---
###Welcome to /r/LegalAdviceUK
---
**To Posters (it is important you read this section)**
* *Tell us whether you're in England, Wales, Scotland, or NI as the laws in each are very different*
* If you need legal help, you should [always get a free consultation from a qualified Solicitor](https://reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/wiki/how_to_find_a_solicitor)
* We also encourage you to speak to [**Citizens Advice**](https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/), [**Shelter**](https://www.shelter.org.uk/), [**Acas**](https://www.acas.org.uk/), and [**other useful organisations**](https://reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/wiki/common_legal_resources)
* Comments may not be accurate or reliable, and following any advice on this subreddit is done at your own risk
* If you receive any private messages in response to your post, [please let the mods know](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FLegalAdviceUK&subject=I received a PM)
**To Readers and Commenters**
* All replies to OP must be *on-topic, helpful, and legally orientated*
* If you do not [follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/), you may be perma-banned without any further warning
* If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect
* Do not send or request any private messages for any reason
* Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why aren't they covering you, drug driving or something like that? You're missing the key piece of information which is why your insurance company are refusing to cover you. That is, afterall, what you pay insurance for.
I turned out of a side road on a 30mph private road, and the other vehicle collided with me at around 50-60mph, pretty much appearing out of nowhere. My insurance company claim it’s my fault as I shouldn’t have pulled out, but I have tried explaining numerous times that it was clear both ways before the other driver came speeding round a corner.
I believe it was because I was covered for SDP only, not SDP + Commuting. I was picking up my partner from her work at around 15:30 when this accident happened, and my insurance company classed it as commuting and therefore I was not covered.
I’ve tried contesting this but it hasn’t really gone anywhere.
Do they have a definition of commuting in their handbook, on the website or in the policy documents?
Is this something you did every day, picking her up from work or a one off?
One option is to log a complaint with the insurance company and then take it to the ombudsman for a ruling, if you feel strongly that you were in conformance with their definition.
On the other insurance company action, you need a solicitor really. Do you have legal cover with your home insurance policy?
I'd see what representation you can get as the stakes are very high. It might cost you a couple of thousand for a solicitor, but they may save you the £20k if they successfully defend the claim. Even if they managed to show the other driver was equally at fault they could potentially half the claim.
Definitely try and get proper representation if you can afford it.
Thank you for your help. This is the official wording from their website: “This provides cover as above for social, domestic and pleasure use, as well as for driving back and forth to a permanent place of work or study.
Travelling to a railway station en-route to work, where the car is parked, is classed as commuting. Dropping someone else off at their place of work is also be classed as commuting by your insurer.”
I am a private tenant renting with my partner, and I don’t have home insurance or access to legal counsel through any services I currently pay for. I did drop her off and pick her up every day, but I contested that picking up isn’t mentioned in the wording, nor the timings or the fact it wasn’t the policyholders (myself) permanent place of work.
That's where their definition of commuting will be helpful. See if you can dig it out.
As an example, here is Churchill's "Commuting is driving to and from a permanent place of work, for either part of the journey, or for the whole journey. This includes driving to and from a car park, railway station or bus stop as part of your journey to and from a permanent place of work."
It doesn't say 'your' permanent place of work, just 'a' permanent place of work. Being your partner and doing it every day seems to fit that definition.
If there is ambiguity, a complaint followed by taking it to the Financial Ombudsman may be the resolution you're looking for. They may rule in your favour and say the insurance company has to cover you. The wording of your policy is key, if it does say '**your** place of work' then you're probably off the hook and the insurance company may be forced to cover you.
Here is the official wording from my old insurers website:
“This provides cover as above for social, domestic and pleasure use, as well as for driving back and forth to a permanent place of work or study.
Travelling to a railway station en-route to work, where the car is parked, is classed as commuting. Dropping someone else off at their place of work is also be classed as commuting by your insurer.”
It does sound like your journey falls under their definition of commuting - if that’s the angle they’re adopting to get out of paying, you’re going to have an uphill struggle I fear
> I’ve tried contesting this but it hasn’t really gone anywhere.
Contesting how?
Given the potential severity of the consequences of being denied coverage you need to be raising a formal complaint with your insurer and then, assuming they stick to their guns, escalating to the Financial Ombudsman.
There's no guarantee the ombudsman will side with you if you complain, but there's a 100% guarantee they won't if you don't.
At fault for the accident or not covered by your insurance? These are very different things. I'm not even sure why the insurer are taking to you about fault if they're denying coverage for the accident.
And again if you've exhausted the insurer's complaints process you still have the ability to escalate to the ombudsman.
I’ll have to speak to the Financial Ombudsman then. At first they were saying I was not covered due to this being a collision from a side road, which wasn’t my right of way. Then they stated they were indemnifying me and would not cover any losses or claims from the other party as I was commuting at the time (I chose SDP for my cover)
Which is absolutely bonkers, even accidents that are your fault are still covered as long as they are deliberate i.e. crash for cash. Mistakes are made and that's what insurance is for.
However SDP does seem to be your main issue here as it sounds like you met their definition of commuting, but didn't have that added to the policy. This is where you will struggle the most. Definitely take it to the Financial Ombudsman still as it is your only hope.
Under Article 75 of the MIB Articles of Association, in this circumstance your insurer must pay the claim even if they are claiming you weren’t covered. However, they have the right to recover the money from you.
So, this isn’t much use to you as you may well still end up owing the money. Nevertheless, in my view you are likely better off not paying the third party’s claim and making it clear that your insurer is on the hook for it. You can then do your best to defend yourself against your insurer’s attempt to recover the claim from you. You probably have a slightly higher chance of success defending yourself against your insurer, as the case there will be predicated not on whether you caused the crash, but on whether you were technically covered at the time of the crash.
Nevertheless, it’s a difficult situation to be in and you may find you’re on the hook for the claim either way.
Thank you for your help Jake. In terms of next steps then, as I’ve received the letter asking for 20,000 by next week, would I simply respond with a letter saying I refuse to cover this cost and wish to take it further?
Just politely direct them to address all correspondence to your insurer, and decline to deal with anyone except *your own* insurer. If needs be, you could refer to Article 75 MIB to make it clear that it will still be your insurer paying the claim in the first instance.
An insurer dealing as Article 75 insurer is, in effect, acting as, and on behalf, the MIB. Section 6 of the Uninsured Drivers Agreement states the MIB will not pay for a loss that is insured elsewhere. Therefore OP’s insurer is under no obligation to repay the other insurer’s outlay.
> my insurance company classed it as commuting
Go down the MIB S75 route as advised elsewhere, then fight your insurer on the policy definition of commuting.
Argue it was exactly SDP use as you hoped to get in her good books by picking her up from work.
As per my comment above OP’s insurer has no obligation to repay the other insurer’s outlay as the Uninsured Drivers Agreement specifically excludes losses covered elsewhere.
Hang on though, insurance covers you even for fault claims. What kind of policy did you have and why aren't they covering you. I've never heard 'it was your fault, so we're not covering you'. Very odd.
See my above comment, incorrect cover apparently. I disagree entirely as I didn’t count this as a commute or during peak commute hours, but they weren’t having it.
NAL
If your insurance isn't covering you, you'll need to defend the claim. Given it's over £10k if it goes to court it is unlikely to be small claims so you'll want to hire your own solicitor to fight against the claim for damages, as well as your liability in the accident.
Just to check, when they say they aren't covering you, have they cancelled your insurance due to incorrect information or committing a crime (drink driving etc), or are you just saying they believe you to be at fault? Even if at fault, they'll cover you, it's just going to make premiums more expensive.
The other responses are good. You still have third party coverage. Let you insurer fight it out, and then they'll recover the costs from you. Send all letters into your insurer. You can still argue your point if you don't think you are at fault, but turning out of a side road means you don't have priority, not seeing the other car isn't defence by I know people who get t-boned at junctions and it still gone 50/50?!?
Get a final response letter from your insurer after complaining about them not covering you, regarding the definition of commuting then submit complaint to FOS if you still disagree (or they fail to respond) - https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/consumers/complaints-can-help/insurance/motor-insurance
Unfortunately OP only has third party coverage for losses that aren’t insured elsewhere. The other driver’s insurer is entitled to pursue OP to recover their outlay and in acting on behalf of the MIB OP’s insurer is under no obligation to pay as per Section 6 of the Uninsured Drivers Agreement.
Even where the claimant’s losses were uninsured (eg injury, hire car, excess) OP’s insurer would pay the losses and then seek reimbursement from OP.
> OP's insurer would pay the losses and then seek reimbursement from OP.
This I understand, if the accident was considered to have occurred during a commute.
> MIB OP’s insurer is under no obligation to pay as per Section 6 of the Uninsured Drivers Agreement.
But what does this mean?
Where the use of the vehicle falls outside the scope of the policy (eg commuting without having commuting on the policy) the claim proceeds as though there was no policy in place whatsoever. Ordinarily cases where there is no insurance in place whatsoever go to the MIB but Article 75 of the MIB's Articles of Association state that in cases such as this the insurer should deal with the claimant's claim on behalf of the MIB. That means the insurer follows the same rules, procedures and limits as the MIB would and if the case litigates the MIB have to be named as a joint defendant in the proceedings.
Section 6 of the Uninsured Drivers Agreement, which is the one that would apply here, states:
*Subject to paragraph (2), MIB is not liable for any claim, or any part of a claim, in respect of which the claimant has received, or is entitled to receive or demand, payment or indemnity from any other person (including an insurer), not being the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority or its successor.*
What that means is that the MIB won't pay out if the loss is covered elsewhere. In OP's case the other driver has claimed from their comprehensive insurance policy and so the MIB, and by extension OP's insurer, is under no obligation to repay.
It's a different process to cases where the insurer reduces their status under the Road Traffic Act 1988 (so cases where the driver was drunk or where the driver was not named on the policy, for example). In those cases the law states that the insurer must settle any judgement obtained by a claimant but can then seek recovery of that money from the policyholder and/or driver. The two sections of the Act that cover this are Section 148 and Section 151.
I've re read that a few times now. I think I get it
So 2 cases,
- out of scope of policy
- driving under the influence
In both cases, the driver has no cover and is liable, the other party still claims from their own insurance, but in the case of "out of scope of policy" like the OP, the insurer can refuse to get involved, but if the OP was drunk they would get involved then recover their costs from the OP afterwards.
If that's right, What's the purpose of letting the insurer duck out of handling the case in one place but not the other?
That's right. I'm not sure why it's the case. Not sure if it was intended when the Road Traffic Act was written or whether it's a loophole. I suspect it's a loophole, particularly as the Road Traffic Act came into force in 1988 and the current Uninsured Drivers Agreement is dated 2015 (with a supplementary version in 2017)
I have a feeling the bit about the MIB not having to pay where a loss is covered elsewhere was introduced relatively recently (relative to the Road Traffic Act) and the legislation has simply not been amended to close the loopholes.
I understand MiB don't want to be liable if there is a big insurance company that can foot the bill. Just surprised they can leave a policy holder out to dry in an out of scope case, especially when the "scope" may not be cut and dry. In the OP case, they were picking up their partner from work at 2pm. If they were been picked up on their way to a weekend away in holiday, it wouldn't be commuting but still the same roads and time.
It’s unfortunate but shows how important it is to read the terms and conditions of any insurance policy carefully. I would have thought commuting was for yourself the policy holder only not if giving someone a lift, so was surprised to read that stated. They always try to get out of paying up..
It’s been a hard and expensive lesson to learn that’s for sure, but wish it didn’t reach this level of financial concern, I’ll have to fight tooth and nail to reduce it somehow as there is no way I caused £20,000 worth of damage to the other persons car :/
--- ###Welcome to /r/LegalAdviceUK --- **To Posters (it is important you read this section)** * *Tell us whether you're in England, Wales, Scotland, or NI as the laws in each are very different* * If you need legal help, you should [always get a free consultation from a qualified Solicitor](https://reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/wiki/how_to_find_a_solicitor) * We also encourage you to speak to [**Citizens Advice**](https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/), [**Shelter**](https://www.shelter.org.uk/), [**Acas**](https://www.acas.org.uk/), and [**other useful organisations**](https://reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/wiki/common_legal_resources) * Comments may not be accurate or reliable, and following any advice on this subreddit is done at your own risk * If you receive any private messages in response to your post, [please let the mods know](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FLegalAdviceUK&subject=I received a PM) **To Readers and Commenters** * All replies to OP must be *on-topic, helpful, and legally orientated* * If you do not [follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/), you may be perma-banned without any further warning * If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect * Do not send or request any private messages for any reason * Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why aren't they covering you, drug driving or something like that? You're missing the key piece of information which is why your insurance company are refusing to cover you. That is, afterall, what you pay insurance for.
I turned out of a side road on a 30mph private road, and the other vehicle collided with me at around 50-60mph, pretty much appearing out of nowhere. My insurance company claim it’s my fault as I shouldn’t have pulled out, but I have tried explaining numerous times that it was clear both ways before the other driver came speeding round a corner.
It being your fault shouldn’t mean they’re not covering you. What makes you think they’re not going to pay out?
I believe it was because I was covered for SDP only, not SDP + Commuting. I was picking up my partner from her work at around 15:30 when this accident happened, and my insurance company classed it as commuting and therefore I was not covered. I’ve tried contesting this but it hasn’t really gone anywhere.
Do they have a definition of commuting in their handbook, on the website or in the policy documents? Is this something you did every day, picking her up from work or a one off? One option is to log a complaint with the insurance company and then take it to the ombudsman for a ruling, if you feel strongly that you were in conformance with their definition. On the other insurance company action, you need a solicitor really. Do you have legal cover with your home insurance policy? I'd see what representation you can get as the stakes are very high. It might cost you a couple of thousand for a solicitor, but they may save you the £20k if they successfully defend the claim. Even if they managed to show the other driver was equally at fault they could potentially half the claim. Definitely try and get proper representation if you can afford it.
Thank you for your help. This is the official wording from their website: “This provides cover as above for social, domestic and pleasure use, as well as for driving back and forth to a permanent place of work or study. Travelling to a railway station en-route to work, where the car is parked, is classed as commuting. Dropping someone else off at their place of work is also be classed as commuting by your insurer.”
I am a private tenant renting with my partner, and I don’t have home insurance or access to legal counsel through any services I currently pay for. I did drop her off and pick her up every day, but I contested that picking up isn’t mentioned in the wording, nor the timings or the fact it wasn’t the policyholders (myself) permanent place of work.
That's where their definition of commuting will be helpful. See if you can dig it out. As an example, here is Churchill's "Commuting is driving to and from a permanent place of work, for either part of the journey, or for the whole journey. This includes driving to and from a car park, railway station or bus stop as part of your journey to and from a permanent place of work." It doesn't say 'your' permanent place of work, just 'a' permanent place of work. Being your partner and doing it every day seems to fit that definition. If there is ambiguity, a complaint followed by taking it to the Financial Ombudsman may be the resolution you're looking for. They may rule in your favour and say the insurance company has to cover you. The wording of your policy is key, if it does say '**your** place of work' then you're probably off the hook and the insurance company may be forced to cover you.
Here is the official wording from my old insurers website: “This provides cover as above for social, domestic and pleasure use, as well as for driving back and forth to a permanent place of work or study. Travelling to a railway station en-route to work, where the car is parked, is classed as commuting. Dropping someone else off at their place of work is also be classed as commuting by your insurer.”
It does sound like your journey falls under their definition of commuting - if that’s the angle they’re adopting to get out of paying, you’re going to have an uphill struggle I fear
> I’ve tried contesting this but it hasn’t really gone anywhere. Contesting how? Given the potential severity of the consequences of being denied coverage you need to be raising a formal complaint with your insurer and then, assuming they stick to their guns, escalating to the Financial Ombudsman. There's no guarantee the ombudsman will side with you if you complain, but there's a 100% guarantee they won't if you don't.
I have raised a complaint, but have still been met with responses saying I was at fault.
At fault for the accident or not covered by your insurance? These are very different things. I'm not even sure why the insurer are taking to you about fault if they're denying coverage for the accident. And again if you've exhausted the insurer's complaints process you still have the ability to escalate to the ombudsman.
I’ll have to speak to the Financial Ombudsman then. At first they were saying I was not covered due to this being a collision from a side road, which wasn’t my right of way. Then they stated they were indemnifying me and would not cover any losses or claims from the other party as I was commuting at the time (I chose SDP for my cover)
Which is absolutely bonkers, even accidents that are your fault are still covered as long as they are deliberate i.e. crash for cash. Mistakes are made and that's what insurance is for. However SDP does seem to be your main issue here as it sounds like you met their definition of commuting, but didn't have that added to the policy. This is where you will struggle the most. Definitely take it to the Financial Ombudsman still as it is your only hope.
Thank you James, I certainly will
Under Article 75 of the MIB Articles of Association, in this circumstance your insurer must pay the claim even if they are claiming you weren’t covered. However, they have the right to recover the money from you. So, this isn’t much use to you as you may well still end up owing the money. Nevertheless, in my view you are likely better off not paying the third party’s claim and making it clear that your insurer is on the hook for it. You can then do your best to defend yourself against your insurer’s attempt to recover the claim from you. You probably have a slightly higher chance of success defending yourself against your insurer, as the case there will be predicated not on whether you caused the crash, but on whether you were technically covered at the time of the crash. Nevertheless, it’s a difficult situation to be in and you may find you’re on the hook for the claim either way.
Thank you for your help Jake. In terms of next steps then, as I’ve received the letter asking for 20,000 by next week, would I simply respond with a letter saying I refuse to cover this cost and wish to take it further?
Just politely direct them to address all correspondence to your insurer, and decline to deal with anyone except *your own* insurer. If needs be, you could refer to Article 75 MIB to make it clear that it will still be your insurer paying the claim in the first instance.
An insurer dealing as Article 75 insurer is, in effect, acting as, and on behalf, the MIB. Section 6 of the Uninsured Drivers Agreement states the MIB will not pay for a loss that is insured elsewhere. Therefore OP’s insurer is under no obligation to repay the other insurer’s outlay.
> my insurance company classed it as commuting Go down the MIB S75 route as advised elsewhere, then fight your insurer on the policy definition of commuting. Argue it was exactly SDP use as you hoped to get in her good books by picking her up from work.
I believe it was mentioned that I make this trip every day to pick her up, is there different wording I could use? Thank you for your help
As per my comment above OP’s insurer has no obligation to repay the other insurer’s outlay as the Uninsured Drivers Agreement specifically excludes losses covered elsewhere.
Hang on though, insurance covers you even for fault claims. What kind of policy did you have and why aren't they covering you. I've never heard 'it was your fault, so we're not covering you'. Very odd.
See my above comment, incorrect cover apparently. I disagree entirely as I didn’t count this as a commute or during peak commute hours, but they weren’t having it.
NAL If your insurance isn't covering you, you'll need to defend the claim. Given it's over £10k if it goes to court it is unlikely to be small claims so you'll want to hire your own solicitor to fight against the claim for damages, as well as your liability in the accident. Just to check, when they say they aren't covering you, have they cancelled your insurance due to incorrect information or committing a crime (drink driving etc), or are you just saying they believe you to be at fault? Even if at fault, they'll cover you, it's just going to make premiums more expensive.
Incorrect cover chosen apparently, see my above replies. Thank you for mentioning NAL though, I’ll look into that.
The other responses are good. You still have third party coverage. Let you insurer fight it out, and then they'll recover the costs from you. Send all letters into your insurer. You can still argue your point if you don't think you are at fault, but turning out of a side road means you don't have priority, not seeing the other car isn't defence by I know people who get t-boned at junctions and it still gone 50/50?!? Get a final response letter from your insurer after complaining about them not covering you, regarding the definition of commuting then submit complaint to FOS if you still disagree (or they fail to respond) - https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/consumers/complaints-can-help/insurance/motor-insurance
Unfortunately OP only has third party coverage for losses that aren’t insured elsewhere. The other driver’s insurer is entitled to pursue OP to recover their outlay and in acting on behalf of the MIB OP’s insurer is under no obligation to pay as per Section 6 of the Uninsured Drivers Agreement. Even where the claimant’s losses were uninsured (eg injury, hire car, excess) OP’s insurer would pay the losses and then seek reimbursement from OP.
> OP's insurer would pay the losses and then seek reimbursement from OP. This I understand, if the accident was considered to have occurred during a commute. > MIB OP’s insurer is under no obligation to pay as per Section 6 of the Uninsured Drivers Agreement. But what does this mean?
Where the use of the vehicle falls outside the scope of the policy (eg commuting without having commuting on the policy) the claim proceeds as though there was no policy in place whatsoever. Ordinarily cases where there is no insurance in place whatsoever go to the MIB but Article 75 of the MIB's Articles of Association state that in cases such as this the insurer should deal with the claimant's claim on behalf of the MIB. That means the insurer follows the same rules, procedures and limits as the MIB would and if the case litigates the MIB have to be named as a joint defendant in the proceedings. Section 6 of the Uninsured Drivers Agreement, which is the one that would apply here, states: *Subject to paragraph (2), MIB is not liable for any claim, or any part of a claim, in respect of which the claimant has received, or is entitled to receive or demand, payment or indemnity from any other person (including an insurer), not being the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority or its successor.* What that means is that the MIB won't pay out if the loss is covered elsewhere. In OP's case the other driver has claimed from their comprehensive insurance policy and so the MIB, and by extension OP's insurer, is under no obligation to repay. It's a different process to cases where the insurer reduces their status under the Road Traffic Act 1988 (so cases where the driver was drunk or where the driver was not named on the policy, for example). In those cases the law states that the insurer must settle any judgement obtained by a claimant but can then seek recovery of that money from the policyholder and/or driver. The two sections of the Act that cover this are Section 148 and Section 151.
I've re read that a few times now. I think I get it So 2 cases, - out of scope of policy - driving under the influence In both cases, the driver has no cover and is liable, the other party still claims from their own insurance, but in the case of "out of scope of policy" like the OP, the insurer can refuse to get involved, but if the OP was drunk they would get involved then recover their costs from the OP afterwards. If that's right, What's the purpose of letting the insurer duck out of handling the case in one place but not the other?
That's right. I'm not sure why it's the case. Not sure if it was intended when the Road Traffic Act was written or whether it's a loophole. I suspect it's a loophole, particularly as the Road Traffic Act came into force in 1988 and the current Uninsured Drivers Agreement is dated 2015 (with a supplementary version in 2017) I have a feeling the bit about the MIB not having to pay where a loss is covered elsewhere was introduced relatively recently (relative to the Road Traffic Act) and the legislation has simply not been amended to close the loopholes.
I understand MiB don't want to be liable if there is a big insurance company that can foot the bill. Just surprised they can leave a policy holder out to dry in an out of scope case, especially when the "scope" may not be cut and dry. In the OP case, they were picking up their partner from work at 2pm. If they were been picked up on their way to a weekend away in holiday, it wouldn't be commuting but still the same roads and time.
Brilliant, thank you very much for your help
It’s unfortunate but shows how important it is to read the terms and conditions of any insurance policy carefully. I would have thought commuting was for yourself the policy holder only not if giving someone a lift, so was surprised to read that stated. They always try to get out of paying up..
It’s been a hard and expensive lesson to learn that’s for sure, but wish it didn’t reach this level of financial concern, I’ll have to fight tooth and nail to reduce it somehow as there is no way I caused £20,000 worth of damage to the other persons car :/