It sounds as though the Highways Agency has made a simple "school boy error" by not checking ALL the facts.
The OP had a policy that was current at the time of the accident, all the Highways agency have to do is identify the driver which is presumably the new owner, they can then legally claim from the OP's Insurance Policy who will ultimately look to recover from the OP.
Originally Posted by Dennis W
Here's an example of what I was explaining about the Road Traffic Act.
Originally Posted by Dennis W
I note that the article states (my bolding) "A legal loophole means Paul Duffy could be liable for all *insurance costs for the accident "
To me this indicates that the insurance company may be hoping that the biker has some personal liability insurance that would pay the claim. If he does not, I wonder if they really would take him to court for it?
The trouble is that we probably will never hear the outcome.
One of the consequences of the changes to VED, is that anyone who sells a vehicle will be more likely to notify the DVLA. After reading stories like the OP and this - we should also spread the word about insurance.
Well, that's a warning I will take heed of, even if it does mean paying a cancelation fee, as I for one, will cancel any car insurance I have, after I've sold a car in future.
Could does not really come into it, the Road Traffic Act makes his Insurers liable for the third party claim, they in turn will turn to their client to repay them.
Originally Posted by Santa
They can do this due to the same part of the Road Traffic Act (Section 151 2b) which also has part 7 which contains the following...
"(7)Where an insurer becomes liable under this section to pay an amount in respect of a liability of a person who is insured by a policy or whose liability is covered by a security, he is entitled to recover from that person—
(a)that amount, in a case where he became liable to pay it by virtue only of subsection (3) above, or
(b)in a case where that amount exceeds the amount for which he would, apart from the provisions of this section, be liable under the policy or security in respect of that liability, the excess."
This gives them a statutory right of recovery against their policyholder.
Motor Policies also contain a clause requiring you to pay them back for payments they would not have had to make but for the law requiring them to eg RTA 151 2) b).
Here's the relevant clause from a Direct Line Policy.
"4. Payments made outside the terms of the policy
If we must make a payment because the laws of any country require us to do so,
we may recover from you, or the person who is liable any payment that is not
covered by this policy. This includes any amount that we would not otherwise
be required to pay as a result of your failure to provide accurate information."
http://www.directline.com/content/da...y-document.pdf (Page 12)
Insurers do not like having to pay out under the RTA 151 2) b) and they will nearly always look to recover their losses from their policyholder. If they have no liquid assets a charge can be put on their house or judgement obtained and then wait for their income to increase.
With regard to your question about the costs possibly being covered by some type of Personal Liability Policy eg the type included by a Home Insurance or similar. These all specifically exclude liability under the Road Traffic Act for situations such as this and also because providing cover for motor vehicles makes you bound by the RTA and all that entails such as the issue of a motor Certificate etc etc
It is rare this type of thing happens but not unheard of.
You really shouldn't 'leave a policy' running, as it isn't a valid policy at all. You are insuring the insurable interest of a vehicle, which you had actually sold. Therefore, there is no financial interest in a vehicle to consider. The problem you face here is the compulsory requirement for third party liability insurance cover in the UK, outlined under the Road Traffic Act 1998, section 145. Unfortunately, as you failed to return the insurance certificate or make a statutory declaration confirming its destruction, your insurers will not have a defence to the third party claim under section 152 of the same Act. As you did not own the vehicle at the time, your only hope is to try and get your insurers to re-direct the claim to the Motor Insurers Bureau, under the Untraced Drivers' Agreement. Please note that any attempt to re-direct the claim under the Uninsured Drivers' Agreement would be doomed to fail, due to the existence of your policy. The fact that your pursues seek to rely upon 'images of your car damaging theirs' does give some hope. If the driver was never found then you may be able to bully the MIB into taking the claim. Just hope your insurers have a strong backbone and some good technical staff! The MIB are a resource of last resort and are funded entirely by insurer levy. The money all comes out of the same pot in the end, you just have to avoid this incident affecting you.
In summary, present your evidence again to the insurer, ask them why they are not trying to re-direct this claim to the MIB under the Untraced Drivers' Agreement, and hope for the best. If they have already tried to pass it on to the MIB, tell them to appeal!
Hope that helps. We've lots of other helpful advice on our site if you're interested. It's inenglishplease.co.uk.
Since you've used this forum to give a blatant plug to your website, I think it's only right to point out to our members that some of your advice is very wrong.
Under "What to do if you have a road traffic accident" your site says:
"Get the contact details for the other person. Don’t worry too much if they won’t give you their address, they have no obligation to do so ..."
In fact, the Road Traffic Act 1988 Section 170 requires any driver involved in an accident to provide his name AND ADDRESS, as well as those of the owner of the vehicle, and failure to do so is an offence.
I'm surprised that your "vastly experienced insurance professionals with internationally recognised qualifications" could get this wrong, particularly since it is spelled out "in plain English" in the Highway Code.
There's quite a few inaccuracies in the advice he gives on his website.
Originally Posted by Beelzebub
One of the most important ones is that he does not appear to be registered with the FCA but is giving advice on insurance and introducing business to Endsleigh. I've emailed the FCA so they can look into whether he needs to be registered or not.