ChatterBank1 min ago
Car Insurance Claim Refusal To Pay Out
33 Answers
A few months ago, my mother took my sister to a party in my sisters car, drove it home, parked it on the drive and locked it as you do. She was woken at 4am by police to inform her that the car had been stolen from her drive and found written off less than a mile away. They had been to my sisters house (the registered keeper / owner and only insured on the vehicle) but she was pretty drunk and hadn't been able to give them any answers.
Anyway, now the insurance are refusing to pay out as they say my mother was in charge of the car and was only covered third party by her own insurance. They are saying this as my mum was the last person to drive the car. Surely though, if my sister had driven the car to my mum's and then caught the bus where she was going, presuming the car was still stolen, they would not be able to use this supposed "clause" to get out of paying as my sister would have been the last person to drive the car?
Could anyone help? Is there anyway that the insurers would reconsider? Are there previous cases setting precident in this case? She cannot afford to replace the car. Any help at all would be greatfully received.
Thanks in advance.
Anyway, now the insurance are refusing to pay out as they say my mother was in charge of the car and was only covered third party by her own insurance. They are saying this as my mum was the last person to drive the car. Surely though, if my sister had driven the car to my mum's and then caught the bus where she was going, presuming the car was still stolen, they would not be able to use this supposed "clause" to get out of paying as my sister would have been the last person to drive the car?
Could anyone help? Is there anyway that the insurers would reconsider? Are there previous cases setting precident in this case? She cannot afford to replace the car. Any help at all would be greatfully received.
Thanks in advance.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by DancingDoris. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Normally, before the Ombudsman will consider a case, it must have been through the relevant insurance companies formal complaints process. Therefore you should make a formal complaint concerning their refusal to pay out against your claim. Once they respond to you complaint by refusing to budge – you can then take the matter to the Ombudsman, who will arbitrate on the case.
Remember to keep copies of all correspondence and important documents that you may need - to support your case. Should you have to make telephone calls in relation to the complaint – keep a record of the date/time/who you spoke to, and a brief résumé of what was said.
Remember to keep copies of all correspondence and important documents that you may need - to support your case. Should you have to make telephone calls in relation to the complaint – keep a record of the date/time/who you spoke to, and a brief résumé of what was said.
once the insurers are aware that she drove it and left it where it was subsequently stolen then they are not going to budge. They are correct, she is covered third party only. The fact that if her sister had parked it there and had it been subsequently stolen they would have paid out will cut no Ice, this is a clear route for them to avoid paying. Unfortunately they are 100% within their rights. People never consider this possibility when driving other peoples cars under the "third party only" clause.
I presume that on the proposal form your sister stated that the car was normally parked overnight at her address, either in a garage, on the driveway or on the road. In this case the vehicle was parked on your mother's driveway, which may be in a higher risk area.
As Hymie says, go through the insurance company's formal complaints procedure before approaching the Financial Ombudsman Service.
If your sister bought her insurance through a broker, she should lodge her claim through them, who should fight the claim on her behalf.
As Hymie says, go through the insurance company's formal complaints procedure before approaching the Financial Ombudsman Service.
If your sister bought her insurance through a broker, she should lodge her claim through them, who should fight the claim on her behalf.
Personally I would be very surprised if when you have third party fire & theft cover, that the theft coverage is nullified, should someone else have driven the car.
If that were the case – whenever a theft claim is made on the TPF&T policy – the insurer would be asking for you to confirm that the car was driven to where it was stolen from, by the policy holder. I have never heard of insurance companies make such enquiries.
Twix123’s comment with regards the parked location of the car is irrelevant – unless it was parked there regularly (overnight), contrary to the declaration (to the insurance company) of where it is normally left overnight. Otherwise as a condition of your insurance – you could not go and visit someone, and park the car there overnight (without invalidating the insurance).
It is the Insurance Ombudsman who deals with such matters – not the Finance Ombudsman.
If that were the case – whenever a theft claim is made on the TPF&T policy – the insurer would be asking for you to confirm that the car was driven to where it was stolen from, by the policy holder. I have never heard of insurance companies make such enquiries.
Twix123’s comment with regards the parked location of the car is irrelevant – unless it was parked there regularly (overnight), contrary to the declaration (to the insurance company) of where it is normally left overnight. Otherwise as a condition of your insurance – you could not go and visit someone, and park the car there overnight (without invalidating the insurance).
It is the Insurance Ombudsman who deals with such matters – not the Finance Ombudsman.
There is no such "Insurance Ombudsman" - it falls within the realm of the Financial Ombudsman Service which will only intercede, as previously stated, after a complaint has been made to the original insurer.
http://www.financial-...nsumer/complaints.htm
http://www.financial-...nsumer/complaints.htm
stating where the car will normally be parked is just a guide to where it will most often be left...you are entitled to park your car wherever you please
they are just trying it on...and assuming your mum is insured on it it shouldnt matter who had it last - thats what you add named drivers for - so they can use it too - keep fighting
they are just trying it on...and assuming your mum is insured on it it shouldnt matter who had it last - thats what you add named drivers for - so they can use it too - keep fighting
You are right in assuming that they would have paid out if your sister had drove the car there and left it. However this is not the case, you have made it quite clear that it was your mother who was using the car on her own insurance and is therefore only covered for third party claims through her (the mothers) insurance.
I am sorry to say that however many complaints you make or lawyers you use the insurance company have got you fair and square, it isn't even a case of not reading the small print as these clauses would have been listed quite prominently.
I am sorry to say that however many complaints you make or lawyers you use the insurance company have got you fair and square, it isn't even a case of not reading the small print as these clauses would have been listed quite prominently.
This insurance claim has divided responders into those who think your sister does not have a claim (against the insurer), and those that think her insurer is wrong.
Therefore you have nothing to loose by asking the Ombudsman to arbitrate – it is a free service, but as I said, you must go through the insurer’s complaints’ process first.
Therefore you have nothing to loose by asking the Ombudsman to arbitrate – it is a free service, but as I said, you must go through the insurer’s complaints’ process first.
I too would be interested in the outcome.
Strictly speaking nobody was “in charge” of the car when it was taken. If they were, it is unlikely the car would have been stolen at all. For the insurers to contend that the last person to drive it remains “in charge” it would mean that that person could not then go into their home and have a drink without running the risk of a charge of excess alcohol whilst in charge.
However, I have looked at the “small print” of my policy. Under the Theft section it says “We will not pay for loss or damage to the car if, at the time of the incident, it was under the custody or control of anyone with your permission who is not covered under this policy.”
It seems from your description that the car was indeed under the custody and control of your mother. (it certainly was not under the custody and control of your sister as she was drunk and elsewhere). Of course had your sister driven it to your mothers and left it there herself it would be different. But she did not and it is what actually happened not what could have happened which will determine the outcome.
Please keep us informed.
Strictly speaking nobody was “in charge” of the car when it was taken. If they were, it is unlikely the car would have been stolen at all. For the insurers to contend that the last person to drive it remains “in charge” it would mean that that person could not then go into their home and have a drink without running the risk of a charge of excess alcohol whilst in charge.
However, I have looked at the “small print” of my policy. Under the Theft section it says “We will not pay for loss or damage to the car if, at the time of the incident, it was under the custody or control of anyone with your permission who is not covered under this policy.”
It seems from your description that the car was indeed under the custody and control of your mother. (it certainly was not under the custody and control of your sister as she was drunk and elsewhere). Of course had your sister driven it to your mothers and left it there herself it would be different. But she did not and it is what actually happened not what could have happened which will determine the outcome.
Please keep us informed.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.