If you sell a vechile. warning

[vacuman]

On this subject I learnt something recently which may or may not be correct. If I'm the owner of a car and the insurance is in my name with the missus as a named driver and I drop dead, the tax and insurance die with me.

Not sure how this would be the case but I can imagine, at least with the insurance, if she were to have a prang and the insurance say that they need to talk to the person in who's name the policy is held.

In theory there's no change in the risk so the insurance shouldn't just end but we all know that the rules are never in the favour of the consumer.

[roverbarmy]

Once a car is sold, the purchaser becomes the new "keeper and user" of that vehicle and the insurance aspect needs to be checked on the policy wording, even if it states "any driver, driving with the policyholders permission" as it will most probably be on the condition that the policyholder either owns or has rented/leased a particular vehicle. Even a "trade" policy may be limited to using for demonstration or testing purposes and can have a massive excess attached. Care also needs to be taken when hiring vehicles as the insurance is very limited. Hire cars abroad often say "full insurance included" but that often just means full third party cover. Any damage is then the users responsibility and they usually have your credit card details and can rack up huge bills. The last time that I hired a car in Greece, the cost doubled when I insisted on "Full insurance" that meant everything was covered with no excess.

[macafee2]

In relation to my first post and one or two replies, 3rd party, the victim still needs to be taken care of. Your insurance "covers them", it is your car that's not covered. They get paid, your insurance comes after you.

macafee2

[macafee2]

Originally Posted by clf

I dont understand how this could be. If you have filled out the V5 correctly, and given a receipt for payment. If you dont cancel immediately then you have insurance, so they can 'come after you' But if you were to cancel, then surely if that was a precedent, they could still 'come after you'.

Add to that, the person buying the car if no insurance would be driving without insurance.

Perhaps you mean the scenario of man buys my car, but is driving it home at 1205 pm, on his own fully comprehensive insurance clause 'driving another vehicle that you neither hire nor own, providing it is also insured by the keeper/owner' . But I have arranged for the policy to swap over onto my new car at 12pm of that day (which is normally the situation that happens with my insurance), or it is cancelled altogether. He has an accident, then they have the problem of having no insurance.

Again providing you have given a receipt with a copy (your proof of no longer owning the car) and correctly filled out the V5, I still see no reason why you have any liability at all. I know there are complications for a vehicle (or property) being insured under another existing policy, perhaps something relating to that? But then insurance not only relates to the car, but also the named individuals.

Cancel the policy at once or a pre arranged time, and by all means ask the new owner if they have insurance to take it away, but once it is sold, it is no longer your responsibility. Unless of course it could be proven, you watched the new driver drop a couple of Es and necked a bottle of vodka lol.

it would seem if you sell a vehicle and new owner does not have insurance and you don't cancel yours, your insurance could have to pay.

macafee2

[clf]

Originally Posted by macafee2

it would seem if you sell a vehicle and new owner does not have insurance and you don't cancel yours, your insurance could have to pay.

macafee2

I got that, but it is referring liability to the old owner that I dont get. As you cannot give permission to drive something you dont own any longer. I cannot understand how the liability refers to the previous owner. This would have to be in black and white, as there would have to be a time limitation on it, as this would mean a new owner could carry on driving the car until the previous owner stopped the policy.

Likewise as I said previously, the new owner had an accident, why would it be fair to chase a previous owner who delayed cancelling the policy, yet not chase the owner who had delayed cancelling. I cannot see how it works.

[clf]

Originally Posted by macafee2

In relation to my first post and one or two replies, 3rd party, the victim still needs to be taken care of. Your insurance "covers them", it is your car that's not covered. They get paid, your insurance comes after you.

macafee2

the 3rd party is taken care of by the new owner/keeper via the courts.

[clf]

Originally Posted by vacuman

On this subject I learnt something recently which may or may not be correct. If I'm the owner of a car and the insurance is in my name with the missus as a named driver and I drop dead, the tax and insurance die with me.

Not sure how this would be the case but I can imagine, at least with the insurance, if she were to have a prang and the insurance say that they need to talk to the person in who's name the policy is held.

In theory there's no change in the risk so the insurance shouldn't just end but we all know that the rules are never in the favour of the consumer.

I can see how this works, as the risk has now changed. It is cold, however, whilst there I imagine be a grace period, but previously the wife would have had a limited risk as she would not have (in theory) been driving as often as if her husband would have been alive. She drives 50% of the time to his 50% but he dies, she then drives it 100% of the time.

On a similar vein, a friend told me her policy does not cover her to drive her spouse's car, without being named on his policy and vice versa as they are married and therefore are expected to be named. I have no intention if getting married, so I dont know of this. lol

[MSS]

Originally Posted by vacuman

On this subject I learnt something recently which may or may not be correct. If I'm the owner of a car and the insurance is in my name with the missus as a named driver and I drop dead, the tax and insurance die with me.

Not sure how this would be the case but I can imagine, at least with the insurance, if she were to have a prang and the insurance say that they need to talk to the person in who's name the policy is held.

In theory there's no change in the risk so the insurance shouldn't just end but we all know that the rules are never in the favour of the consumer.

I agree with the above post. In fact, it is exactly for this reason that when you apply for insurance with a named driver included on the policy, there is a question as to who is going to be the primary driver. When the primary driver changes, the risk profile changes.

[Coups]

Originally Posted by macafee2

In relation to my first post and one or two replies, 3rd party, the victim still needs to be taken care of. Your insurance "covers them", it is your car that's not covered. They get paid, your insurance comes after you.

macafee2

You're quite right with this. Under certain circumstances the last insurer, a company not the policyholder, can be held liable for third party claims if the policy is not cancelled sometimes even if it has been. The same goes for cover for any damage to person or property by the insured vehicle by a driver who has stolen said vehicle. Now there's an anomaly, person being carried in a stolen car if injured can claim on the owners insurance even though it's stolen!!!

Insurance....none if it makes sense. There's far more liability on insurance providers than that which appears in policy small print for the consumer.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[clf]

Originally Posted by Coups

You're quite right with this. Under certain circumstances the last insurer, a company not the policyholder, can be held liable for third party claims if the policy is not cancelled sometimes even if it has been. The same goes for cover for any damage to person or property by the insured vehicle by a driver who has stolen said vehicle. Now there's an anomaly, person being carried in a stolen car if injured can claim on the owners insurance even though it's stolen!!!

Insurance....none if it makes sense. There's far more liability on insurance providers than that which appears in policy small print for the consumer.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Is this not something to do with Motor Insurance Bureau? As in they underwrite the the third party claim. Something I have read in passing, something about protecting innocent party's insurance company against uninsured drivers. Which I can understand as an insurance insurance so to speak, but it still does not have any bearing on the previous owner (ie their premiums should not be affected).

This scheme deals with compensation claims arising out of accidents caused or contributed to by an uninsured driver. Where it is shown that no policy of insurance exists covering the responsible party’s vehicle, the MIB will consider dealing with a claim for compensation from the "victim". Liability still needs to be assessed but because the negligent (and uninsured) party has been formally identified, the MIB recognise that the innocent victim has rights of full legal redress once fault is proven. This assumes that the MIBs own claims criteria are met.

Claims will be considered for the cost of repairing/replacing the vehicle (comprehensively insured policyholders precluded), hire charges, loss of use and property damage. An injured party can also claim for treatment and/or rehabilitation for pain and suffering. Legal costs are paid in full by the MIB once the claim is proven.

worryingly the bold comments seem to suggest the OP to be correct, however I cannot see how or if this will affect the previous owner's premiums.

LINK

One thing though, at the start of insurance policies, there are standard questions to answer. One of which is, have you had any claims made against you, or words to that effect. At least you could honestly answer in this case, no lol. As the claim is made against the insuance company via the MIB, or at least that is how I read it


Regarding your second comment, there was a case a few years ago where PSNI officers claimed for injury against the policy of the owner whose car was stolen and subsequently rammed by them.LINK

at the bottom of the link above, "Section 98 of the Road Traffic Northern Ireland Order 1981 includes a requirement to have third party insurance and places a legal obligation on insurers when there is a claim arising from use of a vehicle they insure'' which in the case above, the owners' were claiming for the theft of their vehicle, which as stated, in the article, that the policy would increase anyway. But if you sold the car, you wouldnt be claiming for your old car against your own policy.