Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Car stolen during test drive
805 views
Skip to first unread message
Toby
Dec 27, 2014, 5:38:34 AM12/27/14
to
Hi,
I would appreciate some advice if anyone is able to spare the time!
*Background*
My cousin bought a new car, and arranged for a third party to try to
sell his old car (worth about £10K) privately from their house, as this
person is retired and has the time to spare, and has done this sort of
thing in the past, purely on a private basis. This person is not a motor
trader and was also recommended by a good friend of my cousin to do this
(it is their parent).
My cousin has comprehensive insurance on this car, and the person who
was trying to sell the car was driving it under his use of other
vehicles section of his own policy.
Someone came to view the car, and seemed interested, the person trying
to sell the car gave the potential buyer the keys to take it for a test
drive (on their own for some bonkers reason) and it never came back. No
ID or anything as taken from the thief (yea, I know, we can't work out
why this was thought to be a good plan either).
The thief left another car at the house of the person trying to sell my
cousins car, but did not leave the keys, it turns out that car was also
stolen, the police have seized this car for forensics.
My cousin contacted the insurance company for the stolen car, only to be
told that the policy did not cover him, as the keys were provided to the
thief.
*Question*
The policy holder (my cousin) did not provide the keys to the thief,
this was done by the third party, so my cousin has not acted negligently
in this regard, as far as I can see, my cousin has acted in a proper
way, giving the keys to this trusted third party, backed up by a
recommendation by a friend that this person is genuine, and trusted.
It was the negligence of the person trying to sell the car, who is not
bound by my cousin’s insurance policy that has at least contributed to
the theft of the car. So, should the insurance company cough up, and
then try and recover the monies themselves from the third party if they
so wish (My cousin has said they would be able to pay) or does my cousin
need to pursue the third party for recovery of the money if they refuse
to pay?
At the moment I do not have the terms and conditions of the policy, as
my cousin is out of the country.
Many thanks if you have got this far!
--
Toby... remove pants to reply
I would appreciate some advice if anyone is able to spare the time!
*Background*
My cousin bought a new car, and arranged for a third party to try to
sell his old car (worth about £10K) privately from their house, as this
person is retired and has the time to spare, and has done this sort of
thing in the past, purely on a private basis. This person is not a motor
trader and was also recommended by a good friend of my cousin to do this
(it is their parent).
My cousin has comprehensive insurance on this car, and the person who
was trying to sell the car was driving it under his use of other
vehicles section of his own policy.
Someone came to view the car, and seemed interested, the person trying
to sell the car gave the potential buyer the keys to take it for a test
drive (on their own for some bonkers reason) and it never came back. No
ID or anything as taken from the thief (yea, I know, we can't work out
why this was thought to be a good plan either).
The thief left another car at the house of the person trying to sell my
cousins car, but did not leave the keys, it turns out that car was also
stolen, the police have seized this car for forensics.
My cousin contacted the insurance company for the stolen car, only to be
told that the policy did not cover him, as the keys were provided to the
thief.
*Question*
The policy holder (my cousin) did not provide the keys to the thief,
this was done by the third party, so my cousin has not acted negligently
in this regard, as far as I can see, my cousin has acted in a proper
way, giving the keys to this trusted third party, backed up by a
recommendation by a friend that this person is genuine, and trusted.
It was the negligence of the person trying to sell the car, who is not
bound by my cousin’s insurance policy that has at least contributed to
the theft of the car. So, should the insurance company cough up, and
then try and recover the monies themselves from the third party if they
so wish (My cousin has said they would be able to pay) or does my cousin
need to pursue the third party for recovery of the money if they refuse
to pay?
At the moment I do not have the terms and conditions of the policy, as
my cousin is out of the country.
Many thanks if you have got this far!
--
Toby... remove pants to reply
steve robinson
Dec 27, 2014, 6:08:22 AM12/27/14
to
Toby wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would appreciate some advice if anyone is able to spare the time!
>
> Background
> Hi,
>
> I would appreciate some advice if anyone is able to spare the time!
>
> My cousin bought a new car, and arranged for a third party to try to
> sell his old car (worth about £10K) privately from their house, as
> this person is retired and has the time to spare, and has done this
> sort of thing in the past, purely on a private basis. This person is
> not a motor trader and was also recommended by a good friend of my
> cousin to do this (it is their parent).
>
> My cousin has comprehensive insurance on this car, and the person
> who was trying to sell the car was driving it under his use of other
> vehicles section of his own policy.
>
> Someone came to view the car, and seemed interested, the person
> trying to sell the car gave the potential buyer the keys to take it
> for a test drive (on their own for some bonkers reason) and it never
> came back. No ID or anything as taken from the thief (yea, I know, we
> can't work out why this was thought to be a good plan either).
>
> The thief left another car at the house of the person trying to sell
> my cousins car, but did not leave the keys, it turns out that car was
> also stolen, the police have seized this car for forensics.
>
> My cousin contacted the insurance company for the stolen car, only to
> be told that the policy did not cover him, as the keys were provided
> to the thief.
>
> Question
> sell his old car (worth about £10K) privately from their house, as
> this person is retired and has the time to spare, and has done this
> sort of thing in the past, purely on a private basis. This person is
> not a motor trader and was also recommended by a good friend of my
> cousin to do this (it is their parent).
>
> My cousin has comprehensive insurance on this car, and the person
> who was trying to sell the car was driving it under his use of other
> vehicles section of his own policy.
>
> Someone came to view the car, and seemed interested, the person
> trying to sell the car gave the potential buyer the keys to take it
> for a test drive (on their own for some bonkers reason) and it never
> came back. No ID or anything as taken from the thief (yea, I know, we
> can't work out why this was thought to be a good plan either).
>
> The thief left another car at the house of the person trying to sell
> my cousins car, but did not leave the keys, it turns out that car was
> also stolen, the police have seized this car for forensics.
>
> My cousin contacted the insurance company for the stolen car, only to
> be told that the policy did not cover him, as the keys were provided
> to the thief.
>
> The policy holder (my cousin) did not provide the keys to the thief,
> this was done by the third party, so my cousin has not acted
> negligently in this regard, as far as I can see, my cousin has acted
> in a proper way, giving the keys to this trusted third party, backed
> up by a recommendation by a friend that this person is genuine, and
> trusted.
>
> It was the negligence of the person trying to sell the car, who is
> not bound by my cousin’s insurance policy that has at least
> contributed to the theft of the car. So, should the insurance company
> cough up, and then try and recover the monies themselves from the
> third party if they so wish (My cousin has said they would be able to
> pay) or does my cousin need to pursue the third party for recovery of
> the money if they refuse to pay?
>
> At the moment I do not have the terms and conditions of the policy,
> as my cousin is out of the country.
>
> Many thanks if you have got this far!
The keys were given to the third party by your cousin , the third party
> this was done by the third party, so my cousin has not acted
> negligently in this regard, as far as I can see, my cousin has acted
> in a proper way, giving the keys to this trusted third party, backed
> up by a recommendation by a friend that this person is genuine, and
> trusted.
>
> It was the negligence of the person trying to sell the car, who is
> not bound by my cousin’s insurance policy that has at least
> contributed to the theft of the car. So, should the insurance company
> cough up, and then try and recover the monies themselves from the
> third party if they so wish (My cousin has said they would be able to
> pay) or does my cousin need to pursue the third party for recovery of
> the money if they refuse to pay?
>
> At the moment I do not have the terms and conditions of the policy,
> as my cousin is out of the country.
>
> Many thanks if you have got this far!
had permison to drive the vehicle and sell it so was acting as an
agent for your cousin.
The insurance company are within the terms of the policy if its as you
discribe to refuse to pay out.
The only option your cousin may have is to sue the person he entrusted
the car too.
To be successful your cousin would need to show the third party was
neglient which isnt as easy as yuo may believe.
He may successfully argue that the thief left the other car and the
keys as security.
Roland Perry
Dec 27, 2014, 9:13:07 AM12/27/14
to
In message <m7m022$a5a$1...@dont-email.me>, at 10:01:59 on Sat, 27 Dec
2014, Toby <ne...@altphpantshuk.co.uk.invalid> remarked:
part of a pyramid scheme to eventually steal something worth £100K?
--
Roland Perry
2014, Toby <ne...@altphpantshuk.co.uk.invalid> remarked:
>Someone came to view the car, and seemed interested, the person trying
>to sell the car gave the potential buyer the keys to take it for a test
>drive (on their own for some bonkers reason) and it never came back. No
>ID or anything as taken from the thief (yea, I know, we can't work out
>why this was thought to be a good plan either).
>
>The thief left another car at the house of the person trying to sell my
>cousins car, but did not leave the keys, it turns out that car was also
>stolen, the police have seized this car for forensics.
Sounds like an "FAQ" scam. Perhaps your cousin's car has been used as
>to sell the car gave the potential buyer the keys to take it for a test
>drive (on their own for some bonkers reason) and it never came back. No
>ID or anything as taken from the thief (yea, I know, we can't work out
>why this was thought to be a good plan either).
>
>The thief left another car at the house of the person trying to sell my
>cousins car, but did not leave the keys, it turns out that car was also
>stolen, the police have seized this car for forensics.
part of a pyramid scheme to eventually steal something worth £100K?
--
Roland Perry
Rob Morley
Dec 27, 2014, 5:10:12 PM12/27/14
to
On Sat, 27 Dec 2014 10:01:59 +0000
Toby <ne...@altphpantshuk.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> My cousin contacted the insurance company for the stolen car, only to
> be told that the policy did not cover him, as the keys were provided
> to the thief.
>
Which he did, albeit via his agent - not much chance of arguing
Toby <ne...@altphpantshuk.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> My cousin contacted the insurance company for the stolen car, only to
> be told that the policy did not cover him, as the keys were provided
> to the thief.
>
against this, I think. He'll have to sue the guy who handed over the
keys.
Steve Walker
Dec 28, 2014, 5:11:09 AM12/28/14
to
On 27/12/2014 10:01, Toby wrote:
> The policy holder (my cousin) did not provide the keys to the thief,
> this was done by the third party, so my cousin has not acted negligently
> in this regard, as far as I can see, my cousin has acted in a proper
> way, giving the keys to this trusted third party, backed up by a
> recommendation by a friend that this person is genuine, and trusted.
I think your cousin has little chance of claiming via insurance, and
> The policy holder (my cousin) did not provide the keys to the thief,
> this was done by the third party, so my cousin has not acted negligently
> in this regard, as far as I can see, my cousin has acted in a proper
> way, giving the keys to this trusted third party, backed up by a
> recommendation by a friend that this person is genuine, and trusted.
should sue the "trusted third party" directly.
Chris R
Dec 28, 2014, 5:35:48 AM12/28/14
to
>
>
> "Steve Walker" wrote in message news:cga39e...@mid.individual.net...
insurance.
--
Chris R
========legalstuff========
I post to be helpful but not claiming any expertise nor intending
anyone to rely on what I say. Nothing I post here will create a
professional relationship or duty of care. I do not provide legal
services to the public. My posts here refer only to English law except
where specified and are subject to the terms (including limitations of
liability) at http://www.clarityincorporatelaw.co.uk/legalstuff.html
======end legalstuff======
Roland Perry
Dec 28, 2014, 6:04:42 AM12/28/14
to
In message <l6qdncSmQf9hQQLJ...@brightview.co.uk>, at
10:35:22 on Sun, 28 Dec 2014, Chris R <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk>
remarked:
Liability section, there's almost certain to be an exclusion regarding
motor vehicles [there is in the policy from a well-known insurer that I
skimmed just now]. The Contents section also excludes theft of motor
vehicles (even if a non-resident's would have been covered otherwise).
--
Roland Perry
10:35:22 on Sun, 28 Dec 2014, Chris R <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk>
remarked:
>> > The policy holder (my cousin) did not provide the keys to the thief,
>> > this was done by the third party, so my cousin has not acted negligently
>> > in this regard, as far as I can see, my cousin has acted in a proper
>> > way, giving the keys to this trusted third party, backed up by a
>> > recommendation by a friend that this person is genuine, and trusted.
>>
>> I think your cousin has little chance of claiming via insurance, and
>> should sue the "trusted third party" directly.
>
>Who might be covered for third party liability on his own household
>insurance.
Is that kind of risk likely to be covered? Even if it's in the Public
>> > this was done by the third party, so my cousin has not acted negligently
>> > in this regard, as far as I can see, my cousin has acted in a proper
>> > way, giving the keys to this trusted third party, backed up by a
>> > recommendation by a friend that this person is genuine, and trusted.
>>
>> I think your cousin has little chance of claiming via insurance, and
>> should sue the "trusted third party" directly.
>
>Who might be covered for third party liability on his own household
>insurance.
Liability section, there's almost certain to be an exclusion regarding
motor vehicles [there is in the policy from a well-known insurer that I
skimmed just now]. The Contents section also excludes theft of motor
vehicles (even if a non-resident's would have been covered otherwise).
--
Roland Perry
Tim Watts
Dec 28, 2014, 6:07:56 AM12/28/14
to
or was he doing it as a pastime?
I'm not sure if it affects the legal position, but if he was doing it as
a job (no matter how "informally") I'd feel less bad about suing him.
Robin
Dec 28, 2014, 9:09:26 AM12/28/14
to
> Someone came to view the car, and seemed interested, the person trying
> to sell the car gave the potential buyer the keys to take it for a
> test drive (on their own for some bonkers reason) and it never came
> back. No ID or anything as taken from the thief (yea, I know, we
> can't work out why this was thought to be a good plan either).
>
No comfort to your cousin but I doubt the outcome would have been
> to sell the car gave the potential buyer the keys to take it for a
> test drive (on their own for some bonkers reason) and it never came
> back. No ID or anything as taken from the thief (yea, I know, we
> can't work out why this was thought to be a good plan either).
>
different if the person trying to sell the car had gone with the thief.
It would have been easy enough for the thief to come up with a reason to
get him out of the car - eg getting him out of the car to look at an
alleged issue then making a dash for it; or the old faithful "get out or
you'll get this knife in your kidney".
I also doubt if asking to see ID would have made a difference. I
certainly wouldn't be confident of spotting a forged a driving licence
etc these days; and I'm not aware of anything of the like which comes
with public/private key authentication.
--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid
Tim Watts
Dec 28, 2014, 11:24:27 AM12/28/14
to
On 28/12/14 14:09, Robin wrote:
>> Someone came to view the car, and seemed interested, the person trying
>> to sell the car gave the potential buyer the keys to take it for a
>> test drive (on their own for some bonkers reason) and it never came
>> back. No ID or anything as taken from the thief (yea, I know, we
>> can't work out why this was thought to be a good plan either).
>>
>
> No comfort to your cousin but I doubt the outcome would have been
> different if the person trying to sell the car had gone with the thief.
> It would have been easy enough for the thief to come up with a reason to
> get him out of the car - eg getting him out of the car to look at an
> alleged issue then making a dash for it; or the old faithful "get out or
> you'll get this knife in your kidney".
I think that would make a difference. It would be on par with being
>> Someone came to view the car, and seemed interested, the person trying
>> to sell the car gave the potential buyer the keys to take it for a
>> test drive (on their own for some bonkers reason) and it never came
>> back. No ID or anything as taken from the thief (yea, I know, we
>> can't work out why this was thought to be a good plan either).
>>
>
> No comfort to your cousin but I doubt the outcome would have been
> different if the person trying to sell the car had gone with the thief.
> It would have been easy enough for the thief to come up with a reason to
> get him out of the car - eg getting him out of the car to look at an
> alleged issue then making a dash for it; or the old faithful "get out or
> you'll get this knife in your kidney".
car-jacked and I'm pretty sure insurance covers that.
Robin
Dec 28, 2014, 11:38:09 AM12/28/14
to
> I think that would make a difference. It would be on par with being
> car-jacked and I'm pretty sure insurance covers that.
Fair point. I confess I have no idea if it makes a difference that the
> car-jacked and I'm pretty sure insurance covers that.
keys were handed over to the thief before any such threat.
Toby
Dec 28, 2014, 12:53:30 PM12/28/14
to
this scenario when it is abandoned at the next stage!
--
Toby...
Remove your pants to reply
Toby
Dec 28, 2014, 12:53:50 PM12/28/14
to
before, and was going to be "sorted out" with some remuneration - it is
basically the retired parent of a good friend of my cousin, who has lots
of free time.
Toby
Dec 28, 2014, 2:07:59 PM12/28/14
to
On 27/12/2014 10:01, Toby wrote:
> I would appreciate some advice if anyone is able to spare the time!
>
> *Background*
> My cousin bought a new car, and arranged for a third party to try to
> sell his old car (worth about £10K)
>
>
> *Background*
> My cousin bought a new car, and arranged for a third party to try to
> sell his old car (worth about £10K)
>
> Someone came to view the car, and seemed interested, the person trying
> to sell the car gave the potential buyer the keys to take it for a test
> drive (on their own for some bonkers reason) and it never came back.
>
Many thanks for your replies, which seem to indicate the insurance is a
> to sell the car gave the potential buyer the keys to take it for a test
> drive (on their own for some bonkers reason) and it never came back.
>
dead end, which is unfortunate...
I have had a look on-line at his insurers, and found their policy
booklet, which states the following...
******
We will pay for loss of or damage to the car caused by fire, theft or
attempted theft.
*What is not covered*
Loss of or damage to the car when no-one is in it unless all its
windows, doors, roof openings and hood are closed and locked and all
keys or devices are kept securely away from the car by you or the person
authorised to use the car.
******
This bit seems to be covering them if the car is left unlocked/open and
unattended, which was not the scenario the car was taken from.
It then goes on to say, in the "what is not covered" section: -
******
Loss of or damage to the car resulting from deception by a person
pretending to be a buyer or acting on behalf of a buyer.
******
So this seems to mean that if the car is stolen in the course of you
trying to sell it to someone, by that person that is seemingly trying to
buy it, you are not covered if the steal it in any circumstance, which
seems a bit harsh to me!
Roland Perry
Dec 28, 2014, 2:16:14 PM12/28/14
to
In message <m7pgff$1on$1...@dont-email.me>, at 18:00:53 on Sun, 28 Dec
2014, Toby <ne...@altyourpantsphuk.co.uk> remarked:
more specific about things like people "buying" a car with a counterfeit
cheque and that action being later construed as 'theft'.
These things happen often enough - like the theft of items from cars if
not locked in the boot - that insurance companies exclude them because
the fraction of the annual premium that's assigned to this one of
several hundred risks simply doesn't cover the amount of skulduggery out
on the streets.
This sort of mass-market insurance is only aiming to cover exceptional
events like being struck by lightning; if their marketing makes you
think otherwise, then it's clever marketing.
--
Roland Perry
2014, Toby <ne...@altyourpantsphuk.co.uk> remarked:
>It then goes on to say, in the "what is not covered" section: -
>******
>Loss of or damage to the car resulting from deception by a person
>pretending to be a buyer or acting on behalf of a buyer.
>******
>
>So this seems to mean that if the car is stolen in the course of you
>trying to sell it to someone, by that person that is seemingly trying to
>buy it, you are not covered if the steal it in any circumstance, which
>seems a bit harsh to me!
Very like the policy I quoted extracts from earlier - although they were
>******
>Loss of or damage to the car resulting from deception by a person
>pretending to be a buyer or acting on behalf of a buyer.
>******
>
>So this seems to mean that if the car is stolen in the course of you
>trying to sell it to someone, by that person that is seemingly trying to
>buy it, you are not covered if the steal it in any circumstance, which
>seems a bit harsh to me!
more specific about things like people "buying" a car with a counterfeit
cheque and that action being later construed as 'theft'.
These things happen often enough - like the theft of items from cars if
not locked in the boot - that insurance companies exclude them because
the fraction of the annual premium that's assigned to this one of
several hundred risks simply doesn't cover the amount of skulduggery out
on the streets.
This sort of mass-market insurance is only aiming to cover exceptional
events like being struck by lightning; if their marketing makes you
think otherwise, then it's clever marketing.
--
Roland Perry
RobertL
Dec 28, 2014, 3:09:02 PM12/28/14
to
On Saturday, 27 December 2014 10:38:34 UTC, Toby wrote:
<snip>
Here's a different question: whose insurance was the thief supposedly driving on? AIUI a driver of a car not insured by himself can only use his own policy (for even that for third party cover only) if he drives the car with the permission of main policyholder. But the main policholder was not even present. Everyone must have known the potential buyers would be uninsured and colluded with driving while uninsured.
Robert
<snip>
Here's a different question: whose insurance was the thief supposedly driving on? AIUI a driver of a car not insured by himself can only use his own policy (for even that for third party cover only) if he drives the car with the permission of main policyholder. But the main policholder was not even present. Everyone must have known the potential buyers would be uninsured and colluded with driving while uninsured.
Robert
tim.....
Dec 29, 2014, 4:11:29 AM12/29/14
to
"RobertL" <rober...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4a026d0f-49b3-4ead...@googlegroups.com...
In fact I would go so far as to say, most people don't know this
tim
Roland Perry
Dec 29, 2014, 4:42:25 AM12/29/14
to
In message <4a026d0f-49b3-4ead...@googlegroups.com>, at
12:08:55 on Sun, 28 Dec 2014, RobertL <rober...@yahoo.com> remarked:
and unless he was previously told not to allow test-drives other than
for people carrying trade-plates, then on the balance of probability the
permission required was in fact in place.
On the other hand, the stolen car the thief left behind won't have been
insured by the thief, and so there wasn't any insurance cover to
transfer temporarily to the test-drive car.
Did the TTP fail in a duty of care by not asking the thief to produce
evidence that they were insured to drive the car they turned up in?
--
Roland Perry
12:08:55 on Sun, 28 Dec 2014, RobertL <rober...@yahoo.com> remarked:
>
>Here's a different question: whose insurance was the thief supposedly
>driving on? AIUI a driver of a car not insured by himself can only use
>his own policy (for even that for third party cover only) if he drives
>the car with the permission of main policyholder. But the main
>policholder was not even present. Everyone must have known the
>potential buyers would be uninsured and colluded with driving while
>uninsured.
The "trusted third party" was acting as a representative of the owner,
>Here's a different question: whose insurance was the thief supposedly
>driving on? AIUI a driver of a car not insured by himself can only use
>his own policy (for even that for third party cover only) if he drives
>the car with the permission of main policyholder. But the main
>policholder was not even present. Everyone must have known the
>potential buyers would be uninsured and colluded with driving while
>uninsured.
and unless he was previously told not to allow test-drives other than
for people carrying trade-plates, then on the balance of probability the
permission required was in fact in place.
On the other hand, the stolen car the thief left behind won't have been
insured by the thief, and so there wasn't any insurance cover to
transfer temporarily to the test-drive car.
Did the TTP fail in a duty of care by not asking the thief to produce
evidence that they were insured to drive the car they turned up in?
--
Roland Perry
RJH
Dec 29, 2014, 5:44:55 AM12/29/14
to
just don't seem to want to know. When I put it in the ad ('test drive
subject to insurance'), no enquiries. Odd, to the point that my last
couple of sales have been dealer trade-ins to avoid this and related hassle.
--
Cheers, Rob
RobertL
Dec 29, 2014, 6:17:24 AM12/29/14
to
On Monday, December 29, 2014 9:42:25 AM UTC, Roland Perry wrote:
>
> The "trusted third party" was acting as a representative of the owner,
> and unless he was previously told not to allow test-drives other than
> for people carrying trade-plates, then on the balance of probability the
> permission required was in fact in place.
I take your point. Maybe that could be argued. I wonder if the insurance company would see it that way if there was a big claim at stake.
>
> The "trusted third party" was acting as a representative of the owner,
> and unless he was previously told not to allow test-drives other than
> for people carrying trade-plates, then on the balance of probability the
> permission required was in fact in place.
Is it not also the case that, even if the 'owner's permission' aspect is OK, there would only be third party cover? If the potential buyer crashes the car into a tree then the damage to the car is not covered by any insurance.
Robert
Roland Perry
Dec 29, 2014, 6:46:20 AM12/29/14
to
In message <195d4d23-8f84-4e27...@googlegroups.com>, at
03:16:51 on Mon, 29 Dec 2014, RobertL <rober...@yahoo.com> remarked:
insurance".
>Is it not also the case that, even if the 'owner's permission' aspect is OK,
>there would only be third party cover? If the potential buyer crashes the
>car into a tree then the damage to the car is not covered by any insurance.
I agree it's commonly restricted in that way, and the more of a "bargain
basement" policy, the more likely that is to be the case.
--
Roland Perry
03:16:51 on Mon, 29 Dec 2014, RobertL <rober...@yahoo.com> remarked:
>> The "trusted third party" was acting as a representative of the owner,
>> and unless he was previously told not to allow test-drives other than
>> for people carrying trade-plates, then on the balance of probability the
>> permission required was in fact in place.
>
>I take your point. Maybe that could be argued. I wonder if the insurance
>company would see it that way if there was a big claim at stake.
More an issue for the police, when attempting to prosecute for "no
>> and unless he was previously told not to allow test-drives other than
>> for people carrying trade-plates, then on the balance of probability the
>> permission required was in fact in place.
>
>I take your point. Maybe that could be argued. I wonder if the insurance
>company would see it that way if there was a big claim at stake.
insurance".
>Is it not also the case that, even if the 'owner's permission' aspect is OK,
>there would only be third party cover? If the potential buyer crashes the
>car into a tree then the damage to the car is not covered by any insurance.
basement" policy, the more likely that is to be the case.
--
Roland Perry
RobertL
Dec 29, 2014, 3:58:10 PM12/29/14
to
On Monday, 29 December 2014 09:11:29 UTC, tim..... wrote:
> "RobertL" <rober...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
....
> "RobertL" <rober...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Everyone must have known the potential buyers would
> > be uninsured and colluded with driving while uninsured.
>
> No, actually everyone doesn't know this
> In fact I would go so far as to say, most people don't know this
Sorry if I was unclear; I meant that everyone involoved in the transaction would have known the potential buyer was probably not insured. However you may be right and that most people don't read their insurance certificates.
> > be uninsured and colluded with driving while uninsured.
>
> No, actually everyone doesn't know this
> In fact I would go so far as to say, most people don't know this
0 new messages