[Metokitt]

But any advice on how to proceed would be appreciated.

I've ridden a moped for 10 years plus. But recently was involved in a collision where a parked car pulled out in front of me.
Many witnesses came out from adjacent houses due to the loud crash, and details were exchanged, contacts and images taken etc. All good.

Knowing the accident wasn't my fault, I merrily went on my way so to speak. I was later to discovered that my bike Insurer had 'closed' my policy without properly informing me (imo), two months earlier.

I can imagine how this must sound, but bear with me. It happened that I misunderstood an email from my Insurer requesting some new details (new bike V5)... But having been with them for 10 years, they literally hadn't contacted me about anything.. ever. So I misunderstood their email. I had always paid for cover upfront yearly; and made no claims - So having paid the Insurance on a new bike just weeks ago, as usual, I'd "assumed" I was covered as normal. And that my OLD bike policy was successfully terminated as requested.


The perfect storm. I now find myself now being pursued by the Insurance company of the driver who hit me. And can bearly believe it - as it would be Very easily to prove that I wasn't at fault. But at the time.. 'I wasn't Insured' due to having my policy (in my view) mistakenly cancelled.

What can I do if anything ? Everywhere seems to say 'contact your Insurer'. But my fully paid New bike policy was cancelled after two months by them.


Thanks.

[TC1474]

First and foremost before liability is even discussed, not having insurance in place is what is called strict liability and making an assumption or thinking you were covered is no defence.

From a liability perspective, the third party is responsible for causation no argument.

If you have failed to acknowledge or deal with requests made by your insurers, then the chances are if you read your policy T's & C's it will probably point out that they reserve the right to cancel your policy without notice if you do not comply.

The third party will be contacting you no doubt because they want details of your insurance (or for you to pass on their correspondence to your insurers) so they can start discussing liability and settlements. In damage only crashes it is not a requirement to exchange insurance details at the scene, as usually you will be contacted later (or your insurers will contact the third party)

It is only in injury crashes that you are required to produce your insurance details, hence why the Police usually turn up with the Ambulance to ensure the law is complied with.

The fact that the third party did cause your crash and it appears that you were not insured at the time does not preclude you claiming against the third party for the damage to your vehicle along with any out of pocket expenses. If your insurers won't deal with it because they deem you as not being on cover at the time, then you can for a small fee issue proceedings against the third party through the small claims court or the county court depending on the overall value of the claim) and the court costs can also be claimed back.

What you have to be aware of is that the third party is probably trying it on under the instructions of his insurers, so issuing proceedings does tend to shut them up a bit, but the biggest concern for you is that there is usually an obligation on third party insurers to report cases where a claimant or defendant has no cover and a claim is involved. This is usually a requirement of claims being processed through the MiB under the no insurance or untraced vehicle protocols, but some insurers just do it regardless, so just be aware of that.

But like I say you are not precluded from making a claim yourself, and from a causation point of view they cannot use the lack of insurance against you unless they can prove (which they can't) that your lack of insurance cover contributed directly to the cause of the crash. They cannot even level the standard "Contributory negligence" argument against you, so you still have matters in your favour.

[Nick]

Hey @Metokitt , welcome to the RAC Community and thanks for making your first post - it's great to hear from you.

My take on your situation goes like this (and please bear in mind I'm not an expert in these matters):

Assuming the other party is at fault for the accident then I don't know why they would be pursuing you - their driver is at fault and even if you were insured, you wouldn't need to involve your own insurers at all and could make a claim directly from them. As such, I don't believe it should matter to them whether or not you are insured - it would matter if you were at fault - but it doesn't sound as though you were (obviously I don't know the full incident circumstances).

In terms of your own cover - I would just recommend making sure you are covered for whatever your current bike is, and always be sure to read the emails that come to you - keeping a note around renewal dates and similar key dates is also a good tip.

[Drivingforfun]

I agree with Nick. Someone might correct me but it might be simpler to prove you weren't at fault, irregardless of your personal insurance status??

A rider having no insurance does not absolve guilt if a driver hits them. There's always stories going around of criminals/travellers and such tearing about on unregistered bikes - and how if a legal driver hits them that driver still has to cover any liabilities if they are at fault...and often even if they're not!

Not that I'm comparing you to a teen on a stolen bike!

As an aside, did you notice any money going into your bank account when they cancelled the policy?

[Nick]

Great, comprehensive reply @TC1474 - thanks for taking the time to be so thorough!

[olduser]

The post above thoroughly clears up your standing visa ve the third party but I think there is a need for insurers, in this age of do it on the internet, (because it is cheaper for them) they should have made a greater effort to inform you your policy was cancelled, a second email perhaps?

With that in mind, I would complain to the FSA, in the hopes that they might force insurers to act more responsibly.
They are fully aware of the possible consequences for you, they can even easily check to see if your vehicle is insured elsewhere, or off the road.
They are very keen to take our money, in return I think it is reasonable for them to act responsibly.

In the days of paper transactions, when I did not renew a motor policy, I was knee deep in letters for at least a week, spelling out I had not renewed, and making discounted offers.

[Nick]

Often these kind of institutions (insurers, banks etc) give you the option of paper or email communication - I would assume that many people these days choose the email option - I certainly do - thing is, that puts the onus on you to actually read the emails that come to you, just as you would the letters in your post box if you chose paper communications. If you don't then I guess that's on you, not on them. And for the record - I've bitten by this in a similar situation previously!

[Metokitt]

Thank you all for the very detailed and helpful replies. Are all very much appreciated.

The lack of an 'Urgent Action Required..' email, stating that my policy was about to be cancelled still concerns me to this day. Also the fact that my previous Insurer emailed me a very non-descript.. 'Your Portal Has Been Updated..' message instead of the actual letter.. In other words.. they didn't send emails directly to their customers, but instead loaded them onto their own portal.
And I was informed that customers were expected to check the Portal regularly, (from where the actual pdf letters addressed to you could be read and downloaded). On attempting to explain these issues to them, I don't think they were as concerned as I was. It was then that they actually processed the refund - something about refunds being processed at a later date. I'd like to think if I had noticed a large refund to my bank account, I would have taken action a lot sooner.

Pursued by the might of the other parties Insurers, I feel a lot more knowledgeable and confident to stand my ground. (I'm not entirely sure how they intend to claim I managed to swerve into the "only" occupied vehicle on a quiet street.. or why the claimants vehicle happens to be the only one in a pulling-out position etc.. I'll wait to see.)

Did find it a bit more challenging to secure a new Insurer however, even with a 10 year NCB.

My kind thanks again.

[olduser]

I would expect the other insurers to push in the direction of a court settlement, hoping that you cannot afford to risk it.

No one has mentioned CAB as a source of help, and support.
They will get you half an hour with an appropriate solicitor to give you guidance on the best way forward.

Best wishes.

[TC1474]

Originally Posted by olduser

No one has mentioned CAB as a source of help, and support.
They will get you half an hour with an appropriate solicitor to give you guidance on the best way forward.

Best wishes.

The reason CAB and their duty solicitors don't get a mention is because 9 time out of 10 they do not have a clue about motoring matters.

The duty solicitor is often a conveyancer or specialist in family law or something like that, and the CAB apart from not being clued up are not that interested.

[olduser]

Unless it has changed recently, solicitors should give a half hour free.
But not many people know this.

Yes, I know of people who have been to a CAB duty solicitor who was not familiar with motoring law but the solicitor's concerned said so, and arranged interviews with more experienced solicitors.

For the average person getting involved with lawyers is a major step, CAB helps people to get started or helps make the decision to resort to law or not.

Hopefully the CAB are the impartial listener, who asks the questions that need to be asked to put things into perspective.
They act as a buffer and translator between officialdom, and the general public.

Not that I have an axe to grind.

[TC1474]

Originally Posted by olduser

Unless it has changed recently, solicitors should give a half hour free.
But not many people know this.

Not that I have an axe to grind.

Not strictly true. There is no obligation to give a free consultation, but some do give 30 minutes, some give an hour, but these consultations are becoming the minority rather than the norm.

I used to have to co-ordinate with 3 or 4 CAB's in my area, and so often they would tell me that they had received several motoring related enquiries, but because it was outside their area of expertise they had advised clients to do a google search for someone suitable in their area, or they referred someone to a non specialist law firm who might be able to make a recommendation.

I speak to former colleagues now and they tell me it is still happening.

You get god and Bad CAB's like you do in all walks and professions, but traffic law is something y-they try and avoid because of the way it changes virtually daily, unlike most crime legislation which has not changed in 50 years by and large, for example Theft is still section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 and it has not changed, where we are working on the 1988 Road Traffic act but there have been around 150 updates since its introduction and that is before we start looking at the Con & Use Regs, Road Traffic Regulations Act, Motorway Regs and, and, and.

I have to keep up to date because I teach traffic law, but it is sometimes hard to keep up, and this is why the CAB are reluctant to deal with traffic legal matters as do many law firms.

[olduser]

Put that way then there is little help available.

The free half hour, I understood was an agreement between solicitors arranged with their governing body.

But I think the average person see's lawyers as a bottomless money pit, hence the reluctance to get involved.

[TC1474]

Originally Posted by olduser

But I think the average person see's lawyers as a bottomless money pit, hence the reluctance to get involved.

In some cases you are absolutely right. Civil/human rights lawyers being the worst. Those that are working on behalf of insurance companies as accident management firms, absolutely spot on with that view, but serious law firms will do a good job for a good fee (although they can be over inflated sometimes) but given the risk that many take working on conditional fee agreements (no win no fee), then it is understandable, especially sine the success fee was abolished about 8 -9 years ago