Car stolen = are we insured

[pollyl]

Do we have a claim against our insurers? Our case was stolen by a person posing as a buyer. My husband was standing by the car at the time, showing it to the buyer. The buyer asked my husband to check the reversing car sensors, and as he walked behind the vehicle, the 'buyer' slammed the door and drove off. Police informed, car not traced, case closed. Our insurers are claiming we cannot claim ANYTHING - it was a £20k car. I have a summary of cover, which states no mention of this clause which is actually buried deep in the policy. Surely they owe a duty of care to make policy holders aware of such a thing? Any help / courses of action welcome. We ahve reported the case to The Financial Ombudsman.

[bednobs]

did they give you a copy of the policy itself?

[jackthehat]

I think the kindest thing I can say, is that no, you'll have been expected to read the T&C of your policy........as are we all.

I know it won't make you feel any better, but I'm afraid that is the long and the short of it.

[Old_Geezer]

Best of luck. IMO it ought to be covered as long as you had at least F&T, but I am often stunned at how useless the law can be when it comes to dispensing justice. Darned insurance companies, try to wriggle out of everything.

[Zeuhl]

Blimey. Puts a whole new slant on test drives.
Best of luck.

[redcrx]

and thats why i would never sell a car privately. Its an awful lesson to learn, but you gave the thief the keys and the opportunity :(

youcould try the insurers ombudsman to see if there is any way out of this mess.

[factor-fiction]

I can see how people wouldn't spot this point in their policy.
On what basis was the claim turned down- is it because you left the key with the driver?

[pollyl]

the clause is 'if someone steals the car through fraud or trickery whilst posing as a buyer' - hindsight is a wonderful thing... we are just devasted, but thankful noone was hurt.

[Hymie]

You state that your insurance co. has refused the claim based on the clause: 'if someone steals the car through fraud or trickery whilst posing as a buyer'.

There was no fraud involved in the theft of the vehicle, and the dictionary definition of trickery is ‘an act or the practice of deceiving or cheating’. No deception was involved in the theft of the car and I do not see any cheating – only theft. Therefore I would expect the Ombudsman to rule in your favour on this point.

However all insurance polices would expect you to take reasonable care of the vehicle – that is why a number of insurers refuse to pay out when someone leaves the keys in the ignition while paying for petrol.

But I do not see anything unreasonable in what your husband did. And therefore I still expect the Ombudsman to rule in your favour.

I would be very grateful if you would post the result of the Ombudsman’s ruling, once made.

[factor-fiction]

I agree with Hymie. I suggest you fight it. Good luck

[ABerrant]

The very act of "posing as a buyer" is where the deception took place, ergo fraud or trickery to enable the theft.

[JonnyBoy12]

Did the car have a Tracker then? I would imagine not in this case. Let this be a lesson to all of you never to do this. If someone asks to check the lights get them to do it, not you.

I am sorry about this, but not sure what we can all do.

[factor-fiction]

Under this policy wording it seems to me that it would be unwise to try to sell your car in this way, as any theft during the process of showing someone the vehicle could be construed as "fraud or trickery" by the buyer.

[vivandorron]

I am of the opinion that Hymie is correct.... There was not any fraud or trickery involved...The car was stolen and the owner at all times was acting in good faith.... A view I feel sure that should be taken by the Ombudsman.

Ron.

[ABerrant]

Fraud and trickery is reliant upon the good faith of the victim.

I am not advocating that the clause should not be inspected, tested and adjudicated by the Ombudsman but rather that the language used in the clause (rightly or not) does fit the described scenario i.e. somebody posing as a buyer is acting in a fraudulent manner and to persuade the seller to exit their car under false pretences (i.e. to leave them with the keys and in control) is "trickery", therefore the car was stolen through fraud AND trickery.

[jno]

if that isn't trickery, what is?

[Hymie]

As my mum would say – ‘you can argue this until the cows come home’. But the only opinion that matters is that of the Ombudsman – so let’s agree to stop arguing.

[lylabellablueyes]

That's awful. I hope you get it sorted :-(

[JackDanielsU]

Surely you must have something to go on?

How did the "buyer" get in contact? How did he he arrive at the place where the car was?

[hc4361]

ALWAYS read the policy. If the summary mentioned everything in the policy it would be as long as the policy itself.
I'll be interested to see what the ombudsman says.

[Skyline D]

It is awful. And I think it's morally wrong that such a clause exists. However, I cannot comprehend how anyone would say that "wasn't fraud". It couldn't be more fraudulent if it tried! Someone posing as a buyer in order to find opportunity to steal the car is as "fraud" as it gets. The only way it's not fraud is if he genuinely was there to buy the car and then took an opportunistic impulse to steal it out of the blue.