car sold but insurance left running - now a claim against me
Hoping someone could advise on possible legal standing.
Sold a car, changed details with DVLA (letter acknowledged) but held insurance to put on to next car. Ended up forgetting about it. several months later someone else has had an accident in that car, and my insurance company are saying that the claim will go against me and I will have to pay because I never cancelled the policy.
My argument is that the policy was void as I was no longer the owner as stated in the insurance documents and the car was not being driven by myself or by someone with my permission which is also a requirement as stated in the documents.
The claim is from the highways agency as they say they have photos of the car causing damage.
I am aware I should have cancelled the policy but genuinely forgot after initial delay with intent to replace that car (with policies for two other cars, two motor bikes, pushbike, home ins, accident ins, etc I don't keep track of policies very well).
I would like to contest my liability for that claim but do not know where I stand legally at the moment.
Any help or suggestion gratefully received.
I would write explaining exactly what happened and enclosing a copy of the reciept from DVLA showing that you no longer owned the car. That should resolve the problem.
Thank you for the reply. Unfortunately no, this does not clear it up. The insurance company are saying that I am liable as I never cancelled the insurance and whoever it was that had the accident never took out insurance. therefore my cover is in force and that is what is being claimed on. Regardless of if I sold it or not.
This does not seem right.
Unfortunately this won't clear the matter up.
Originally Posted by Santa
The Road Traffic Act makes the Insurer of a vehicle liable for any (fault) accidents whether the driver at the time was covered by the policy providing they're identified. This is why (Sensible) Insurers request the Certificate be returned when you cancel the policy, it's also why it's strongly advised to cancel or suspend the Insurance in this situation rather than leave it running in between vehicles as this type of situation can and does happen.
The OP's policy will have a wording to the effect that they are obliged to reimberse the Insurers for any payments that they make that they would not have had to make if it were not for statutory laws.
The OP will be pursued by their own Insurer for all their outlay
I think it's time for some proper legal advice.
Which section of the RTA is that then?
Originally Posted by dacouch
Many thanks for the quick response. I guess that's a warning to all of us, although most people would be cancelling an looking for a refund ASAP!
Originally Posted by dacouch
In the case in question, however, we know that the DVLA have the new RK's details. Shouldn't the insurers be pursuing him? And the police for that matter, since he (or the driver) appears to have failed to report an accident?
They have a contract with the OP, the contract contains a term that entitles them to recover these costs from their OP and they would not have had to pay these monies out if the OP had cancelled the policy.
See also 148 4).
Many thanks for everyone's input and especially dacouch (on the other forum as well).
I do note that you mention about the driver being identified, If I have interpreted that correctly. However no attempt has been made to id the driver. The highways agency have gone from the reg plate in some photos, straight to the ins database and sent the claim to the policy on the database.
Also I do agree that the insurance company will want money off me to cover their losses, but my angle is that they should not be suffering any losses as they should not be paying out in the first place, due to major breaches in the contractual terms and conditions of the policy. Ie, I was not even the owner any more and the car was effectively being driven by someone who had not gained my consent. Although I'm assuming that they did not have cover (or did the highways agency just contact the first listed policy they came across), it is also possible the driver had third party cover from a policy on another vehicle so that policy should be the one paying out. Without any attempt to identify the driver, or even the registered keeper at the time, is my situation really that cut and dry?