Sold car, insurance q

Kev_ps3

Just sold my car there, should I cancel my insurance now? Im planning on getting a new one soon, in the next week or two, would it be ok if I said nothing until I get a new one and then transfer it over?
Cheers

omb0wyn5ehpij9

Either say nothing to them, or ask them to suspend your insurance until you get your new car.
Don't cancel your policy, as you will lose whatever no claims you have accrued so far this year

tommy21

BDJW wrote: »

Either say nothing to them, or ask them to suspend your insurance until you get your new car.
Don't cancel your policy, as you will lose whatever no claims you have accrued so far this year

Say nothing to them? Might land him in a bit of trouble if he has an accident in the new one!

omb0wyn5ehpij9

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

Just sold my car there, should I cancel my insurance now? Im planning on getting a new one soon, in the next week or two, would it be ok if I said nothing until I get a new one and then transfer it over?
Cheers

BDJW wrote: »

Either say nothing to them, or ask them to suspend your insurance until you get your new car.
Don't cancel your policy, as you will lose whatever no claims you have accrued so far this year

Fairly obvious what I meant....

tommy21

BDJW wrote: »

Fairly obvious what I meant....

Yup, it is now you've made the connection

Kev_ps3

BDJW wrote: »

Either say nothing to them, or ask them to suspend your insurance until you get your new car.
Don't cancel your policy, as you will lose whatever no claims you have accrued so far this year

ill ring them on monday and tell them to suspend my insurance, that sounds like the best thing to do.

MugMugs

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

Just sold my car there, should I cancel my insurance now? Im planning on getting a new one soon, in the next week or two, would it be ok if I said nothing until I get a new one and then transfer it over?
Cheers

Your Insurance exists for the vehicle. If the new owner is not insured and hammers into the back of somebody, your insurance foots the bill. Call your insurer and suspend the policy straight away.

fasttalkerchat

MugMugs wrote: »

Your Insurance exists for the vehicle. If the new owner is not insured and hammers into the back of somebody, your insurance foots the bill. Call your insurer and suspend the policy straight away.

I never heard of suspending insurance. That's good advice.

In The Sticks

Kev_ps3 wrote: »

Just sold my car there, should I cancel my insurance now? Im planning on getting a new one soon, in the next week or two, would it be ok if I said nothing until I get a new one and then transfer it over?
Cheers

I would give them a bell if I were you, why waste a few weeks of your policy when you are not using it.

omb0wyn5ehpij9

MugMugs wrote: »

Your Insurance exists for the vehicle. If the new owner is not insured and hammers into the back of somebody, your insurance foots the bill. Call your insurer and suspend the policy straight away.

Not true. If that was the case you are insured to drive ANY vehicle as long as the owner of it has it insured, even if you aren't named on the policy.
Sure if that is the case, if somebody robbed your car and smashed it into the back of somebody, your insurance would be paying for it

MugMugs

BDJW wrote: »

Not true.

You may want to read up on "Contractually Insured" and "Insurer Concerned" if that's your opinion and you're giving out information on Insurance.

BDJW wrote: »

Sure if that is the case, if somebody robbed your car and smashed it into the back of somebody, your insurance would be paying for it

How right you are sir! In the event the thief is not identified then your RTA Insurer foots the bill.

Sucks! Eh ?

Tallon

MugMugs wrote: »

You may want to read up on "Contractually Insured" and "Insurer Concerned" if that's your opinion and you're giving out information on Insurance.



How right you are sir! In the event the thief is not identified then your RTA Insurer foots the bill.

Sucks! Eh ?

I didn't know that?!

Any links

omb0wyn5ehpij9

MugMugs wrote: »

You may want to read up on "Contractually Insured" and "Insurer Concerned" if that's your opinion and you're giving out information on Insurance.



How right you are sir! In the event the thief is not identified then your RTA Insurer foots the bill.

Sucks! Eh ?

By that right, I could get into any car, owned by anybody and drive it without being on their insurance policy. I can't see a guard letting me through a checkpoint with that though. Any links?

MugMugs

BDJW wrote: »

By that right, I could get into any car, owned by anybody and drive it without being on their insurance policy. I can't see a guard letting me through a checkpoint with that though. Any links?

Might have an MIBI (Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland) document on it in work I can put up when I'm back in.

Oh and, I said thief. It's not legal. You'd have had to have stolen the car and not been known.

Garda Checkpoint = Criminal Prosecution.

omb0wyn5ehpij9

MugMugs wrote: »

Your Insurance exists for the vehicle. If the new owner is not insured and hammers into the back of somebody, your insurance foots the bill. Call your insurer and suspend the policy straight away.

MugMugs wrote: »

Might have an MIBI (Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland) document on it in work I can put up when I'm back in.

Oh and, I said thief. It's not legal. You'd have had to have stolen the car and not been known.

Garda Checkpoint = Criminal Prosecution.

Your second post then contradicts your first. You have said it isn't legal, which is fair enough. However, you have said if the new owner crashed, the previous owner would be liable, but now you are saying you would need to be a thief and not known???
Not trying to be awkward here, just seems that the above 2 posts contradict themselves

Tallon

MugMugs wrote: »

Might have an MIBI (Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland) document on it in work I can put up when I'm back in.

Oh and, I said thief. It's not legal. You'd have had to have stolen the car and not been known.

Garda Checkpoint = Criminal Prosecution.

Should be online if you want to link to it

http://www.mibi.ie/

MugMugs

BDJW wrote: »

Your second post then contradicts your first. You have said it isn't legal, which is fair enough. However, you have said if the new owner crashed, the previous owner would be liable, but now you are saying you would need to be a thief and not known???
Not trying to be awkward here, just seems that the above 2 posts contradict themselves

Do you think there's a big MIBI claims handling squad sitting there paying money out of nowhere ?

The RTA Insurer acts as an agent for the MIBI as "Insurer Concerned"

They deal with the claim, investigate and indemnify the loss. The NCB of the Insured is protected and the NCB is "protected" The Insured could suffer an increased loading come renewal...

Tallon posted the MIBI link there. Go searching if you so wish.

Kev_ps3

Im with nononsencse and they arnt open today so ill have to wait til monday

Tallon

MugMugs wrote: »

Tallon posted the MIBI link there. Go searching if you so wish.

Can you not just link us to it since you know what you're talking about!

MugMugs

Tallon wrote: »

Can you not just link us to it since you know what you're talking about!

Can you not just search the site or wait for me to doc ? Saturday night pal. Imma pub bound.

Tallon

MugMugs wrote: »

Can you not just search the site or wait for me to doc ? Saturday night pal. Imma pub bound.

Can you not just back up your claims?

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I never heard of such a rule!

guil

im with BDJW and tallon, i've had insurance in my name but not on any car for 2-3 days a few years ago while i was switching cars

Tallon

MugMugs wrote: »

Can you not just search the site or wait for me to doc ? Saturday night pal. Imma pub bound.

Any luck with that document?

MugMugs

Tallon wrote: »

MugMugs wrote: »

Can you not just search the site or wait for me to doc ? Saturday night pal. Imma pub bound.

Any luck with that document?

Sorry folks. I'm attempting to use my day to day work experience and education to assist somebody with a query which given the wrong information could have serious consequences. My reference point is 8 years in the industry and a professional diploma in the same. If you don't like what read perhaps find something to prove your disbelief
Tallon, found the document and its too company specific for me to be willing to post. If you're not happy with what I've given you perhaps you could email the MIBI or indeed your own insurer for clarification on the matter.

Tallon

MugMugs wrote: »

Sorry folks. I'm attempting to use my day to day work experience and education to assist somebody with a query which given the wrong information could have serious consequences. My reference point is 8 years in the industry and a professional diploma in the same. If you don't like what read perhaps find something to prove your disbelief
Tallon, found the document and its too company specific for me to be willing to post. If you're not happy with what I've given you perhaps you could email the MIBI or indeed your own insurer for clarification on the matter.

Nah, don't need to email anyone...

You've made it pretty clear you haven't a clue what you are talking about!

MugMugs

Tallon wrote: »

Nah, don't need to email anyone...

You've made it pretty clear you haven't a clue what you are talking about!

On the merit that I wont publish work documentation ?

<snip>

Tallon

MugMugs wrote: »

On the merit that I wont publish work documentation ?

ha.... You're clearly as ignorant as your history would show.

No, on the merit that you are bullshíting!

What history?

MugMugs

Tallon wrote: »

No, on the merit that you are bullshíting!

What history?

What basis have you got to support the claim that I am bullsh1tting ?

If a vehicle is taken without the consent of it's owner and the thief is not identified and the thief while in the process of operating the vehicle causes third party damage THEN the RTA Insurer of the aforementioned vehicle deals with the claim under "Insurer Concerned"

The PH (Policy Holder for ignorant d1cks such as you) has his policy engaged by the Insurer. The Insurer acts as an agent for the MIBI after the TP (Thid Party) submits their claim to the MIBI. Any own loss claim is charged with a standard MIBI excess and overall the NCB is protected however the policy "could" be loaded.

Dispove what I am saying. Dont just spout disbelief without being able to substantiate your claim.

Tallon

MugMugs wrote: »

What basis have you got to support the claim that I am bullsh1tting ?

If a vehicle is taken without the consent of it's owner and the thief is not identified and the thief while in the process of operating the vehicle causes third party damage THEN the RTA Insurer of the aforementioned vehicle deals with the claim under "Insurer Concerned"

The PH (Policy Holder for ignorant d1cks such as you) has his policy engaged by the Insurer. The Insurer acts as an agent for the MIBI after the TP (Thid Party) submits their claim to the MIBI. Any own loss claim is charged with a standard MIBI excess and overall the NCB is protected however the policy "could" be loaded.

Dispove what I am saying. Dont just spout disbelief without being able to substantiate your claim.

Don't ask me to disprove what you are saying.

Man up and prove it with a link or a document or any form of evidence!

Oh, and very mature resulting to name calling!

And again, what history?

MugMugs

Tallon wrote: »

Don't ask me to disprove what you are saying.

Man up and prove it with a link or a document or any form of evidence!

Oh, and very mature resulting to name calling!

And again, what history?

If the cap fits...

What part of Company Specific Document dont you understand ?

I'll break it down for you

Company - a number of persons united or incorporated for joint action, especially for business: a publishing company; a dance company.

Specific - having a special application, bearing, or reference; specifying, explicit, or definite: to state one's specific purpose.

Document - any written item, as a book, article, or letter, especially of a factual or informative nature.

Instead of attempting to discredit me, why dont you go and disprove me ?

Mycroft H

MugMugs wrote: »

If the cap fits...

What part of Company Specific Document dont you understand ?

I'll break it down for you

Company - a number of persons united or incorporated for joint action, especially for business: a publishing company; a dance company.

Specific - having a special application, bearing, or reference; specifying, explicit, or definite: to state one's specific purpose.

Document - any written item, as a book, article, or letter, especially of a factual or informative nature.

Instead of attempting to discredit me, why dont you go and disprove me ?

Motors Charter wrote:

* Back up your statements - if you make a bold statement then please provide some kind of evidence to back up what you are saying.

I'd like some sort of documentation to back up this.

MugMugs

landyman wrote: »

I'd like some sort of documentation to back up this.

There you go

Tallon

MugMugs wrote: »

If the cap fits...

What part of Company Specific Document dont you understand ?

I'll break it down for you

Company - a number of persons united or incorporated for joint action, especially for business: a publishing company; a dance company.

Specific - having a special application, bearing, or reference; specifying, explicit, or definite: to state one's specific purpose.

Document - any written item, as a book, article, or letter, especially of a factual or informative nature.

Instead of attempting to discredit me, why dont you go and disprove me ?

So..... What history show's me as ignorant?

Tallon

MugMugs wrote: »

There you go

You've just linked to a site that I posted over the weekend!!

Link to the actually drivel you're talking about or admit your are telling porkies!

MugMugs

Tallon wrote: »

So..... What history show's me as ignorant?

Comment relating to your ignorance withdrawn

Mycroft H

MugMugs wrote: »

There you go

Thats just a link to the MIBI website


That backs up no statement

MugMugs

Tallon wrote: »

You've just linked to a site that I posted over the weekend!!

Link to the actually drivel you're talking about or admit your are telling porkies!

But it's all on that site.

Go fetch it Tallon and dispove me if you actually can.

My source, 8 years industry experience and a qualification to act in the capacity that I do.

Whats yoiurs ?

Tallon

MugMugs wrote: »

Comment relating to your ignorance withdrawn

Yeah, I thought so

Very bad for to try and tarnish someones name and not back it up!

MugMugs wrote: »

But it's all on that site.

Go fetch it Tallon and dispove me if you actually can.

My source, 8 years industry experience and a qualification to act in the capacity that I do.

Whats yoiurs ?

Again, no one needs to disprove you, you have done that yourself.

You haven't a clue what you're talking about and are trying to get out of it by saying I can't backup what you say!!!

MugMugs

Tallon wrote: »

Yeah, I thought so

Very bad for to try and tarnish someones name and not back it up!

The irony of that statement made me laugh.

Tallon

MugMugs wrote: »

The irony of that statement made me laugh.

I never tarnished your name, I said you were bullshítting, which you have yet to prove me wrong!

MugMugs

Tallon wrote: »

I never tarnished your name, I said you were bullshítting, which you have yet to prove me wrong!

By stating I am "Bullsh1tting" you are calling my knowledge into question and making the incinuation that I am a liar. This is tarnishing my name.

You have yet to disprove me.

Tallon

MugMugs wrote: »

By stating I am "Bullsh1tting" you are calling my knowledge into question and making the incinuation that I am a liar. This is tarnishing my name.

You have yet to disprove me.

Touché

You are lying though!

MugMugs

Tallon wrote: »

Touché

You are lying though!

So you're calling me a liar yet cannot dispove anything that I have said irrespective of my stated knowledge...

May well have been right with my previously withdrawn statement in that case.

Our man in Havana

MugMugs is not lying.

Tallon

Our man in Havana wrote: »

MugMugs is not lying.

Maybe you can shed light on it then?

I said originally that "I'm not saying he's wrong" but after the insults and the complete neglect to post any proof, it would seem like he is

Our man in Havana

Simply put if a thief steals your car and smashes up a another car, your insurance company must deal with the claim as they are the insurer of record for the car. This money is then recovered thru the MIBI.

That is why we all pay a levy to cover this.

B00MSTICK

MugMugs wrote:

Your Insurance exists for the vehicle. If the new owner is not insured and hammers into the back of somebody, your insurance foots the bill. Call your insurer and suspend the policy straight away.

Can the insurance company then go after the uninsured driver or MIBI for compensation?

If not could the previous owner (who didn't cancel/suspend their insurance) go after the uninsured?

EDIT: Our man in Havana is a psychic

MugMugs

B00MSTICK wrote: »

MugMugs wrote:

Your Insurance exists for the vehicle. If the new owner is not insured and hammers into the back of somebody, your insurance foots the bill. Call your insurer and suspend the policy straight away.

Can the insurance company then go after the uninsured driver or MIBI for compensation?

If not could the previous owner (who didn't cancel/suspend their insurance) go after the uninsured?

EDIT: Our man in Havana is a psychic

Potentially. If recovery is possible its not always viable. ie: Junkie with no assets isn't good for it etc. There's an abundance of variations possible to all of this. I was using one where the thief was not known.

omb0wyn5ehpij9

Our man in Havana wrote: »

Simply put if a thief steals your car and smashes up a another car, your insurance company must deal with the claim as they are the insurer of record for the car. This money is then recovered thru the MIBI.

That is why we all pay a levy to cover this.

Why are you and MugMugs bringing up a thief???
The OP asked about the car he just sold, not a car that was stolen, which is a completely different situation

MugMugs

BDJW wrote: »

Why are you and MugMugs bringing up a thief???
The OP asked about the car he just sold, not a car that was stolen, which is a completely different situation

Upon reading this thread in it's entireity you will see how the topic deviated somewhat.

omb0wyn5ehpij9

MugMugs wrote: »

Upon reading this thread in it's entireity you will see how the topic deviated somewhat.

And maybe if you had read the thread correctly, you would have noticed that I have already asked this question and you didn't give a straight answer

BDJW wrote: »

Your second post then contradicts your first. You have said it isn't legal, which is fair enough. However, you have said if the new owner crashed, the previous owner would be liable, but now you are saying you would need to be a thief and not known???
Not trying to be awkward here, just seems that the above 2 posts contradict themselves