Cancel Insurance or let it run out ?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

andyxxx said:

PorkInsider said:

Always cancel.

If for any reason there's a 3rd party claim and the new owner's insurance doesn't cover it, yours might, and you really don't want that.

Not a chance of this. The OPs insurer would never pay out for a claim on a car he does not own and was not in any way responsible for.

You are obviously an expert in the field, to make this statement with so much certainty. Can you please tell us your interpretation of the Motor Insurance Database named Insurer obligations as outlined by the 4th European Directive and how it relates to the Road Traffic Act of 1972, (amended in 1988 and 1991).

Ps. I quoted all the legislation and dates, not to be condescending towards you, as I'm sure you know all this stuff, but for the benefit of others who might be reading.

Pps. Condescending...that means talking down to, just in case you're not aware.

[swagmeister]

Call your insurance, ask if there is any refund less the £50 to cancel. If there isnt and its £50 to cancel, take it on the chin and move on with life FFS.

[andyxxx]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

You are obviously an expert in the field, to make this statement with so much certainty. Can you please tell us your interpretation of the Motor Insurance Database named Insurer obligations as outlined by the 4th European Directive and how it relates to the Road Traffic Act of 1972, (amended in 1988 and 1991).

Ps. I quoted all the legislation and dates, not to be condescending towards you, as I'm sure you know all this stuff, but for the benefit of others who might be reading.

Pps. Condescending...that means talking down to, just in case you're not aware.

With hindsight I should have said “IMO not likely” (instead of “not a chance”)

Does this suit you better?

IMO not likely. The OPs insurer would never pay out for a claim on a car he does not own and was not in any way responsible for as The OP has previously stated they are certain the new owner has insurance as they are family members and trusts them.

(Footnote This is all my opinion and I am not a solicitor or an expert in this field. Seek legal advice if you have any doubt.)

[TwigtheWonderkid]

andyxxx said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

You are obviously an expert in the field, to make this statement with so much certainty. Can you please tell us your interpretation of the Motor Insurance Database named Insurer obligations as outlined by the 4th European Directive and how it relates to the Road Traffic Act of 1972, (amended in 1988 and 1991).

Ps. I quoted all the legislation and dates, not to be condescending towards you, as I'm sure you know all this stuff, but for the benefit of others who might be reading.

Pps. Condescending...that means talking down to, just in case you're not aware.

With hindsight I should have said “IMO not likely” (instead of “not a chance”)

Does this suit you better?

IMO not likely. The OPs insurer would never pay out for a claim on a car he does not own and was not in any way responsible for as The OP has previously stated they are certain the new owner has insurance as they are family members and trusts them.

(Footnote This is all my opinion and I am not a solicitor or an expert in this field. Seek legal advice if you have any doubt.)

If the new owners insurance gets cancelled because the direct debit fails, or any other reason, and the car is only shown as insured on the MID by the OPs own insurer, and the new owner has an accident where a tp suffers damage or injury, then his insurer WILL be obligated to pay the tp claim, and the OPs ncb will be compromised and the claim will be on his record.

I agree it's unlikely, but not impossible.

[timberman]

Someone had a bit of a coming together with my wife's car in asda car park due to them trying to fit through a gap that wasn't quite wide enough for their car.

As there was very little damage to my wife's car she agreed to sort any repairs herself and suggested the other party do the same after which they parted ways without exchanging details

several months later we received a letter from the insurance company pointing out that a claim had been made against her insurance, and because she hadn't contested the claim they paid out.

Turns out the other party had took my wifes reg number then made a claim through their own insurance
who in turn had then checked the database to see who my wife's car was insured with and filed the claim

My wife's insurance company had been sending her emails to try and gain information about the incident, but due to my wife taking about as much notice of her emails as I do of the crap she watches on tv she'd not read them,

end result, she now has to endure declaring a claim for the next few year and higher premiums

so I can easily believe that not cancelling could result in a false claim being made as it seems all anyone needs to file a claim is a reg number and a story,
the insurance company will have all the details of whether the car in question is insured plus who with and then be able to file the claim.

I would like to think that as long as it can be proven you no longer own the car or have any association with it and so couldn't have been involved in any incident then the claim would be rejected, but they don't seem to make that much effort trying to contact you

also if the OP's car is still insured under their name and the new owner tries to insure it, I would have thought that would throw up an issue as I didn't think you could have more than one policy on a vehicle at any one time.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

timberman said:

I would like to think that as long as it can be proven you no longer own the car or have any association with it and so couldn't have been involved in any incident then the claim would be rejected,

You'd like to think an insurance company would avoid their legal obligations? You're walking down the road minding your own business when a car mounts the pavement, hits you, and you're in a wheelchair for the rest of your days. The idiot driving the car didn't buy any insurance but as the previous owner's insurance is still in force, there is a policy in place covering tp liability. You are entitled to £3m compo for your life changing injuries. But you'd be happy for the insurer to ignore their legal obligation to pay you, because it's not fair on the previous owner whose premium might do up a few hundred quid for a couple of years and who could have cancelled his insurance but didn't bother????

I'm not sure I believe you.

[Jakg]

treeroy said:

I think you may have misunderstood what the "£50 charge" is. You will get the remainder of the policy back, minus a £50 fee.

I tried to cancel a home insurance policy and they insisted I had to pay an admin fee to cancel, and receive no refund - i.e. I would have to pay an additional £35.

I thought it was mental but they were insistent, so I left it.Some time later I was assured this was wrong and when I complained they admitted it was wrong and cancelled the policy. So it could be either!

I'm in the same car insurance situation at the moment - I'm letting it run to ensure that I accrue the NCB.

[Olas]

Allow the insurance to run its course, and collect another year of NCB.

When you sold the car you wrote the date on the V5 - this is proof that you a renot liable for any claims after that date.

There *may* be a benefit to comparing the cost of two moths cover against the reduction in premium with 1 additional year of NCB

[timberman]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

timberman said:

I would like to think that as long as it can be proven you no longer own the car or have any association with it and so couldn't have been involved in any incident then the claim would be rejected,

You'd like to think an insurance company would avoid their legal obligations? You're walking down the road minding your own business when a car mounts the pavement, hits you, and you're in a wheelchair for the rest of your days. The idiot driving the car didn't buy any insurance but as the previous owner's insurance is still in force, there is a policy in place covering tp liability. You are entitled to £3m compo for your life changing injuries. But you'd be happy for the insurer to ignore their legal obligation to pay you, because it's not fair on the previous owner whose premium might do up a few hundred quid for a couple of years and who could have cancelled his insurance but didn't bother????

I'm not sure I believe you.

So someone comes knocking on your door and says a car you previously owned was involved in an accident, and the new owner hasn't bothered to get insurance,
so even though it has nothing to do with you and clearly isn't any of your fault we've decided you should pay anyway.

And you'd be quite happy with this would you?

And just for clarification in case it wasn't clear from my post I think it quite possible this could happen and that the OP should cancel their insurance.

Edited by timberman on Saturday 29th February 09:08

[PorkInsider]

Olas said:

When you sold the car you wrote the date on the V5 - this is proof that you a renot liable for any claims after that date.

Jesus wept.

[Olas]

PorkInsider said:

Jesus wept.

Characters from works of fiction are not the topic of discussion here and asserting that said fictional characters performed certain actions is both irrelevant, and not based in truth.

[HertsBiker]

What I'm not sure about, is why on TV programs like "traffic cops", do they tell people they are uninsured when borrowing a car without specific (to them) insurance. If an owners insurance covers 3rd party losses after you sold your vehicle or it was stolen, then why do the Police say there is no cover? It's the protection of 3rd parties that is still there. Or am I seeing this wrong? cheers all.

[Jakg]

HertsBiker said:

What I'm not sure about, is why on TV programs like "traffic cops", do they tell people they are uninsured when borrowing a car without specific (to them) insurance. If an owners insurance covers 3rd party losses after you sold your vehicle or it was stolen, then why do the Police say there is no cover? It's the protection of 3rd parties that is still there. Or am I seeing this wrong? cheers all.

There's a difference between not being insured, and an insurance company still paying out.

E.G. if your car is stolen and a scrote crashes it into someone, they aren't insured. But your insurance company would still likely pay out to the third party.

I believe the laws are setup in this way so that ultimately an insurer carries the cost where possible, over some innocent member of the public.

[CABC]

many cheaper policies have no refund value after 6mths. keeping policy alive means NCD lasts longer.
i'll leave this here:

Thanks for getting in touch with us today to let us know that you’re no longer in possession of
your xx. You told us that you haven’t purchased a replacement vehicle, but that you
wanted your policy to continue. We have therefore updated your policy to reflect this.
We’ve updated the vehicle registration number on the policy to V111 EGO to comply with
Motor Insurance Database requirements. We need to remove your previous registration number
to help prevent insurance fraud and duplicated records.
Call us on 0344 to replace your vehicle
To clarify, your insurance policy is currently still running, but you do not have a vehicle on cover
unless you contact us with details of a replacement vehicle. Your insurance policy previously
included the Driving Other Vehicles benefit; however, due to your change this is no longer
active and you are not insured to drive other vehicles on this policy. Removing your vehicle
doesn’t alter your insurance premium, so there’s no additional or return premium due for this
change.

[Hashtaggggg]

andyxxx said:

PorkInsider said:

Always cancel.

If for any reason there's a 3rd party claim and the new owner's insurance doesn't cover it, yours might, and you really don't want that.

Not a chance of this. The OPs insurer would never pay out for a claim on a car he does not own and was not in any way responsible for.

That statement is not true.

[matt2911]

timberman said:

So someone comes knocking on your door and says a car you previously owned was involved in an accident, and the new owner hasn't bothered to get insurance,
so even though it has nothing to do with you and clearly isn't any of your fault we've decided you should pay anyway.

And you'd be quite happy with this would you?

And just for clarification in case it wasn't clear from my post I think it quite possible this could happen and that the OP should cancel their insurance.

Edited by timberman on Saturday 29th February 09:08

But if the person has just left the insurance running it is to do with them. Doesn’t matter how happy they are or not really.

[matt2911]

Olas said:

Characters from works of fiction are not the topic of discussion here and asserting that said fictional characters performed certain actions is both irrelevant, and not based in truth.

Your original point has no base in truth either.

[andyxxx]

Hashtaggggg said:

That statement is not true.

read the whole thread

[JxJ Jr.]

timberman said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

timberman said:

I would like to think that as long as it can be proven you no longer own the car or have any association with it and so couldn't have been involved in any incident then the claim would be rejected,

You'd like to think an insurance company would avoid their legal obligations? You're walking down the road minding your own business when a car mounts the pavement, hits you, and you're in a wheelchair for the rest of your days. The idiot driving the car didn't buy any insurance but as the previous owner's insurance is still in force, there is a policy in place covering tp liability. You are entitled to £3m compo for your life changing injuries. But you'd be happy for the insurer to ignore their legal obligation to pay you, because it's not fair on the previous owner whose premium might do up a few hundred quid for a couple of years and who could have cancelled his insurance but didn't bother????

I'm not sure I believe you.

So someone comes knocking on your door and says a car you previously owned was involved in an accident, and the new owner hasn't bothered to get insurance,
so even though it has nothing to do with you and clearly isn't any of your fault we've decided you should pay anyway.

And you'd be quite happy with this would you?

And just for clarification in case it wasn't clear from my post I think it quite possible this could happen and that the OP should cancel their insurance.

No one would be happy about it, but that's immaterial as it's a general term that's in most, if not all, policies and that you agree to. It's worded like e.g. this:

"If under the law of any country we must make a payment which we wouldn’t otherwise have to make, you must repay that amount to us."

Failing to inform the insurance company about selling a vehicle makes them liable for the 'wouldn't otherwise have to make' bit, and then they go knocking on your door.

[Ed.]

CABC said:

many cheaper policies have no refund value after 6mths. keeping policy alive means NCD lasts longer.
i'll leave this here:

Thanks for getting in touch with us today to let us know that you’re no longer in possession of
your xx. You told us that you haven’t purchased a replacement vehicle, but that you
wanted your policy to continue. We have therefore updated your policy to reflect this.
We’ve updated the vehicle registration number on the policy to V111 EGO to comply with
Motor Insurance Database requirements. We need to remove your previous registration number
to help prevent insurance fraud and duplicated records.
Call us on 0344 to replace your vehicle
To clarify, your insurance policy is currently still running, but you do not have a vehicle on cover
unless you contact us with details of a replacement vehicle. Your insurance policy previously
included the Driving Other Vehicles benefit; however, due to your change this is no longer
active and you are not insured to drive other vehicles on this policy. Removing your vehicle
doesn’t alter your insurance premium, so there’s no additional or return premium due for this
change.

Thanks, useful information.

I'm surprised certain posters think generous insurance companies agree to claims based on some sense of fairness. I am sure they would reject all claims if not for their regulated liabilities mentioned above.