I just checked my comprehensive insurance I have with Hastings, I am covered to drive other cars (DOC). So... I am saying check the small print, you are saying comprehensive doesnt cover driving other cars.Originally Posted by keithl
You insist on this detail that it's not his brother's it is Motability's and I dont see the point there, I just said RSA's insurance clearly doesnt cover this incident as the driver (her sister) isnt on the policy. I am trying to identify the best scenario to help in this case...
Back to my point. Apparently driving another car under a comprehensive insurance only covers third party on most policies that offer DOC, that's why it is important to check the small print. Also if her sister is under 25 years old... there's no chance her comprehensive policy would offer her DOC. The issue of driving it without his brother's knowing can be argued both ways...
So if its only third party cover on her comprehensive... looks like she will have to pay for her brother's Motability car repairs. At least she would have been covered to drive the car, not sure if police would look into "without his brother's knowing", the insurer might, but again... its arguable.
This seems to be the best scenario, in which his brother isnt affected by this, Motability and RSA I hope wouldnt care as long as they dont have to pay anything.
Colin,
I think the bottom line (a) Mobility is the policy holder and have not given permission? (b) Mobility are entitled to recover all cost (c) They are quite within their right to terminate the mobility contract. (d) The sister will need to declare all to her insure company as this will all go on the data base, she should also check with her insurance company as whether her current insurance policy is still valid.
I have suffered a Traumatic Subachnoid Brain Haemorrhage several years ago, I do struggle to understand quite simple as well as long postings and can be appear to be quite blunt or rude in my post it is not intentional, it is very difficult to find the right word to explain, it is just part of my condition, please except my apologise in advance, due to my injury I am also very sensitive.
From the Motability website, at: https://www.motability.co.uk/informa...er/#tab=tab-1&
Unauthorised and uninsured drivers
Only the named drivers shown on your Certificate of Motor Insurance are covered to drive. Other drivers, not on the certificate, are not allowed to drive your Motability Scheme vehicle even if they have fully comprehensive insurance which provides cover to drive other cars. You may be held responsible for any loss or damage that occurs when someone not named on the policy is driving. Also, you may not be able to lease another car through the Motability Scheme.
That is a given, Adexico, Motability and RSA are in full right to deny any claims made to them about this incident. They will not pay a thing, let's hope they will not go back after their client considering that he wasnt involved and the car was driven without his knowledge, and of course if her sister will pay for the repair.
Yes, Oscarmax, that's right, exactly what I was trying to say in too many words. Motability will be entitled to terminate the contract, but, they might consider that their client wasn't involved in any way, he is a vulnerable person that really needs that car and as long as the sister will pay for the repairs on the motability car...
She might end up paying for both cars she damaged, as her insurer might go against her for driving without permission, but at least she wasn't (hopefully) driving without insurance from the police point of view. Nasty experience anyway, costly lesson.
Colin, there's no getting away from the 'terms and conditions' of the Motability contract, The RSA insurance policy; and the law.
That said, and given that many Motability clients are 'vulnerable', I suspect that they will be lenient to the case; provided that they (or RSA) are not suffered a financial loss.
However, surely when anyone takes delivery of a brand new car, which has stringent T's & C's attached; they ensure that for their own protection of the vehicle, that anyone/everyone who may have access to the vehicle is fully aware of such restrictions.
Also, within my previous post, are the following phrases from Motability.
"You may be held responsible...."
"you may not be able to lease another car...."
So... may be safe.
Good luck.
Last edited by adexico; 10-29-2018 at 08:46 AM.
Yes, I do agree with you, I just want to point out that all those 3 things are separate:
The law says you have to be insured to drive a car. The law wouldn't care about Motability's T&C, that's where I hope the sister is covered by her insurance to drive the crashed car (even if Motability's T&C and RSA insurance policy says it's not permitted). It shouldn't be the police's job to enforce a contract's T&C...
RSA's insurance policy clearly doesnt apply here, she wasnt a named driver on the policy. There's no way RSA would want to pay anything relating to this incident.
Motability's T&C... Are between Motability and its customer - the brother. Let's hope for the best case permitted here within their wording: "may be held responsible", considering that the vulnerable person didnt knew nor approved of his sister taking the car, and as long as they (motability and RSA) wont have to pay anything to fix this.
So in conclusion, the sister will most likely have to pay for his brother's motability car repairs and she will have to look if she broke the law by driving uninsured. (And probably pay for the other car repairs as well, I suspect the other insurer will look closely into "took the car without the owner's permission"...)
Usually your fully comp will allow you to drive someone elses car "With Their Permission".......... Taking and driving without telling is hardly getting permission.
Bottom line is simple.
The Motability driver states “she took car without permission “
The law will prosecute fro driving a vehicle with out permission, driving a vehicle that is not insured to do so.
Any finicaial cost will be recovered by courts and insurance companies.
The Motability customer won’t be in trouble as it’s not the customer who has to prove innocence but the one who committed the offence.
Bottom line is this.
If she has taken car with permission then she’s not entitled to drive the care.
If she is not named on the insurance certificate then even with her own insurance is driving a vehicle on public roads with no valid insurance.
Try getting in a bus and driving it saying it’s fine my car insurance says I can drive another vehicle.
She knowingly stole the car and the police should prosecute her - how else will she learn.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
