closing tag is in template navbar
timefactors watches



TZ-UK Fundraiser
Results 1 to 50 of 50

Thread: Friend had nasty surprise after selling car...

  1. #1
    Master Alansmithee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Burscough, UK
    Posts
    9,573

    Friend had nasty surprise after selling car...

    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.

  2. #2
    Grand Master hogthrob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Essex, UK
    Posts
    16,845
    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?

  3. #3
    Master
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,672
    ^
    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.

  4. #4
    Grand Master Onelasttime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Everywhere, yet nowhere...
    Posts
    13,709
    Quote Originally Posted by hogthrob View Post
    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. The bloke stupidly didn’t inform his insurers that he no longer needed the insurance. Had he done so as soon as he sold the car, it would have been nothing to do with him.

    Why on earth would you ‘let it run down’ after selling

  5. #5
    Grand Master
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Wakefield, West Yorkshire
    Posts
    22,498
    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.

  6. #6
    Grand Master thieuster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    GMT+1
    Posts
    11,749
    Blog Entries
    8
    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.

  7. #7
    Master WarrenVrs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Berkshire
    Posts
    2,266
    Why on earth would he let the insurance run? Crazy.

  8. #8
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Essex
    Posts
    690
    Quote Originally Posted by WarrenVrs View Post
    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!

  9. #9
    Master mr noble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Cambs
    Posts
    4,663
    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!

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by WarrenVrs View Post
    Why on earth would he let the insurance run? Crazy.
    To avoid paying a cancellation fee / admin fee?

  11. #11
    Master
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    uk
    Posts
    2,118
    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.

  12. #12
    Master darrenw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Portsmouth, UK
    Posts
    2,807
    Quote Originally Posted by mr noble View Post
    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!
    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

  13. #13
    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.

  14. #14
    Grand Master Onelasttime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Everywhere, yet nowhere...
    Posts
    13,709
    I hadn't considered the admin fee/no claims angle before. Insurers really do have everyone by the balls.

  15. #15
    Grand Master JasonM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cambridgeshire
    Posts
    16,145
    Quote Originally Posted by Kingstepper View Post
    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.
    Also isn’t your insurance void if the driver isn’t a named driver?
    Cheers..
    Jase

  16. #16
    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.

  17. #17
    Master Alansmithee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Burscough, UK
    Posts
    9,573
    Quote Originally Posted by Kingstepper View Post
    Surely the insurance should became invalid when the person sold the car.
    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.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by PJ S View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by walkerwek1958 View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kingstepper View Post
    Surely the insurance should became invalid when the person sold the car.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Onelasttime View Post
    I hadn't considered the admin fee/no claims angle before. Insurers really do have everyone by the balls.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by mylofitz View Post
    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.
    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.

  19. #19
    Master darrenw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Portsmouth, UK
    Posts
    2,807
    ^ 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

  20. #20
    Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Coming Straight Outer Trumpton
    Posts
    9,385
    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.

  21. #21
    Master raptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Sunstroke capital,Cyprus
    Posts
    3,202
    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

  22. #22
    I've always stopped or transferred the insurance when I change cars. I thought that is what everyone did.

  23. #23
    Master vagabond's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Here and There....
    Posts
    6,432
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Onelasttime View Post
    Yes. The bloke stupidly didn’t inform his insurers that he no longer needed the insurance. Had he done so as soon as he sold the car, it would have been nothing to do with him.

    Why on earth would you ‘let it run down’ after selling
    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.

  24. #24
    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)

  25. #25
    Master
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Down south jukin
    Posts
    5,257
    Blog Entries
    1
    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.

  26. #26
    Craftsman
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Tyneside
    Posts
    836
    Quote Originally Posted by Montybaber View Post
    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)

    I just threatened to change insurance companies if they charged the freeze/admin fee, "one moment I will speak to me supervisor" miraculously no charge.

  27. #27
    Master blackal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Scottish Borders
    Posts
    9,534
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Morgan View Post
    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.

    That is my understanding, also. The person who is driving may just mow down a 3rd party and the liability could be in the millions.

    Even a £200,000 clawback from the underwriter would change your life for ever (for most folk).

  28. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by bobdog View Post
    r I was told I was breaking the law by having two separate insurance policies running on the same vehicle.
    Only if you tried to claim on both policies surely ? The usual manner would be to start one insurance policy as the other expires.

    I too have let insurance "expire" when selling vehicles with only a short while left to run.

  29. #29
    Grand Master Chris_in_the_UK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Norf Yorks
    Posts
    42,913
    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.........

  30. #30
    Master theoriginaldigger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    As far from stupid as possible
    Posts
    1,555
    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).

  31. #31
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    West Midlands, UK
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Morgan View Post
    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.
    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.

  32. #32

  33. #33
    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!

  34. #34
    Master Maysie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Middle of Nowhere (UK)
    Posts
    2,555
    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!

  35. #35
    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.

  36. #36
    Master mondie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Llandudno (ex Oz)
    Posts
    3,655
    Quote Originally Posted by Maysie View Post
    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.
    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.

  37. #37
    Master Christian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    9,876
    Quote Originally Posted by vagabond View Post
    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.
    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.

  38. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian View Post
    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.
    Look at it from their perspective - you've bought a product (years insurance), why should they be out of pocket if you change your requirements?

  39. #39
    Master Christian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    9,876
    Quote Originally Posted by Kingstepper View Post
    Look at it from their perspective - you've bought a product (years insurance), why should they be out of pocket if you change your requirements?
    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.

  40. #40
    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.

  41. #41
    Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Scotland, UK
    Posts
    3,969
    Blog Entries
    2
    If you cancel the insurance they’ll hit you for admin fees

    On the other hand if you suspend its cover from date of sale it saves that happening and it wont automatically renew - cancel auto bank direction tho.

    Jim


    Quote Originally Posted by walkerwek1958 View Post
    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.

  42. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Kingstepper View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonM View Post
    Also isn’t your insurance void if the driver isn’t a named driver?

    Surely you can't insure something that you have no insurable interest in?
    Although no trees were harmed during the creation of this post, a large number of electrons were greatly inconvenienced.

  43. #43
    Master Alansmithee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Burscough, UK
    Posts
    9,573
    Quote Originally Posted by Backward point View Post
    Surely you can't insure something that you have no insurable interest in?
    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.

  44. #44

    Friend had nasty surprise after selling car...

    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?

  45. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Kingstepper View Post
    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?

    You need to ask the thief to sign a waiver, confirming that they have a policy which covers the car.
    Although no trees were harmed during the creation of this post, a large number of electrons were greatly inconvenienced.

  46. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Alansmithee View Post
    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.
    How come we have to nominate any other named drivers then?

  47. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Kingstepper View Post
    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?
    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.).

    Quote Originally Posted by ernestrome View Post
    How come we have to nominate any other named drivers then?
    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

  48. #48
    Master
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    1,424
    Quote Originally Posted by WarrenVrs View Post
    Why on earth would he let the insurance run? Crazy.
    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

  49. #49
    Master blackal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Scottish Borders
    Posts
    9,534
    Quote Originally Posted by ernestrome View Post
    How come we have to nominate any other named drivers then?

    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.

  50. #50
    How do you distinguish yesbutting from curious questions?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Do Not Sell My Personal Information