Claiming 3rd party cost from policy holder not driver

Convicted Driver Insurance

Mcguires685

New Member
Can any one offer any advice. Last month my 19 yr old daughter took her car out whilst under the influence of alcohol, she crashed into 2 parked cars was arrested and since been charged.
The car was insured by me with her as a named driver. Sabre are now trying to recover costs from me as the policy holder is this right ? The policy was cancelled by them 2 weeks later and the claim settled 3rd party only. They have sent a bill today of 4 k but I know there’s another coming for 18 k plus as they haven’t included a written off car yet. Should it be me who has to pay ? I would prefer them to chase my daughter as she has no assets where as I have a house that I could sell to repay the costs. It seems very unfair that me as the innocent party am the only one being penalised rather than the named driver
 
Mcguires685 said:
Can any one offer any advice. Last month my 19 yr old daughter took her car out whilst under the influence of alcohol, she crashed into 2 parked cars was arrested and since been charged.
The car was insured by me with her as a named driver. Sabre are now trying to recover costs from me as the policy holder is this right ? The policy was cancelled by them 2 weeks later and the claim settled 3rd party only. They have sent a bill today of 4 k but I know there’s another coming for 18 k plus as they haven’t included a written off car yet. Should it be me who has to pay ? I would prefer them to chase my daughter as she has no assets where as I have a house that I could sell to repay the costs. It seems very unfair that me as the innocent party am the only one being penalised rather than the named driver
Click to expand...
Is this because you are the policy holder ? There may well be some reference to this in the terms of the policy?
 
Yes I am the policy holder but still seems very unfair that I am the one being taken to court , just wondered if anyone else had experienced similar
 
Mcguires685 said:
Yes I am the policy holder but still seems very unfair that I am the one being taken to court , just wondered if anyone else had experienced similar
Click to expand...
Seems very unfair but that's insurance companies for you they will do anything to up your policy costs do anything to avoid paying out and do anything to recoup money paid out 🤬
 
You write it was your daughter's car but she was only a named driver? Isn't that fraud and, at the very least, risks invalidating the insurance?
 
JamesH2122 said:
You write it was your daughter's car but she was only a named driver? Isn't that fraud and, at the very least, risks invalidating the insurance?
Click to expand...
Not at all I bought it for her to practice driving whilst waiting 6 months for her test but I was the main driver up until that point - which she never reached btw
 
Mcguires685 said:
Not at all I bought it for her to practice driving whilst waiting 6 months for her test but I was the main driver up until that point - which she never reached btw
Click to expand...
Ah if she was still a learner then you as the policy holder are liable for the insurance as it’s you that has took the policy out unfair I know but that’s what they will say and probably be in small print on your policy
 
Mcguires685 said:
Can any one offer any advice. Last month my 19 yr old daughter took her car out whilst under the influence of alcohol, she crashed into 2 parked cars was arrested and since been charged.
The car was insured by me with her as a named driver. Sabre are now trying to recover costs from me as the policy holder is this right ? The policy was cancelled by them 2 weeks later and the claim settled 3rd party only. They have sent a bill today of 4 k but I know there’s another coming for 18 k plus as they haven’t included a written off car yet. Should it be me who has to pay ? I would prefer them to chase my daughter as she has no assets where as I have a house that I could sell to repay the costs. It seems very unfair that me as the innocent party am the only one being penalised rather than the
Click to expand...
Guygibson said:
Seems very unfair but that's insurance companies for you they will do anything to up your policy costs do anything to avoid paying out and do anything to recoup money paid out 🤬
Click to expand...
Very true. However I think people ( understandably) have children as named drivers as it is much cheaper than the young person getting their own insurance. I am assuming that it is cheaper because the policy holder off sets the risk and can be called upon to make good losses . If , for example a named driver has an accident resulting in a claim , even in the absence of an offence being committed , any no claims could be lost , even if the policy holder was not involved . I have no faith in insurance companies at all but I do understand the rationale in this instance .
 
With regard to including children as named drivers when the child is clearly the main driver (appreciate this may not be the case here) be careful as it is illegal and gives the insurance company a get out.


"Tread carefully though, if your 18 year old will actually be using the car more often than anyone else, then technically they’re the main driver and if you don’t declare this, it’s called ‘fronting’. Fronting usually happens when an older, more experienced driver falsely states that they’re the main driver, knowing full well that they’re not (tut, tut). In most cases, it’s in a bid to bring the cost of a young driver’s car insurance down. It’s an easy trap to fall into but it’s against the law and the consequences are likely to be more painful than a simple rap on the knuckles."
 
JamesH2122 said:
With regard to including children as named drivers when the child is clearly the main driver (appreciate this may not be the case here) be careful as it is illegal and gives the insurance company a get out.


"Tread carefully though, if your 18 year old will actually be using the car more often than anyone else, then technically they’re the main driver and if you don’t declare this, it’s called ‘fronting’. Fronting usually happens when an older, more experienced driver falsely states that they’re the main driver, knowing full well that they’re not (tut, tut). In most cases, it’s in a bid to bring the cost of a young driver’s car insurance down. It’s an easy trap to fall into but it’s against the law and the consequences are likely to be more painful than a simple rap on the knuckles."
Click to expand...
She hasn’t passed her test so definitely not using it more than me
 
Mcguires685 said:
She hasn’t passed her test so definitely not using it more than me
Click to expand...
Everyone does it but fact remains you are the policy holder and buck stops with you sorry to say. My daughter is about to take her test and i told her she needs to have her own insurance.
 
Mcguires685 said:
She hasn’t passed her test so definitely not using it more than me
Click to expand...

Is she also charged with taking without the owner's consent?

I doubt you want to land your daughter in even more trouble, but if your daughter is convicted for TWOC then surely it would have to be treated the same as if a random person stole it and crashed it?

I'm not a legal expert, but the only way of avoiding the insurance company coming after you might be if your daughter is convinced for stealing the car.
 
JamesH2122 said:
Is she also charged with taking without the owner's consent?

I doubt you want to land your daughter in even more trouble, but if your daughter is convicted for TWOC then surely it would have to be treated the same as if a random person stole it and crashed it?

I'm not a legal expert, but the only way of avoiding the insurance company coming after you might be if your daughter is convinced for stealing the car.
Click to expand...
That’s difficult as she would assume implied consent as it was bought for her when she passed her test, also I wouldn’t want her convicted of stealing a car the DD conviction is bad enough
 
Mcguires685 said:
That’s difficult as she would assume implied consent as it was bought for her when she passed her test, also I wouldn’t want her convicted of stealing a car the DD conviction is bad enough
Click to expand...
It’s difficult am the same we put my son a named driver he hit more cars than I had no claims bonuses lol maybe be the way forward say she had no permission to drive it and help you with the insurance claim
 
Also depends what sentence she is looking at. If she was barely over the limit and was polite to the police, that's one thing. If she blew 150 and kicked a copper in the balls, she is looking at a big enough sentence that TWOC may as well be added.
 
JamesH2122 said:
Also depends what sentence she is looking at. If she was barely over the limit and was polite to the police, that's one thing. If she blew 150 and kicked a copper in the balls, she is looking at a big enough sentence that TWOC may as well be added.
Click to expand...
I dont know how helpful this is to the poster. Nothing indicates TWOC And if the car wasn’t TWOC’d but they claim she did , both the parent and daughter risk being charged with pervert course of justice / obtain by deception .
 
Polly3 said:
I dont know how helpful this is to the poster. Nothing indicates TWOC And if the car wasn’t TWOC’d but they claim she did , both the parent and daughter risk being charged with pervert course of justice / obtain by deception .
Click to expand...

Fair point as we don't know who the legal, registered owner was. If the daughter was the legal keeper, then there is no TWOC. If the mother was, either there was a TWOC or mother could be considered an accessory to the crime.

But we are drifting well off the initial question - policy holder is legally liable, the end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Enter code DRINKDRIVING10 during checkout for 10% off
Top