Something To Be Aware Of.....

[ToraToraTora]

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-motorists-told-insurance-might-be-invalid-for-non-essential-trips-during-lockdown-12128401
If a claim arises expect to have the insurance company scrutinise the purpose of your journey.

[Everhelpful]

Getting more like Nazi Germany every day.

[david small]

Name a company that will dispute payments because of lockdown. I wouldn’t use said company ever. Neither would many people. Charlatans at best, scare mongers at least.

[ToraToraTora]

david, all of them will use whatever they can to avoid paying out. Now they have a new potential stick to beat us with.

[ToraToraTora]

the thing is there is nothing new here, any illegality that comes to light as a result of an accident will be used to reduce or not payout a claim.

[ToraToraTora]

here's another one with potentially thousands not insured and not even realising it.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5346121/are-you-insured-to-drive-to-work
Since I learned this I have made sure that commuting is on my certificate when insuring.

[Bazile]

Would taking your wife / husband to work count as non essential , I wonder

[Togo]

Does that mean that every burglar, shoplifter, or drug dealer is now uninsured?

[ToraToraTora]

togo, well in the context of lockdown they are non essential journeys so yes. In normal times driving to commit a crime is not in itself illegal so probably ok. But I suspect they'd refuse to pay out on the grounds that it's not SDP! though that would also be a matter of interpretation. Driving to commit a crime could also be considered commuting I suppose! Who knows grey area!

[Zacs-Master]

Interesting. One of the reasons I renew with Direct Line each year is because the cover commuting / business travel as standard.

[teacake44]

I was on my way to food shop, "prove otherwise" ?

[Togo]

I would like to see the reply from a tooled up, violent, mad as hell, villain when the insurance firm tells em that they have invalidated their cover and the damage to their brand new beamer is not covered cos they were "possibly" using it to commit a crime.

[ToraToraTora]

TC: //I was on my way to food shop, "prove otherwise" ? // - well that would work if you were in a place that made it feasible but what if you have a crash in Yorkshire when you live in Wales? They wont have to prove anything, remember this is the insurance company, if you fail to convince them the journey was legal, they refuse to pay out.

[Ellipsis]

If they won't cover the cost of repairing damage to your car ... will they cover the cost of damage to other people (i.e. compensation)? Or do they classify you as driving while uninsured, and chuck the compensation claims into the uninsured drivers' scheme?

[iluvmargie]

They get us all ways don't they??

[teacake44]

Unless (my) insurance company advise me in writing that they have changed my policy since the day I accepted such, and have continued to take the same monthly premium from my bank, and government have not changed any law regarding such car insurance in lock down. Then I hold all the cards for any dispute.

[New Judge]

There are very few circumstances in which an insurer can refuse Third Party liability. Section 148 of the Road Traffic Act, and an EU directive (which is harsher and which has been carried over into UK law) forbids them from doing so.

They may refuse liability for cover which is not required by law (e.g. damage to the policyholder's own vehicle) and they may try to recover their Third Party outlay from the insured if the terms of the policy have been broken. I've just had a glance through mine (taken out last April) and I cannot see any conditions which restrict my driving unless for an "authorised" purpose.

//I was on my way to food shop, "prove otherwise" ?//

Exactly. The listed reasons why you may travel (and the list is not exhaustive) is so varied that you would have to be a complete numpty to let anybody believe you were out of your home without "authorisation." For example, you can leave home for exercise. But it doesn't limit how far you can travel for that exercise. You could be driving to your favourite walking spot and still be "legal." You may even be going to your local optician in Barnard Castle. You are allowed to "...seek medical assistance, including to take any medical tests, be vaccinated or access any of the services referred to in paragraph 47 of the Schedule;" Paragraph 47 lists "Dental services, opticians, audiology services, chiropody, chiropractors, osteopaths and other medical or health services, including services relating to mental health."

I think Sky News is suffering a slow news day.

[ToraToraTora]

TC: "Unless (my) insurance company advise me in writing that they have changed my policy since the day I accepted such, and have continued to take the same monthly premium from my bank, and government have not changed any law regarding such car insurance in lock down. Then I hold all the cards for any dispute. " - this is nothing to do with the IC or Insurance law, they will not have changed their conditions. It is do do with the fact that under the current rules certain journeys are deemed illegal, if you are doing one of those and are involved in a claiming situation your IC will say that you are driving illegally, the same as they would for say, no MOT or a bald tyre. You will not have a leg to stand on, they will not pay out to you and if your fault, not to any third party, who will then be able to sue you for loss. Please try and understand TC.

[bhg481]

Driving illegally cannot be a reason for an insurance company to avoid paying out otherwise any accident involving speeding would qualify. Even a lack of MoT is no reason - it has to be shown the vehicle is dangerous.

[New Judge]

//It is do do with the fact that under the current rules certain journeys are deemed illegal, if you are doing one of those and are involved in a claiming situation your IC will say that you are driving illegally, the same as they would for say, no MOT or a bald tyre.//

Please see above Tora. The old chestnut that having no MoT invalidates your insurance cover has been doing the rounds for as long as I can remember and it is complete BS. The same section 145 of the RTA covers that.

[teacake44]

Insurance companies seem to think they are a law unto themselves, they are if you choose not to challenge them. As it happens I've never had to make any claims for house or car, or anything in 70 years, but wouldn't shy away from any such silly response from them should anything happen now.