dellautos

Liability for uninsured mechanic

Recommended Posts

I too can't see how it can possibly be your problem (except he may be uninsured and cost you) - I mean as in you did not give him permission (implied or otherwise) to drive it. It surely must be a taking vehicle without consent deal as mentioned.

Anyway, what do I know.  Would be interesting to hear @Tangovictor32 's take.  HIm being an ex-copper and all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dellautos said:

Well what I've been informed by the mechanic is he was under the impression he was insured. It was a course they put him on and his car wasn't drive-able at the time, so he was looking for alternative transport to get there. Lookers couldn't give him a car so he said he could use mine (without asking me) and his manager agreed and said it was covered, so he took it and went on the course. If it's true fair enough, but still doesn't excuse not asking for permission or checking for a valid MOT first.

Agreed about lack of permission, but you need to check if Lookers did indeed insure it through Cooper Solutions. There will be a record on their system. Not sure where that leaves you if no permission given and no MOT ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If no other insurance, lookers or mechanics, want to bother covering the vehicle (why would they..) it falls back to your trade policy. This is the insurance for that vehicle to be on the road and covers any events it finds itself in. Your trade policy have to cover it regardless to what they say or where the blame lies. That's who the 3rd party claimants will chase it from.

Even if your cars stolen, chased and crashes into another car, damaging police cars etc..To add insult to injury, they all claim from your insurance..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So even if the driver is uninsured, as he is not driving under the terms of your insurance policy, the insurance company will still payout? 

So all these conditions on my policy, not to be used for hire and reward etc, are void as

10 minutes ago, DigitalAutos said:

This is the insurance for that vehicle to be on the road and covers any events it finds itself in.

Good reason not to put cars on MID that you aren't using.

So I wonder who he told the police he is insured with. I assume if he said you they would have checked with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Wow am shocked at Some of the replies here.

Some suggesting OP is responsible because he gave him the car? YES he gave him the car to do WORK on not thrash about!

OP believes his word that his company will insure him for a side job. Are you on coo coo land? Would you insure your driver who helps you pick up motors on a side job he does on a car that you dont have any involvement with?!

Whether he is registered or not is not the issue here.

He has taken the car without your knowledge. 

You DROPPED the vehicle off to him and PICK it up when the work is done. HE DOESNT pick up or drop off to you (from what i gather). This is what you need to stick to. 

He has taken the vehicle without consent. 

I dont know if the MIB will pay the third party because the driver was uninsured. 

And you would be left to either repair your own at your cost or fork it out of him.

And man up please. He has fobbed you off. He knows why. And he is playing you at it!!!

This sort of thing makes me infuriate!

 

Edit:

 

You may get pulled up about why you dropped it off with no MOT. Unless you put it on a trailer.... Only time a vehicle is allowed without an MOT on the road is if it is on the way to a pre booked MOT. Or it has failed it and is on the way to a garage to do some work. NB you dont have to get work done from the same garage that failed the MOT and are legally allowed to go to a garage to get work done.

Edited by TangoVictor32

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
46 minutes ago, DigitalAutos said:

If no other insurance, lookers or mechanics, want to bother covering the vehicle (why would they..) it falls back to your trade policy. This is the insurance for that vehicle to be on the road and covers any events it finds itself in. Your trade policy have to cover it regardless to what they say or where the blame lies. That's who the 3rd party claimants will chase it from.

Even if your cars stolen, chased and crashes into another car, damaging police cars etc..To add insult to injury, they all claim from your insurance..

This is right. 

Whatever the circumstance, the insurance company who cover that car will pay the third party and if you're in breach of the policy terms and conditions, pursue the policyholder (or perhaps your mate) to reclaim their costs.

Edited by Mark101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have a look on the MID, it may have been put on there by Lookers if you haven't, worth 30 seconds. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TangoVictor32 said:

Wow am shocked at Some of the replies here.

Some suggesting OP is responsible because he gave him the car? YES he gave him the car to do WORK on not thrash about!

OP believes his word that his company will insure him for a side job. Are you on coo coo land? Would you insure your driver who helps you pick up motors on a side job he does on a car that you dont have any involvement with?!

Whether he is registered or not is not the issue here.

He has taken the car without your knowledge. 

You DROPPED the vehicle off to him and PICK it up when the work is done. HE DOESNT pick up or drop off to you (from what i gather). This is what you need to stick to. 

He has taken the vehicle without consent. 

I dont know if the MIB will pay the third party because the driver was uninsured. 

And you would be left to either repair your own at your cost or fork it out of him.

And man up please. He has fobbed you off. He knows why. And he is playing you at it!!!

This sort of thing makes me infuriate!

 

Edit:

 

You may get pulled up about why you dropped it off with no MOT. Unless you put it on a trailer.... Only time a vehicle is allowed without an MOT on the road is if it is on the way to a pre booked MOT. Or it has failed it and is on the way to a garage to do some work. NB you dont have to get work done from the same garage that failed the MOT and are legally allowed to go to a garage to get work done.

yes

what OP needs to do now is get advice from solicitor and if all in order make statement under oath to police that car was driven without his permission

if this isnt done a summons will be coming quick for IN12

SO TO SUMMARISE LEGAL ADVICE FIRST THEN nail this lying person before you get nailed

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tradex said:

Have a look on the MID, it may have been put on there by Lookers if you haven't, worth 30 seconds. 

It is on the MID under my insurance and was at the time of the incident.

1 hour ago, TangoVictor32 said:

You may get pulled up about why you dropped it off with no MOT. Unless you put it on a trailer.... Only time a vehicle is allowed without an MOT on the road is if it is on the way to a pre booked MOT. Or it has failed it and is on the way to a garage to do some work. NB you dont have to get work done from the same garage that failed the MOT and are legally allowed to go to a garage to get work done.

At the time i dropped it off at the garage it had a valid MOT, it's been there for some time as required some extensive work doing.

Thanks for all your replies thus far.

I heard back from Gordons, very nice lady Joanna there who has shed some light on things. I've also spoken to TWise again, this time a much more informed person. Here's what i've found out.

Based on that fact the mechanic did not have permission to drive the car, they will firstly try and see if his personal or company insurance will pay out for the claim. If not then my insurance company will have to deal with it. However, I am not personally liable for any claim amount, that sits with the mechanic should it come to that. My premium will increase and i will lose and NCD, but essentially not liable for the claim value... which is a massive weight off my mind. I can front the extra premium, but paying for medical bills and thirty repair would be a real kick in the teeth.

Live and learn. I'll post any updates as i get them hopefully as a reference for others who have similar experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jason doyle motor sales said:

yes

what OP needs to do now is get advice from solicitor and if all in order make statement under oath to police that car was driven without his permission

if this isnt done a summons will be coming quick for IN12

SO TO SUMMARISE LEGAL ADVICE FIRST THEN nail this lying person before you get nailed

as above, the mechanic is likely lying because -  lookers are not in the business of insuring other traders /staff cars or letting their staff do other jobs on site, if anything his boss at lookers was likely mislead into believing the mechanic owned the car hence possibly allowed to work on it on site, they certainly won't have an appetite for insuring staff cars and certainly not yours.

so best if you go in hard, make a police statement asap that car was used without consent, state car was left on site for work - whether permission for this was granted is not your problem.

regards a claim you are likely to be liable or at least pursued as you simply own the car, regards the issue of putting a car on m.i.d database- if you know the car is elsewhere then yes always cover your back.

finally, find a proper mechanic with his own premises.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mark101 said:

Whatever the circumstance, the insurance company who cover that car will pay the third party and if you're in breach of the policy terms and conditions, pursue the policyholder (or perhaps your mate) to reclaim their costs.

 

39 minutes ago, dellautos said:

If not then my insurance company will have to deal with it. However, I am not personally liable for any claim amount, that sits with the mechanic should it come to that. 

Do I win a prize?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dellautos said:

It is on the MID under my insurance and was at the time of the incident.

At the time i dropped it off at the garage it had a valid MOT, it's been there for some time as required some extensive work doing.

Thanks for all your replies thus far.

I heard back from Gordons, very nice lady Joanna there who has shed some light on things. I've also spoken to TWise again, this time a much more informed person. Here's what i've found out.

Based on that fact the mechanic did not have permission to drive the car, they will firstly try and see if his personal or company insurance will pay out for the claim. If not then my insurance company will have to deal with it. However, I am not personally liable for any claim amount, that sits with the mechanic should it come to that. My premium will increase and i will lose and NCD, but essentially not liable for the claim value... which is a massive weight off my mind. I can front the extra premium, but paying for medical bills and thirty repair would be a real kick in the teeth.

Live and learn. I'll post any updates as i get them hopefully as a reference for others who have similar experience.

Bet your going to enjoy them beers tonight....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't hold me to this, but this sounds to me like your insurance trying to pass the buck for something they should probably be liable for.

I would not expect as a trader for you to be required to see a certificate of insurance from every person who may work on your car, bodyshops, tyre shops, mechanics etc.

Indeed, even for members of the public, if you can reasonably believe that your re insured to drive a car, then you are not guilty of an offence if it turns out to not be insured. e.g. a car you have hired, a driving instructors car etc.

I would say that the mechanic is guilty of an offence of driving whilst uninsured. This is nothing to do with you. He may have a defence if his lookers boss has told him he is insured, but this is none of your concern.

The third parties claim therefore, given that it cannot be made against the uninsured driver, would fall back to either their own insurer, or probably your insurer given that you have the car on the MID with them.

It sounds like your insurer is trying to be a bit sly by passing this liability on to you. I wouldn't put it past them to try and get you admitting this liability somehow, i.e. by getting you to say you knew he was driving the vehicle etc. Technically if you knew he was driving it, you are guilty of the offence of permitting him to drive without insurance, and also absolve them of the liability of paying out the claim.

 

As I say the above is my interpretation, but seek professional advice before you let them do you over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dellautos said:

It is on the MID under my insurance and was at the time of the incident.

At the time i dropped it off at the garage it had a valid MOT, it's been there for some time as required some extensive work doing.

Thanks for all your replies thus far.

I heard back from Gordons, very nice lady Joanna there who has shed some light on things. I've also spoken to TWise again, this time a much more informed person. Here's what i've found out.

Based on that fact the mechanic did not have permission to drive the car, they will firstly try and see if his personal or company insurance will pay out for the claim. If not then my insurance company will have to deal with it. However, I am not personally liable for any claim amount, that sits with the mechanic should it come to that. My premium will increase and i will lose and NCD, but essentially not liable for the claim value... which is a massive weight off my mind. I can front the extra premium, but paying for medical bills and thirty repair would be a real kick in the teeth.

Live and learn. I'll post any updates as i get them hopefully as a reference for others who have similar experience.

Not liable for the claim but your insurer could pay out?

If you're not liable then they shouldnt be paying out.

Your premium going up and losing ncd is your loss even though you wasn't involved in the accident!

Why would you accept this? If you went for a new quote next year and told your new company that "I wasnt at fault but because someone else drove my car it fell down to my previous company to pay out as a result i lost my ncb" they will be very suspicious.

You dont have a car hire insurance policy whereby it doesnt matter who the driver was they would pay out 

This could be insurance fraud for all you know....matey boy hits his pals car and rakes in £££

When an uninsured driver hits another persons car the MIB have a pot where they pay out from. 

You do need to get some advice before you accept the fault...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TangoVictor32 said:

Not liable for the claim but your insurer could pay out?

If you're not liable then they shouldnt be paying out.

Your premium going up and losing ncd is your loss even though you wasn't involved in the accident!

Why would you accept this? If you went for a new quote next year and told your new company that "I wasnt at fault but because someone else drove my car it fell down to my previous company to pay out as a result i lost my ncb" they will be very suspicious.

You dont have a car hire insurance policy whereby it doesnt matter who the driver was they would pay out 

This could be insurance fraud for all you know....matey boy hits his pals car and rakes in £££

When an uninsured driver hits another persons car the MIB have a pot where they pay out from. 

You do need to get some advice before you accept the fault...

That's how insurance works.  The OP is not personally liable because he wasn't driving and the car was being driven without his knowledge.  His insurers will need to pay out because the car was insured by them at the time of the accident unless they can claim from someone else's policy e.g. if the mechanic had his own policy to drive customer vehicles which he clearly didn't.

The OP's premium goes up because the car was insured on his policy and a claim has been made against his policy whether he accepts fault or not.  The mechanic failed to check that the car was road legal i.e. taxed, MOT'd and insured.  It is the driver's responsibility to check these things before driving a vehicle in the eyes of the law and that applies to everyone although in the real world there are many circumstances when that doesn't happen.

To address the point about the mechanic having 3rd party cover on his private car policy - even if that was the case that wouldn't have applied here because that 3rd party cover only applies to privately owned vehicles and with the owner's consent not trade vehicles nor without the owner's consent.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Oakham Cars said:

That's how insurance works.  The OP is not personally liable because he wasn't driving and the car was being driven without his knowledge.  His insurers will need to pay out because the car was insured by them at the time of the accident unless they can claim from someone else's policy e.g. if the mechanic had his own policy to drive customer vehicles which he clearly didn't.

The OP's premium goes up because the car was insured on his policy and a claim has been made against his policy whether he accepts fault or not. 

That is utter nonsense.

Insurance doesnt work like that.

My policy covers me and my business partners only. We have demonstration cover and we have to be present in the car.

No insurAnce company will pay out if none of the name parties were driving the vehicle. There is even small print in insurance docs stipulating this. 

I really dont know who tells you folks they do. Please dont listen to your brokers they will tell you anything as long as they get £££

We're not in Poland chaps were the vehicle needs insurance and not the driver. Ie if the vehicle is insured anyone can drive it. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is exactly the same as if the car had been stolen off the driveway.  Your insurer as the last named policy provider pay out, then claim off the offender.

It is only when a vehicle has NO insurance full stop that you’re talking about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, TangoVictor32 said:

That is utter nonsense.

Insurance doesnt work like that.

My policy covers me and my business partners only. We have demonstration cover and we have to be present in the car.

No insurAnce company will pay out if none of the name parties were driving the vehicle. There is even small print in insurance docs stipulating this. 

I really dont know who tells you folks they do. Please dont listen to your brokers they will tell you anything as long as they get £££

We're not in Poland chaps were the vehicle needs insurance and not the driver. Ie if the vehicle is insured anyone can drive it. 

 

My policy covers me and my business partners only. We have demonstration cover and we have to be present in the car....

It doesn't, it covers the vehicle as well. Say the vehicle handbrake slips and rolls down the street, say your driving the car and crash and the MOT has ran,  Your vehicle is parked and fuel leaks causing a fire. That's why insurance has to, by law, cover the vehicle. Doesn't matter whose is or isn't in control of it. thatch why ever vehicle needs it own insurance even if an overriding insurance temporary covers it. That's why premiums in hot spot areas are so high, it's the damage your stolen vehicle can cause which falls back on your insurer. Not the cost of the loss of the vehicle.

It's something to keep in mind if you let someone claim they have their own insurance cover to test drive your car. It's tempting to think let them get on with it, it's their problem if something goes wrong. The reality is if their insurance isn't valid the're driving on yours even though you didn't consent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DigitalAutos said:

My policy covers me and my business partners only. We have demonstration cover and we have to be present in the car....

It doesn't, it covers the vehicle as well. Say the vehicle handbrake slips and rolls down the street, say your driving the car and crash and the MOT has ran,  Your vehicle is parked and fuel leaks causing a fire. That's why insurance has to, by law, cover the vehicle. Doesn't matter whose is or isn't in control of it. thatch why ever vehicle needs it own insurance even if an overriding insurance temporary covers it. That's why premiums in hot spot areas are so high, it's the damage your stolen vehicle can cause which falls back on your insurer. Not the cost of the loss of the vehicle.

It's something to keep in mind if you let someone claim they have their own insurance cover to test drive your car. It's tempting to think let them get on with it, it's their problem if something goes wrong. The reality is if their insurance isn't valid the're driving on yours even though you didn't consent.

/\/\/\This

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, DigitalAutos said:

My policy covers me and my business partners only. We have demonstration cover and we have to be present in the car....

It doesn't, it covers the vehicle as well. Say the vehicle handbrake slips and rolls down the street, say your driving the car and crash and the MOT has ran,  Your vehicle is parked and fuel leaks causing a fire. That's why insurance has to, by law, cover the vehicle. Doesn't matter whose is or isn't in control of it. thatch why ever vehicle needs it own insurance even if an overriding insurance temporary covers it. That's why premiums in hot spot areas are so high, it's the damage your stolen vehicle can cause which falls back on your insurer. Not the cost of the loss of the vehicle.

It's something to keep in mind if you let someone claim they have their own insurance cover to test drive your car. It's tempting to think let them get on with it, it's their problem if something goes wrong. The reality is if their insurance isn't valid the're driving on yours even though you didn't consent.

So @Tony A on here has an issue whereby insurance are accusing him of an accident when someone else made clone plates and therefore he's being blamed.

Is this reasonable?

I did 7 boring years in Traffic as a bobby and we seized countless cars where one mate would insure under traders and his pals would just use that as a pool car.

The driver was informed of all of the above.

In other instances where an uninsured driver had hit a third party vehicle the third party claims were dealt with by the Motor Insurance Bureau. Who have funding for this sort of thing.

The examples you gave are reasonable but its not reasonable for someone to give their vehicle in for work and the worker thrashing it on a 200 mile round trip because he believes he wont get pulled as its "live on the MID innit". These incidents wont be covered. Yes the insurance may pay out as they get to hike your premium. Like I said they just want more £££

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TangoVictor32 said:

So @Tony A on here has an issue whereby insurance are accusing him of an accident when someone else made clone plates and therefore he's being blamed.

Is this reasonable?

I did 7 boring years in Traffic as a bobby and we seized countless cars where one mate would insure under traders and his pals would just use that as a pool car.

The driver was informed of all of the above.

In other instances where an uninsured driver had hit a third party vehicle the third party claims were dealt with by the Motor Insurance Bureau. Who have funding for this sort of thing.

The examples you gave are reasonable but its not reasonable for someone to give their vehicle in for work and the worker thrashing it on a 200 mile round trip because he believes he wont get pulled as its "live on the MID innit". These incidents wont be covered. Yes the insurance may pay out as they get to hike your premium. Like I said they just want more £££

 

Is this reasonable? -- No, but that doesn't change anything...

one mate would insure under traders and his pals would just use that as a pool car  --  Yes, but the cars still got an active insurance, the fact that his mates are not insured on it is a matter for the police, or if the insurer is knowingly letting them drive this would void the insurance allowing the insurance company to chase after the money that they will still have had to pay out on  a claim.,

In other instances where an uninsured driver had hit a third party vehicle the third party claims were dealt with by the Motor Insurance Bureau. -- No insurance available to claim off. If the vehicle had any mandatory insurance it will be claimed against regardless of who was driving it.

The point is your insurance are legally obliged to pay out in all eventualities because they cover the vehicle and whatever events it finds itself in. The fact that they VOID the insurance doesn't protect them from a claim. It only allows them to actively chase either the policyholder or someone else through the courts to recover their losses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Dell needs to be very carefull about what he says.If an insurance investigator gets involved they might ask some awkward questions about the working relationship with his friend/mechanic,invoices for previous work,bank statements showing payments etc,they might also interview people at Lookers which could open a can of worms.I witnessed an accident awhile ago and I was later questioned and the insurance guy ( ex police) was good.They might establish that the mechanic is a business partner,what happens then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The moral of the story is use bona fide people to do your work...… pay peanuts you get monkeys. I hope the OP comes out okay here, it I s all a learning process and 30 plus years still finding new things relating to the job.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, DigitalAutos said:

Is this reasonable? -- No, but that doesn't change anything...

one mate would insure under traders and his pals would just use that as a pool car  --  Yes, but the cars still got an active insurance, the fact that his mates are not insured on it is a matter for the police, or if the insurer is knowingly letting them drive this would void the insurance allowing the insurance company to chase after the money that they will still have had to pay out on  a claim.,

In other instances where an uninsured driver had hit a third party vehicle the third party claims were dealt with by the Motor Insurance Bureau. -- No insurance available to claim off. If the vehicle had any mandatory insurance it will be claimed against regardless of who was driving it.

The point is your insurance are legally obliged to pay out in all eventualities because they cover the vehicle and whatever events it finds itself in. The fact that they VOID the insurance doesn't protect them from a claim. It only allows them to actively chase either the policyholder or someone else through the courts to recover their losses.

There's clear terms and conditions in insurance docs that state "the company may refuse to pay out in certain circumstances" and they list these.

https://www.budgetinsurance.com/car-insurance/about-your-policy/car-insurance-the-motor-insurers-bureau-mib/

 

Please give the above a read look a bit more into it regarding the MIB and their role.

Like I said the OP must insist on this and tell his insurer that third party need to be dealt with by MIB. 

Meanwhile he needs Mr Mechanic to pay for his car. And slap him with 6 points and a fine for driving his car uninsured.

If he pisses about further ie doesn't want to pay and prolongs it then take him to court where he can get a criminal record and then the bailiffs can come knocking on his door.

We all do wrong sometimes but it really infuriates me when lil gits take the Mickey then disappear hoping the person that they just fobbed off will stay quiet and take it on the chin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.