Car stolen/Recovered

[maxtich]

A good shooting buddies 5 year old Toyota Hilux was stolen from his driveway about 3-4 weeks ago..apparently can bus attack…as it had a tracker it was found the very next day sitting 20 odd miles away.
He contacted the police which set the tracker company to locate it the very next morning.
There was minimal damage to it ..and got it back.
He didn’t make an insurance claim nor informed his insurance company..should he have inform them …it was taken but no meaningful damage was sustained!
Its a tough one..so the question is should he have an accident/stolen (he’s near retirement age )would the insurance company then dig further into the history of his car and put him in a bit of bother!!

 

[Scotty99]

If he reports it to the insurance company, pound to a penny his premiums will go up.

 

[Flash G 74]

Hello, If it has not been damaged or ???, the mere mention to the Insurance could send his next quote sky high ??? I had this so change companies

 

[maxtich]

Gents ..that’s exactly the advice I gave him.
Thanks for your input.

 

[Scotty99]

It’s not a question insurers ask when taking out a new policy. They ask about previous claims, convictions and so on but not “have you had a vehicle stolen in the last 5 years” so probably not strictly a notifiable event.

 

[Scotty99]

The only other issue might be if the police or tracking company inform the insurance company. Unlikely but I’m not sure what the protocol is in these situations.

 

[Trickyd66]

It’s not a question insurers ask when taking out a new policy. They ask about previous claims, convictions and so on but not “have you had a vehicle stolen in the last 5 years” so probably not strictly a notifiable event.

It is a question they ask, any accidents , or losses. (Whether he claimed on his insurance or not, he suffered a loss)

Another one I found yesterday whilst renewing my work van insurance, as with my fully comp van insurance not allowing me to drive other vehicles 3rd party, a fully comp car insurer is not covered to drive the van 3rd party....
Well that's what my broker told me?!

 

[Scotty99]

It is a question they ask, any accidents , or losses. (Whether he claimed on his insurance or not, he suffered a loss)

Another one I found yesterday whilst renewing my work van insurance, as with my fully comp van insurance not allowing me to drive other vehicles 3rd party, a fully comp car insurer is not covered to drive the van 3rd party....
Well that's what my broker told me?!

Yep that’s a catch all question right there.

As for driving other vehicles most insurers will only provide 3rd party cover for the other vehicle even if you and the owner of the other vehicle are both fully comp. That’s why I won’t let anyone drive my vehicle if there’s a real need I’ll get them on my insurance as a named driver for a few days, doesn’t cost much.

 

[enfieldspares]

Full disclosure of ANY matter that might alter the risk underwritten in an insurance proposal is required. It is the law.

That is has been stolen once may mean that future vehicles at the same location may more likely to be stolen. If this failure to have advised this then becomes knowledge (especially if during the course of any future claim) the underwriter will usually immediately reimburse the premium and wash their hands of that claim. Furthermore if so minded the underwriter may report the failure to disclose to the police. Somewhere on the Terms and Conditions will be these or similar words: "You must disclose all accidents, incidents and thefts even when no claim was made."

As others said disclosure may increase the premium. Not disclosing the theft even without any bad faith the intention to keep the premium at a lower rate therefore could be held as a Fraud Act s3 offence. As it is a strict liability offence AFAIR. The old Theft Act offence of obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception. The Law Commission in an earlier past report stated in relation to what would be a "failure to disclose" this: "such a duty may derive...from the fact that the transaction in question is one of the utmost good faith (such as a contract of insurance)"

I seldom cease to be amazed by the often not just inaccurate advice but by the positively foolish advice offered on SD.

And (unlike speeding offences) dishonesty offences are usually fatal to continued "being a fit person" to hold and FAC or SGC.

 

[maxtich]

I was under the same impression as post no 5 ..that makes reasonable sense to me !

 

[User00056]

So the short answer is - bend over

 

[Klenchblaize]

So the short answer is - bend over

You forgot "and turn the other cheek".

K

 

[hendrix's rifle]

A good shooting buddies 5 year old Toyota Hilux was stolen from his driveway about 3-4 weeks ago..apparently can bus attack…as it had a tracker it was found the very next day sitting 20 odd miles away.
He contacted the police which set the tracker company to locate it the very next morning.
There was minimal damage to it ..and got it back.
He didn’t make an insurance claim nor informed his insurance company..should he have inform them …it was taken but no meaningful damage was sustained!
Its a tough one..so the question is should he have an accident/stolen (he’s near retirement age )would the insurance company then dig further into the history of his car and put him in a bit of bother!!

If he reads the fine print in his I'm pretty positive it will say in there that it they need to be notified. If they figure it out then he will likely have his insurance cancelled and have to declare that as well

 

[Scotty99]

Full disclosure of ANY matter that might alter the risk underwritten in an insurance proposal is required. It is the law.

That is has been stolen once may mean that future vehicles at the same location may more likely to be stolen. If this failure to have advised this then becomes knowledge (especially if during the course of any future claim) the underwriter will usually immediately reimburse the premium and wash their hands of that claim. Furthermore if so minded the underwriter may report the failure to disclose to the police. Somewhere on the Terms and Conditions will be these or similar words: "You must disclose all accidents, incidents and thefts even when no claim was made."

As others said disclosure may increase the premium. Not disclosing the theft even without any bad faith the intention to keep the premium at a lower rate therefore could be held as a Fraud Act s3 offence. As it is a strict liability offence AFAIR. The old Theft Act offence of obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception. The Law Commission in an earlier past report stated in relation to what would be a "failure to disclose" this: "such a duty may derive...from the fact that the transaction in question is one of the utmost good faith (such as a contract of insurance)"

I seldom cease to be amazed by the often not just inaccurate advice but by the positively foolish advice offered on SD.

And (unlike speeding offences) dishonesty offences are usually fatal to continued "being a fit person" to hold and FAC or SGC.

You are right any change if circumstances including the “any loss” catch all issue referenced above will need to be communicated to the insurer.

Any change of circumstance can affect the risk profile and therefore the premium.

Moving house to a different post code can also change the risk profile and therefore the premium and not always for the worse. Having moved from a large town to a quiet village actually reduced my premium.

 

[enfieldspares]

Insurance is really quite an odd thing with, sometimes, practices that defy initial logic. You'd think for example that a car belonging to a retired person in their sixties parked on that person's driveway would cost less to insure than a car owned be a person also in their sixties but working and no on drive parking so they have to park it on the street?

Not so. The reason being that the "worker's" car will be presumably parked in the works car park for eight hours while he or she is at work. Therefore for a full third of each twenty-four hours it won't be likely to be being driven about. The retired person's car might well be being used at any time during a twenty-four hour period. And more to the point during daytime hours when more traffic is on the road.

The driveway vs street issue is also initially illogical. Yet it is this. If I want to steal a BMW I will drive about looking for those houses that have a BMW parked on their front driveway. I know that if the people are out for the day that usually its keys will be inside the house. So all I need to do is break in or use an electronic device to "read" the keys.

Now if that BMW is parked on the street I cannot be certain which house they keys to it are being kept on nor, of course, if its owner is this side of the street or that side of the street or sitting in their front room looking out at their car and or etc., etc.. Therefore as a thief it is less easy to steal that the same car on the driveway of a house where the owner isn't at home.

And unfortunately for the OP's friend insurance companies use algorithms on renewal that try to second guess the likelihood of this or that. The same as an actuary for a life insurance policy does for their underwriting. And the car insurers' algorithms will factor in the number of thefts AND accidents per postcode and even per street in the last twelve months and price accordingly. So there it is. His neighbours will also perhaps pay an increase in premium also even though with totally different insurers.

 

[The Singing Stalker]

With the law, the wording is key, so you would need to check the policy, but, for clarity,
A loss is an occurrence that results in financial damage, injury, or destruction of property, covered by an insurance policy. When a loss event happens, a policyholder may file a claim to seek compensation. Insurers assess losses to determine if they are eligible for payment.

 

[Rake Aboot]

Not a chance I’d tell them. They steal enough without encouragement

Enfield spares can be as honourable as he likes. It’s his money

 

[countrryboy]

Yep that’s a catch all question right there.

As for driving other vehicles most insurers will only provide 3rd party cover for the other vehicle even if you and the owner of the other vehicle are both fully comp. That’s why I won’t let anyone drive my vehicle if there’s a real need I’ll get them on my insurance as a named driver for a few days, doesn’t cost much.

To be honest i think thats an old fashiomed thing.

In the past it was the norm with fully comp ins u could drive pretty much any other vehicle 3rd party.
I think nowadays its rarer and rarer to have that on ur policy as standard.

Like everything like this double check ur ins before u do.
Even if u have reinsured with same company and ur last policy had it.

 

[Cannon]

There's another thing to consider that I don't think has been mentioned yet. Not specifically applicable in this instance, but something to be wary of. If you do report the car as having been stolen recovered, it could attract a Category X write off marker by the insurance company. That is normally if a claim is made for the market value of the vehicle before it's recovered.

If a vehicle does receive a Category X marker, then any subsequent vehicle valuations given by the owner during insurance renewal time will likely be incorrect. For example, the vehicle was worth £20k at the time of the theft. If it was written off as stolen recovered by the insurance company, the book value of the vehicle will be massively reduced as the insurance company will have paid out market value to the owner at the time of the claim. This effectively makes the vehicle worthless seeing as how the insurance company has purchased it for market value.

This could make it very difficult to even get insurance for the vehicle going forward. Some insurers won't touch stolen recovered vehicles because of the differences of vehicle valuation from both the owners and the insurers perspective. The owner still sees a £20k vehicle, but the insurers see a worthless liability. The insurance company won't want to pay out market value for the vehicle again in the event of theft or an accident involving the vehicle.

I had a similar situation in 2020, and I'm still paying higher premiums because the incident was in the last 5 years. Wish I'd said nothing to the insurers. They're even bigger crooks than the ones stealing the vehicles!

 

[HonestJohn]

House always wins, as true in insurance as it is in gambling.