PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

driving without insurance
fairyman
post Mon, 24 Dec 2018 - 12:59
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 24 Dec 2018
Member No.: 101,574



Hi,

Looking for some help and advice. I borrowed my parents car at the beginning of november and the weather was awful and i hit someones bumper. There was no damage to my parents car and very little damage to his bumper. I have my own car which i share with my partner on which i am fully insured. I was under the impression that both name drivers were insured 3rd party to drive other peoples cars, it turns out that only the policy holder is and that is my partner.

Regardless, we exchanged details but i said to him i didnt want to put the accident through insurance and was happy to pay for his minor damage to his bumper because i knew it would massively increase my premiums. He has however decided he would like a pay day so has claimed for whiplash ( i was travelling at abour 3mph) and so has put it through the insurers. The insurers have now contacted my parents for details of the accident. I fully accept that it is my fault for not making sure that we were both insured 3rd party but i now need to know what to do.

obviously my parents are going to tell their insurers that i was driving. Are my parents now obligated to report me to the police or will the insurers do it? I have a completely clean license.

Any help or advice is much appreciated

Many thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 27)
Advertisement
post Mon, 24 Dec 2018 - 12:59
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Logician
post Wed, 26 Dec 2018 - 18:50
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,572
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



If there is an insurance policy covering the car, then the MIB will not be involved, even if the use of the car at the time is outside the terms of the policy. The insurer will deal with the claim and make any payment, afterwards seeking to recover the payment from the driver involved, or the policyholder if they permitted the driving. The principle is that the MIB is essentially a co-operative organisation, and seeks to minimise costs by handling claims in the most efficient way, which is by the insurer concerned with the vehicle handling the claim. s.151 RTA 1988 applies.

This post has been edited by Logician: Wed, 26 Dec 2018 - 18:57


--------------------



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NewJudge
post Thu, 27 Dec 2018 - 17:39
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,746
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



QUOTE (nigelbb @ Wed, 26 Dec 2018 - 16:39) *
If however the car is taken without permission & there is an accident involving damage or injury to a 3rd party then as the driver is uninsured the MIB will pay out. The insurance company has no obligation to pay out to a 3rd party...

That is not true if the driver who took the vehicle is identified (as he would be in this case).

QUOTE (andy_foster @ Wed, 26 Dec 2018 - 18:28) *
QUOTE (nigelbb @ Wed, 26 Dec 2018 - 17:46) *
The parent's insurance company are not liable for any loss as the driver was not insured.


Just because you keep repeating it does not make it true.,

Indeed it does not.

Generally, where a policy of motor insurance is in place to cover against third party risks, the insurer must meet claims from any third party for personal injury and damage to property. There are only a limited number of circumstances where the insurer can refuse to meet such claims and the driver not being a named driver on the policy is not one of them (this applies even where the driver is a thief, provided he is identified). The insurer will almost certainly take action to recover their outlay from either the driver or the vehicle’s owner as appropriate but the Motor insurers’ Bureau does not meet such claims and will usually not be involved at all. However, the insurer meeting such claims (which he must do under the Road Traffic Act) does not mean that the driver can escape prosecution for driving without insurance. This document provides some of the details:

http://www.adduce-services.co.uk/tl_files/...g%20Article.pdf


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Thu, 27 Dec 2018 - 17:47
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,306
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



Exactly.

There are a list of things that your insurer is required to pay out for to offer an RTA compliant policy.

And a list of things the insurer will pay out for without later trying to recover the cost.

There isn't a total match, as drink drivers insured through Admiral Group find out.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Fri, 28 Dec 2018 - 10:20
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,356
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (NewJudge @ Thu, 27 Dec 2018 - 17:39) *
This document provides some of the details:

http://www.adduce-services.co.uk/tl_files/...g%20Article.pdf

Excellent summary; thanks for the link.

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 28 Dec 2018 - 15:48
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Fri, 28 Dec 2018 - 10:20) *
QUOTE (NewJudge @ Thu, 27 Dec 2018 - 17:39) *
This document provides some of the details:

http://www.adduce-services.co.uk/tl_files/...g%20Article.pdf

Excellent summary; thanks for the link.

--Churchmouse

Actually the responsibility of the insurance company is even wider than that, because there is no need for the driver to be identified for section 151 to apply. Following the Court of Appeal case Cameron v Hussain & Anor [2017] EWCA Civ 366, it is possible to sue the driver even if he is an unknown person (so you would describe the defendant as "the driver of such and such a vehicle which was involved in a road traffic collision at such and such a place and time"), and the insurance company remains liable under section 151 https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2017/366.html


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NewJudge
post Fri, 28 Dec 2018 - 16:40
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,746
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



Thanks, cp. I didn't know of that wider responsibility.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TheDisapprovingB...
post Fri, 28 Dec 2018 - 17:29
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 311
Joined: 16 Jul 2015
Member No.: 78,371



This Wikipedia article has a handy flowchart for determining who gets the honour of paying out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTA_Insurer. In this case, the parents insurer is responsible under s.151 RTA.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 28 Dec 2018 - 17:33
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (TheDisapprovingBrit @ Fri, 28 Dec 2018 - 17:29) *
This Wikipedia article has a handy flowchart for determining who gets the honour of paying out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTA_Insurer. In this case, the parents insurer is responsible under s.151 RTA.

Chart looks out of date.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 14:53
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here