Ouch. Am I reading it correctly that if you specifically tell your insurance company that you no longer own the vehicle, and explicitly cancel your insurance on it, then you would not be liable for this?
So a friend of mine sold his car - insurance only had a couple of months to run so he left it run... No problem right as he has no liability because he sold the car.
Wrong.
The new owner crashed it with no insurance and it turns out the Road Traffic Act means that the claimant can go after your insurance company because the RTA prohibits them from excluding third party liability.
They can try to reclaim off the actual driver but he is potless so that will go nowhere.
So he's lost his no claims bonus because he is liable and might have other costs.
Having a quick Google - this is more common than you would think!
There was a court case about this a couple of years ago that summarises the law:
The majority of the Court of Appeal accepted the relatively simple argument that: As s. 151(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 obliges an insurer to satisfy a judgment against the driver of an insured vehicle, irrespective of whether the driver is himself covered by the policy of insurance, then provided that the vehicle is identified and insured, who was driving is essentially irrelevant, and as such there is no disadvantage in failing to identify the driver in the proceedings.
Ouch. Am I reading it correctly that if you specifically tell your insurance company that you no longer own the vehicle, and explicitly cancel your insurance on it, then you would not be liable for this?
^
Yes.
If there’s a break in insurance, you’ll lose some/all of no claims bonus, so unless going carless, best buy a banger, SORN it, then change policy over to replacement that will be driven.
The guy's learned a hard lesson, when you sell a car you cancel the insurance on the vehicle.
I learned this when I was 18 and I sold my first car, it's all about doing things the right way.
Over here, we have the same rules.
Theoretically, it's possible that you pay the insurance premium for another driver. Like parents sometimes do for their kids & first car. (I won't do that personally, btw). It's also the law that the insurance company reimburses you the 'unused' insurance premium for the remaining part of the contract.
Why on earth would he let the insurance run? Crazy.
Possibly to gain/build another full years no claim bonus. AFAIK you can 'freeze' your insurance if you don’t have another vehicle to immediately transfer it on to - it costs a little more but it’s the safest option.
A friend of mine cancelled his motorcycle insurance after he had sold his bike but hadn’t bought another bike and his insurance company charged him a 'policy change fee' of £45 to cancel it!
Exactly this! ^^
I had a vintage motorbike which cost something like £70 to insure.
When I sold it with a month remaining on the insurance, the company said there was nothing to be refunded and in fact wanted to charge a £50 fee for the admin to cancel the policy.
I also thought that if I let it run to the end of the year, I’ll get sent a renewal letter showing the extra year’s no claims bonus.
So maybe not as daft as it seems.
However I’d never realised the situation in the OP could arise. That’s a worry for sure!
When I bought a new car I took advantage of the dealers 1 week free insurance offer which made it easier for them to sort out the road tax. When I contacted my insurer to change the insurance over I was told I was breaking the law by having two separate insurance policies running on the same vehicle.
I had a similar experience, so it’s definitely not as daft as it seems. I had no idea of the potential liability either, so I won’t be doing that again.
It’s all going to get very interesting in the insurance market when the roads are full of driverless cars.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Surely the insurance should became invalid when the person sold the car.
AFAIK you can't insure a car not owned by yourself w/o telling the insurers you are not the registered owner/keeper of the car.
I hadn't considered the admin fee/no claims angle before. Insurers really do have everyone by the balls.
A strange judgement. I had trouble insuring my late father's house when the home insurance lapsed whilst in probate. Because I did not own the property I could not insure it. One would think the same would apply to car insurance.
Turns out due to the Road Traffic Act - the answer is no - although the insurance might contractually involve a named driver, they are insuring the car in regards to third party claims. The RTA say that they can make a claim against the insurance company even though you have sold the car - the insurance is still valid for the purposes of third party claims.
My mate didn't want to pay the cancelation fees and has now got caught out on this basis.
Not quite. The vast majority of insurers will accept a no claims bonus as remaining valid for two years post-lapse of the last insurance policy held - you don’t need to keep on insuring a vehicle just to keep the ncb valid. If you go more than two years without taking-out cover again, then you may well have an issue getting anyone to accept that ncb.
Bingo. I sympathise to some extent, in that not everyone is informed about such matters and anyone of us can make a genuine oversight, but it’s really about making the effort and employing some common sense.
Sort of. His right to rely upon the insurance was effectively voided because the subject-matter of the policy - the car itself - was no-longer in his possession, yes.
However, the problem is that by not informing his insurer of the vehicle’s sale and lapsing of the contract, he thereby allowed for the policy & certificate – a legal document – to remain in force in relation to the vehicle. That’s why many insurers tend to ask for the certificate to be sent back to them after cancellation.
It has nothing to with whether the policy was treated as voided by his insurer. Under the RTA 1988, his (in)action was enough to put his insurer ‘on the hook’ in this instance, hence why they have taken a dim view of him leaving them in that position. Insurers understandably don’t relish making payments they shouldn’t really be responsible for, and wouldn’t have been if the correct cancellation process had been followed.
This is not the insurer’s fault. They’ve been dropped in it by virtue of inaction & the laws of the land. Plus, there may be an injured innocent party on the other side of all this with a pranged car (at best), or potentially requiring life-long medical care (at very worst).
Ideally the new owner/driver would have been the first port of call, but as a ‘potless’ scumbag without insurance, then the injured party cannot pluck feathers from that particular frog, and so someone else has to pick-up the tab. His actions put his Insurer in the firing-line. If he’d just cancelled it properly, then the Motor Insurance Bureau deals with uninsured drivers, and the claim would have ended-up there, and not at his door.
Of course, ultimately it’s all policyholders who really end-up paying for uninsured drivers, via their premiums.
The admin fee is what it is. If we all keep screwing insurance premiums to the absolute floor through online shopping on cheapest price alone, or by taking automated products, then it’s no wonder those insurers charge for extra cancellation work and try to find other ways to make money. Same with Ryanair, whose model relies upon catching-out customers with extra charges thereafter. Pay your money, make your choice.
Unless you’re literally at the bottom rung of the bonus ladder, an extra year of ncb attained only equates to about 10% discount (and not even that after a certain point), which for most will translate to about £30-£70 per year saved. Keeping the policy going (and forgoing any possible return of premium) is not worth the risk, in my opinion.
You cannot insure something that you have no financial interest in. Otherwise, some would have a lucrative sideline in insuring the houses of complete strangers and then burning them down afterwards for the claim proceeds.
The issue was not whether or not his policy was valid after sale of the car (it wasn’t), it is the legislation making insurers pick up the tab that is the problem here – a separate thing altogether.
^ so if the insurers stand the most to lose they need to look very carefully at their cancellation policies, especially where it’s not just a case of a lesser refund, but asking for additional payments.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I might be misremembering this, but I recall reading of a similar situation where the insurance company went on to seek the loss from the policy owner on the bases they had contravened the policy t&c’s.
I understand that in the current economic climate people are focused on costs, that said the old adage that you can’t afford cheap insurance still rings true, if the majority are all focused on price first and cover & service are secondary then admin fees for policy changes are to be expected.
If not then other customers who do not amend their policies would subsidise those who do.
No sale is finalised here unless new owner has a valid cover note from his insurer with details of the car involved
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I've always stopped or transferred the insurance when I change cars. I thought that is what everyone did.
I sold one of my cars on 1st Dec and the insurance was due to run till 10th Jan (tomorrow actually), I could have let it run down but I informed the insurer on the day and cancelled my insurance straight after the buyer completed payment and drove the car away.
The insurer charged me just under £15 for the privilege, as this was the difference between the refund and the "admin charge" that they add, if you cancel early.
Typical that your insurance can be void if you change your wheels but this could happen
Cancellation charges can be a fair bit, can't help thinking it is to allow them to quote what they like to change vehicles during the policy
I can see this happening quite a lot if someone changes vehicles towards the end of their policy
My NCB was valid for 2 years as mentioned (got proof on a document sent out)
It’s ridiculous really no one tells you,I was only aware of warnings about it after somone sold a bike and ended up heavily in debt.
When I sold my bike last year I immediately stopped my insurance on that bike, they charged me a lot to change the policy.
They then stung me again with my new bikes policy making me change insurers.
Nothing you can do but pay,bike insurance seems worse in this respect than car ins.but I wouldn’t risk it.
Most insurance companies will honour earned no claims bonus for up to 2 years gap in insurance. It's not worth the risk letting a policy run out if you do not own the vehicle.
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
It's an offence not to add or delete a vehicle to or from the Motor Insurance Database within 14 days. Had the car not had a "live" certificate on it the Motor Insurers Bureau (which Insurers fund collectively) would have picked up any valid Road Traffic Act liability claim(s).
Yep - depends on the particular insurer but I too have known of instances whereby they seek to recoup their losses from the policyholder. As pointed out above the policyholders inaction; coupled with the wording of the RTA has left them exposed to a potentially huge liability.
TBH I've done this in the past when I had a week left to run on the policy and knowing that I wouldn't get anything back I just let it lapse (I was moving to a company car)
Thanks for the heads up!
When I lived in Australia (NSW) they used to have a system where if the car was 'taxed' (or whatever it was called over there) with a validated disk on the windscreen, it was also insured 3rd party for any driver. It may have changed now, but I remember thinking it was quite a good idea to combine the road fund licence and basic 3rd party insurance.
When sold with a valid disk, the buyer recieved the same benefit.
I guess the issue remains though when people don't bother taxing or insuring!
Yep you need to be careful if this.
If the insurer is still on cover for the vehicle, they will have to payout on third party claims pursuant to their obligations under the RTA. For example if a thief steals a car and crashes it into another vehicle, the insurer has a duty to pay out to the owner of the third party vehicle.
Similarly in these circumstances, the insurer still has a duty to payout to the aggrieved third party.
Once all third party claims are settled, the insurer will seek to recover their outlay from the driver of the vehicle or even from the policyholder who allowed this to happen.
All states have this system, but the insurance included is personal accident covering the cost of rehabilitation, loss of earnings, disability payouts etc for people injured in vehicle accidents including bystanders, pedestrians & cyclists. The cover used to and probably does extend to unregistered vehicles too so it gave good protection to all road users. Car insurance was still taken seperately but wasnt compulsory, unless that has changed in the last few years.
Just had that same experience. Had a car with fully paid up insurance that ran until May. Over Christmas it was written off by a third party crashing into it. Car went to salvage and I called to cancel the insurance cover. They tried charging me £50 to cancel!!!
Insurance companies are robbing b******s.
Isn’t it the equivalent of me buying outright, say an iPhone, deciding I no longer want it half way through the year and binning it, and apple then saying we want £50 for you to bin it please?
I’m not changing my product, I’m cancelling it...they will no longer be liable for an insurance claim against the policy. How does that make them out of pocket?
Last edited by Christian; 10th January 2019 at 21:45.
If you bin the phone, it costs Apple nothing.
If you cancel an insurance policy, the insurer has to take your vehicle off the Motor Insurers Database, take the vehicle off risk on their own systems and send you written confirmation of the policy cancellation. The labour involved probably doesn’t amount to £50 but there is still a cost nonetheless.
That's the common sense reaction people have - it's wrong.
Your insurance certificate means that *insurance company* promises to cover anyone involved in an accident *with the car*.
If you don't cancel it - you leave the liability with them, the RTA means they are still liable after you sell the car. They don't like it and if they have to pay out come after you.
RTA seems bit daft here that it has to cover someone else driving the car. What’s the situation if someone steals it, is our insurer still liable?
What if it’s not insured, are we liable?
It does seem odd, but it's driven by a Government & EU priority of protecting the innocent victim above all else. Better a faceless company with deep pockets gets stung than some injured child having to bear their own continuing medical care costs for the rest of their days (taking the 'worst case' scenario there, of course, but it illustrates what's potentially at stake).
Yes, if the car is stolen whilst the Policy is current it'll more than likely end-up back with the Insurer in some fashion (it's a bit more complex than that, depending upon whether or not the thief-driver was identified etc.).
Because, as alluded to earlier in the thread, there are two different duties & relationships incumbent upon the Insurer:
1) Insurance Contract with Policyholder - under which they need to understand the risk as best they can to decide whether or not to accept it, and at what terms, hence they are entitled to know who will be driving and restrict accordingly.
2) RTA 1988 Statutory Liability - a much broader brush, separate to the Insurance Contract
I briefly ran a second car at the beginning of last year and paid the insurance monthly (only about £17pm). I had a lot on my plate at the time so it took me a month before I got round/remembered to call the insurance. When I told them I wanted to cancel they presented a bill that was about £60 more than the combined outstanding payments.
I was wishing I'd just let it run. Particularly as the car had been sold to be broken.
Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk
Because that covers the car and the named driver in the event of an incident.
Whether you do advise of a named driver or you don’t - doesn’t release the underwriters from their responsibility to any 3RD PARTIES.
If you read the thread - that should become patently clear, and no amount of “yeah - buts” will make the law any different.
How do you distinguish yesbutting from curious questions?