If you had sold it and this happened without cancelling your policy you would personally pick up the bill...
No that's not what I said. He may be well qualified in that industry and comment from a position of strength - I don't know that. I've merely posted an article from prima facie a qualified source and invited (re) consideration. There's too much antagonism in this world. Now I'm talking bollocks!
Eh, no thanks. Scaremongering by an anonymous person on a Motorcycle Lawyers website does not proof make. (I wonder what his motive is??) Both cases he quotes bear no relation to the matter being discussed here. The Irish case from 15 years ago related to a co-insurance policy where 2 people were insured separately on the same vehicle. The English case from 11 years ago relates to a Father allowing his son to drive his vehicle on a traders policy knowing said son did not have a licence. These are the cases the insurance companies keep trotting out to get people to pay up your £25 or £30 cancellation fee. Below are excerpts from the first case in question and are 'black and white' Keep paying your cancellation fee if you like. p.s. Are you ready for Santa?
The point dealt with in this authority is not the same as the point under discussion. Certainly you cannot assign a contract of insurance to another person without the agreement of the insurer - but no-one has suggested that you can. And certainly you cannot claim the benefit of insurance on a vehicle which you no longer own or possess. Neither of those points is in issue. Here is the situation. A vehicle is insured by owner X. X sells, gives or transfers the vehicle to Y. Y does not take out insurance on the vehicle. X's contract of insurance has not been cancelled, nor expired. Y has an accident resulting in claim by a third party Z. The question is: whether Z's claim is to be met (1) by X's insurer (on the basis that the contract of insurance is still extant, and there is no other insurance on the vehicle), or (2) by the MIB (Motor Insurer's Bureau) on the basis that X's contract of insurance is no longer applicable to the vehicle. It seems that @philg25 says the answer is (2) the MIB. I am not so sure.
Personally I would ring and cancel the insurance . Whether I would pay a cancellation fee is another matter , doubt it .
Just received a letter from Hastings informing me that they were 'pleased to confirm that we have received your credit/debit card payments for £35.00 on 27th Nov'. So called them and spoke to a guy who said that as I'd refused to pay they took it anyway off my card. So I've got it put back into my account and they are going to send me a bill, I told him I will not pay it. He said they'd simply refer it to their recovery agents. I told him I'd be referring it to the insurance ombudsman. Bastards.
that is utterly, utterly disgraceful and shows their obvious and complete disregard for their "customers" im going thgrough the ombudsman now with MCE, stick with it mate :thumbsup:
Oh I will, your right it's the principle that they think they can just do what they want because insurance is a legal requirement. I may be in touch to pick your brain re ombudsman.
Yes, I think there is an important distinction between theft and sale - in the case of the theft, you did not give your permission for the vehicle to be driven by the thief. When you sell, then you have granted permission. This sort of distinction will be there in the Ts&Cs and the law I assume. I am certainly not taking any risks in this area myself from now on; on the whole it's all much easier if you can always arrange to transfer the insurance to another vehicle, and that way you are sure to maintain the no-claims record too.
Spot on. It remains 'on risk' with your insurers even if it's nicked (for 3rd party). ffs do not let your policy run if you sell. Read some proper horror stories about this.
I administered the company cars at work, a car was stolen, and yes, we paid for the thiefs accident several months later despite the theft being registered. On the plus side, if you are struck by an uninsured vehicle, you will still get your claim paid, so it's not all bad.
Dude. I'm not sure if perhaps you posted while feeling overly tired and emotional last night, but this one wasn't helpful to me.
It is of course up to you what you do or say, and what you pay or refuse to pay. You might just bear this in mind though. The next time you are trying to obtain insurance cover on a vehicle, perhaps next year, each insurance company which you apply to is likely to be aware of your dispute with Hastings and many (or all) of them may decide they would rather not have you as a customer. What are you going to do then?
I've been thinking about that, it's just another fucking reason why the insurance companies have got us by the bollocks. I know I'll end up paying for it but my little protest and a letter to the ombudsman will make me feel better. I'm sure I'll receive a letter from Hastings within a few days where I will send a cheque for full payment with a copy of a letter that I will be sending to the ombudsman stating my dissatisfaction that I have to pay a full years cover for a motorcycle that I no longer owner just because I sold it after 6 months of ownership. By paying in full I'm sur that Hastings/ a another company won't be able to penalise in the future?
It should be noted that Crown buildings are exempted from, among other things, employer liability insurance. Just sayin'.
