold, however, and the seller can prove it was sold, then the insurer on the MID (as in the OP's case) will not be the relevant insurer. Long story short, their car had no tax or MOT since Feb 2024, but was showing as insured on MID. Driver and passenger were a right pair; think 'The Slobs' from Harry Enfield. Passenger got chippy, started shouting, waving her fat piggy arms around and swearing at passers by and a witness who stopped, so I called the police who turned up in a few mins!
Police seized their piece of s
t car. Copper said it's insured, but not to the driver, and he'd get a colleague from Traffic to call me to explain how to claim for my damage.Sure enough, traffic officer called. Told me to use Ask MID, get a case number, pay £10, write to the insurer. They are the 'Road Traffic Act Insurer' and insure the car. They (TP insurer) then usually approach the policy holder to see if he gave permission for Slob to drive, if so, recover costs from TP, if not, have him report for TWOC and recover costs from Slob. Not sure how that works if the TP sold the vehicle however, but that wouldn't change the insurer's liability under the RTA.
TP insurer was Trinity Lane Insurance Co. Ltd., C/O Hadleigh Claims Mgt. Ltd., and they have accepted the claim so far and been fairly good. I've sent them photos and dashcam which has all been acknowledged. I've been busy with pneumonia so haven't even managed to get a quote yet. Damage is on a T6, rear bumper cover, towbar and a couple of reversing sensors. See from the photos negligible damage to the Honda! Piece of crap.
I've done all the leg work here, and haven't involved my insurer as they're generally a bit useless at seeing these things through when there's complexities. I have declared a no fault on a couple of renewals since, and it doesn't seem to have made a difference to my premium.
The car is then uninsured, and the OP would have to rely on their own insurance to cover the damage.
Nezquick said:
... If the vehicle has been sold, however, and the seller can prove it was sold, then the insurer on the MID (as in the OP's case) will not be the relevant insurer.
The car is then uninsured, and the OP would have to rely on their own insurance to cover the damage.
What about when the seller can prove the car was sold but continued to insure the car (by not cancelling the insurance).The car is then uninsured, and the OP would have to rely on their own insurance to cover the damage.
GasEngineer said:
What about when the seller can prove the car was sold but continued to insure the car (by not cancelling the insurance).
Legally insurers with an active policy on the car can have liability to third parties under RTA for accidents even if policy conditions are breached - it runs through a cascade, so drivers insurance, then keeper, then other policies covering the vehicle. So if seller leaves a policy active then that policy is still liable if the new owner doesn't insure the vehicle.And said insurer can then chase seller for costs on the basis of failure to notify them of change in circumstances as that will be in T&C's for policy (and is a reasonable expectation) in addition to uninsured driver etc...
I can (and have) insure myself (with permission) to drive a vehicle I don't own or keep; The insurance covers the vehicle, not the driver, so ownership doesn't change third party liabilities; it will impact first party (as the insurer only has to pay you for losses; damage to a car you don't own isn't necessarily a loss); In theory I could sell a vehicle to a family member or friend and still maintain insurance to drive it...
About 5 months prior to the crash, I had the car ceramic coated. Obviously, as part of the repair/repaint, this will have been removed.
I asked my insurer if this uninsured loss is covered; they told me to send them the receipt and they’d cover the reapplication of the ceramic.
I think that sounds like a good thing, but we’ll see…
I asked my insurer if this uninsured loss is covered; they told me to send them the receipt and they’d cover the reapplication of the ceramic.
I think that sounds like a good thing, but we’ll see…
bobsavage789 said:
About 5 months prior to the crash, I had the car ceramic coated. Obviously, as part of the repair/repaint, this will have been removed.
I asked my insurer if this uninsured loss is covered; they told me to send them the receipt and they d cover the reapplication of the ceramic.
I think that sounds like a good thing, but we ll see
I think you are quite fortunate there. I asked my insurer if this uninsured loss is covered; they told me to send them the receipt and they d cover the reapplication of the ceramic.
I think that sounds like a good thing, but we ll see
If this was a material amount of money I have heard of insurers refusing to cover it unless it had been declared to them at the time it was done.
I couldn't even get them to pay for a replacement tyre that was ruined after someone crashed into me.
The car had MPS5's on all round, the repair place could only put on a single MPS4 as that was all they could get, so I arranged to have one fitted and the insurance co refused to pay for it.
I'd say you were lucky!
The car had MPS5's on all round, the repair place could only put on a single MPS4 as that was all they could get, so I arranged to have one fitted and the insurance co refused to pay for it.
I'd say you were lucky!
QBee said:
I think you are quite fortunate there.
If this was a material amount of money I have heard of insurers refusing to cover it unless it had been declared to them at the time it was done.
Agreed.If this was a material amount of money I have heard of insurers refusing to cover it unless it had been declared to them at the time it was done.
I put it down to:
1) paying a bit more for a policy from an “established name”
2) having legal cover
sixor8 said:
Several insurance companies will waive the excess and not count the claim as fault if you're hit by an uninsured driver. In this case, the car was, but the driver wasn't so that 'should' apply?
I’ve yet to broach this topic with my insurers: I think they’re aiming to recoup their costs first before having to keep any uninsured driver promises.From what I can tell from the Ts and Cs, only the excess is waived, so it may yet count as a “fault” claim…
Looking at it from the insurer's point of view, and leaving luck out of the equation, if the insured has lots of claims, regardless of fault, it shows they are a higher risk.
It may be nothing to do with their driving, more to do with where they live or where they drive to/from, but it equates to more risk for the insurer.
I run a company car fleet of just 10 cars.
We don't have no claims discounts, instead.....
Our renewal premium is based on a number of specific factors, including the age of drivers, postcode in which they reside, make, model and cost of the cars (hence their performance, risk of theft and the cost of repairing/replacing them), and last but not least, the policy's claims performance in the 12 months up to renewal.
That last factor includes all claims where our insurer has had to pay out, regardless of fault.
It may be nothing to do with their driving, more to do with where they live or where they drive to/from, but it equates to more risk for the insurer.
I run a company car fleet of just 10 cars.
We don't have no claims discounts, instead.....
Our renewal premium is based on a number of specific factors, including the age of drivers, postcode in which they reside, make, model and cost of the cars (hence their performance, risk of theft and the cost of repairing/replacing them), and last but not least, the policy's claims performance in the 12 months up to renewal.
That last factor includes all claims where our insurer has had to pay out, regardless of fault.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff