Do you want the Road Tax system to change? Do you have thoughts on the potential changes to the Road Tax system? | No thanks
Car Insurance Law - TomOliver

I had fully comprehensive insurance on my car and although I had an accident and the car was scrapped I continued paying the insurance because I thought that the third party insurance cover (to drive other cars) would still exist. I was recently pulled over by a police office and was told that because the car had been scrapped, technically (although I was paying it) the police didn't exist. The office took the car to the pound and told me that I would get the 6 penalty points and a £300 fine.

About a month ago I called a solicitor that was an expert in this field (I can't remember who it was) to discuss and for them to represent me when I went to court to dispute this. I was told that in 9 cases out of 10 such as this because the agreement is between me and the insurance company (they didn't know the car had been scrapped), technically I was covered and the police officer can't affect that agreement. The solicitor went on to explain that unless the insurance company had terms and conditions that specifically stated that the policy was cancelled after the car was scrapped, I was legally covered.

The solicitor said in the worst case scenario (if the insurance company did exclude this in their terms and conditions) that if I could prove that I thought I was covered at the, I still have a case to appeal the punishment (obviously I thought I was covered or I wouldn't have kept paying).

If anyone could help and advise me on my issue, I would be very grateful.

Best Regards,

Tom

Car Insurance Law - RobJP

The solicitor went on to explain that unless the insurance company had terms and conditions that specifically stated that the policy was cancelled after the car was scrapped, I was legally covered.

The solicitor said in the worst case scenario (if the insurance company did exclude this in their terms and conditions) that if I could prove that I thought I was covered at the, I still have a case to appeal the punishment (obviously I thought I was covered or I wouldn't have kept paying).

Have you had a read of your policy terms and conditions to see what it actually says ?

Remember, ignorance of the law is not a defence in the eyes of the law.

Car Insurance Law - TedCrilly

Magistrate say....Why were you driving without insurance?

So you say....I thought I was covered.

Magistrate says......why?

You say...Eeerrrrrr?

Magistrate says......What does the policy terms and conditions say?

You say...Dunno I havent read them

Magistrate says......Have you contacted the insurance co to ask for clarification?

You say...No

Magistrate says....Why?

You say.....I didnt think I had to

Magistrates says....So what made you think you had cover at the time?

You say....I just did

Magistrate says......Ok I have had enough, you have been negligent in the eyes of the law, its a fine and points.

You need to take those documents to the solicitor and hope that buried somewhere in there is something that will support you. My own belief is that the policy (and the 3rd party cover) ended when your car was declared a total loss.

Car Insurance Law - slkfanboy

Slightly confusing, Is the car you where driving the written off car or another car?

I asume your driving another car i.e. 3rd party only.

The most likely reason you were pulled over is that the police computer system did not find the car as insured.

The reason that would be is if it not the declared car on any motor insurence policy. You say you have not added it to you policy even though you old is written off, and i guess no one else has either.

Read your policy carefully it common for the insurance company to require and the car to be insured on another policy before you can drive the car 3rd party only.

And it maybe worth while getting a solicitor as your issue is on a point of law.

Car Insurance Law - Dwight Van Driver

You really need to read the small print of your policy.

As I understand it then if the car was written off and payment made to you by Insurance Company then as a write off the Insurance ceases.

Again on DOC, whilst not stipulated it could well be that cover is valid despite the vehicle driven having tno Insurance of its own. Down to what is in the terms and conditions.

dvd

Car Insurance Law - concrete

I always thought that insurance cover for you and the vehicle ceased if the vehicle was written off. A write off is a form of settlement and you may receive the value of the vehicle less excess. Also the premium is classed as paid up whether the policy was 11 days old or 11 months old when the policy ceases the premiums go to the insurance company for their risk.

It sounds to me as if you were paying for your insurance by monthly installment. The insurance company should have asked you to settle the premium in full, or they may have been lenient and let you continue to clear the debt by installment. In any event just because you are still paying for a redundant policy you are not covered by that policy because it is considered lapsed upon settlement. Sounds to me like you have gotten confused into thinking you were covered because you were still paying an insurance policy, albeit a lapsed one. I hope I am wrong but I think you have inadvertantly broken the law. If so it may be best to provide all the information you can to the court and explain your confusion and throw yourself at their mercy. Although quite a serious offence, the mitigating circumstances should invite some leniency. Best of luck and let us know how you get on.

Cheers Concrete

Car Insurance Law - RT

Sounds to me as though the other car wasn't insured in it's own right, as it has to be these days - that would explain why the OP was pulled over as it would trigger an ANPR alert. The car would be impounded and the keeper, not the driver, likely receive a penalty from DVLA.

If the OP's policy is still operative, it would come down to the wording of the clause - my own policy has no requirement for the other car to be insured in it's own right but many do.

Car Insurance Law - Peter D

Who owned the car you were driving when you were stopped. Regards Peter

Car Insurance Law - concrete

I don't think it matters if the car he was driving was insured by it's owner, if the OP was not insured then third party cover is non existant. The policy the OP had, ceased when the car was scrapped. The scrapyard will have asked for the V5 and informed the DVLA of the scrappage. That information will be on their database and also the insurance database are usually informed too. The T&C's of the policy will state that the policy ends when the vehicle is scrapped or a cash settlement is made. You then start afresh with a new policy. If the OP did not inform his insurance he is also in breach of the T&C's by withholding material information concerning him and/or the vehicle. He is clearly under the mistaken impression that because he is still paying his monthly installments that he is still covered. He is not. He is simply paying the premium which is sacrificed when the policy ceases. It is a pound to a pinch of horse manure that he is wrong. Albeit inadvertantly, he has broken the law and breached his contract with the insurance company. He is better off making a clean breast of it. Accept the consequences and then move on a poorer and wiser man. If you wish to enrich a solicitor then go to court and fight the case. Best of luck.

Cheers Concrete

Car Insurance Law - GBP1705

An interesting subject which makes me ask this, Can a driver have full comp insurance on his own vehicle and also a named driver on someone elses policy ? If the driver with full comp is covered on that policy 3rd party to drive any other car would he still be full comp covered on the policy where he is a named driver ?

Edited by GBP1705 on 08/08/2015 at 22:39

Car Insurance Law - RT

An interesting subject which makes me ask this, Can a driver have full comp insurance on his own vehicle and also a named driver on someone elses policy ? If the driver with full comp is covered on that policy 3rd party to drive any other car would he still be full comp covered on the policy where he is a named driver ?

Yes - that's probably fairly common - my car with wife as named driver, her car with me as named driver and both of us able to drive other cars 3rd party.

I guess there is technically double insurance in that I'm insured fully comp on my wife's car AND insured to drive it 3rd party under the "any other car" part.

My examples are hypothetical as my wife no longer drives and we now only have one car.

Car Insurance Law - FP

A footnote to this discussion about "double insurance" or "overlapping insurance" - it is, as I understand it, serious fraud to make two claims (on different policies) for one loss, though I believe life insurance may be an exception.

You might be lucky enough to be able to choose which policy gave the more favourable terms.

Car Insurance Law - Andrew-T

I always thought, in simple terms, a policy relates to a specified vehicle, for a specified driver or drivers. If the specified vehicle no longer exists the policy can only cease - and presumably any payback resulting from that is paid up. Line drawn in the sand, no further cover ?

Car Insurance Law - slkfanboy

It is the case that most private motorist policies have the car and drivers named on the policy.

3rd party driving another car you must read the small print as it's not consistant accoss companies. Some require the car naming on another policy before it's legal.

Car Insurance Law - skidpan

I had fully comprehensive insurance on my car and although I had an accident and the car was scrapped I continued paying the insurance because I thought that the third party insurance cover (to drive other cars) would still exist.

Simple fact is you cannot insure a car that does not exist. If you could we would all be insuring a phantom Fiat Punto and then driving the wifes uninsurred Ferrari.

Once your old car had been scrapped the insurance was effectively ended since you no longer owned the car and it did not exist. By not informing your insurers you were breaking the T & C's and as a result of these simple facts had no insurance when you were stopped.

Ignorance is no defence.

Car Insurance Law - concrete

I always thought, in simple terms, a policy relates to a specified vehicle, for a specified driver or drivers. If the specified vehicle no longer exists the policy can only cease - and presumably any payback resulting from that is paid up. Line drawn in the sand, no further cover ?

My point precisely Andrew-T, the policy he had has ceased. He is no longer covered to drive anything unless via another policy. That is the norm for car insurance in the UK.

I believe that in the USA it is the driver who is insured not the vehicle. On the basis that you cannot drive two vehicle at once, this is a very sensible policy. If you have several cars then the premium is based on the most valuable vehicle. Makes a lot more sense than our money grabbing system. You could change your vehicle, drive a different one, buy a new one, whatever you wanted within the policy terms. All hasle free because there is no rigmarole to go through with an insurance company every time you wished to do something concerning your own vehicle or vehicles. Ah but that would be too simple, wouldn't it!! No free cash for insurance companies.

Cheers Concrete

Car Insurance Law - No_FM2R

Firstly, you could take the stunningly revolutionary step of ringing your insurance company and asking if they thought you were insured. I mean, like ask the people who KNOW???

I cannot think why you wouldn't do that.

Still, out of pure interest the relevant point is whether or not a total loss payment was made to you by your insurer?

This is probably the most important point.

One shouldnt confuse whether or not your insurer can avoid an AD claim with whether or not you had TP insurance.

If yes, the policy was probably supposed to be cancelled. And in fact may have been suspended; I'd guess suspended so I wouldn't fancy your chances in this position. Although if the insurer behaved incorrectly there may be some grounds for your belief. This will not affect your guilt, but will affect the penalty.

If there was no payment, then it is a different matter. Essentially the condition of a car is not relevant to your insurance existance, only to your potential to claim.

Accidental Damage cover can be avoided relatively easily by the Insurer if you breach the conditions. Third Party cover is almost impossible to avoid, although they can recover their losses from you under certain circumstances.

If you were totally abusing the conditions of your policy, especially the DOC extension, that may well give your insurer the right to reccover losses form you. It is unlikely to give them the right to avoid the claim.

So if no payment was made, you're probably ok. "OK" as in, gonna get away with this one but totally taking the p*** out of the system.

You will need local, expert and professional assistance.

Finally, you haven't read your policy, you cannot remember the name of the solictior you spoke to, you didn't check your beliefs with your insurer either before or since, and now you're asking on an internet forum, you're not trying very hard to look after yourself, are you.

Car Insurance Law - concrete

I had fully comprehensive insurance on my car and although I had an accident and the car was scrapped I continued paying the insurance because I thought that the third party insurance cover.........

NO_FMR2 I think the statement above clearly states that the car was scrapped. In which case the insurance ceases. Even if he did not inform the insurance company, which is a breach of T&C's, and continued to pay his premium by installment. He is NOT insured to drive anything on the road under that policy, because it no longer exists. That is pretty much it really. Nothing left to discuss.

Whether the OP is taking the proverbial or is simply ignorant of how insurance works he has broken the law and is in breach of contract.

He could be for the 'high jump' or he may receive leniency when it goes to court. We may find out if he decides to share the outcome with the forum.

Cheers Concrete

Car Insurance Law - No_FM2R

>>That is pretty much it really. Nothing left to discuss.


You are wrong. Probably. A breach of Ts&Cs has a different impact depending on which part of the policy cover is being considered.

Simplistically an Insurer may avoid the accidental cover section but will normally have to pay and then recover their losses under the TP liability sections. Thus, he is not neccessarily uninsured.

But since the original poster has not come back with any more information, it doesn't matter very much.

Car Insurance Law - concrete

I agree that he seems to have left us. By a breach of T&C's I mean that he HAS to inform his insurance company of ANY material information regarding him or the vehicle. I would consider that the vehicle being scrapped is material information. Also the fact the vehicle was scrapped automatically ceases the policy. A non existant vehicle cannot be insured. Therefore, no vehicle=no policy=no insurance cover of ANY kind through the original, now ceased, policy. The OP is delusional if he thinks that by continuind to pay his policy installments and not informing of the scrappage he is covered. He is wrong. I would not like to think that he collided with you or me or anyone else under the mistaken impression that he was covered. What a mess to sort out then, He should not be on the road without effective legal insurance cover.

Cheers Concrete

Car Insurance Law - RT

Some insurers don't cancel a policy on a write-off - mine didn't after a fault write-off, they just suspended it for the two months it took me to order a new one and then continued the policy on the new car.

But being suspended, I would have assumed that the driving other cars cover was suspended as well.

 

Ask Honest John Right column

Value my car