Welcome to Motorhomefacts, we are a thriving motorhome community (Largest in Europe). Why Not JOIN NOW and get instant access to more of the website. It costs nothing to join and only takes a few minutes. We have 200,000 different people visiting our site monthly and this amount of motorhomers in one place guarantees a fast response to any questions you may have. We also have unique facilities not found elsewhere such as our Online Logbook, stopover tracker, Motorhome directory with Ebay type feedback and the largest repository of motorhome campsites reviews found anywhere
When I sell cars or vans. I drive the prospective buyers to our local Supermarket filling station and pull up right in-front of the CCTV cameras.
Remove the key (only ever produce one for tests). Ask them to get out and come around to the drivers side. I then get out, get into front passenger seat, belt on and then only give them the key when they are in.
TM
Belt and braces Trev. I like it.
Cheers,
Jock.
______________________________________________________________ For "Our Mavis."
My Mate is a Car & Van Dealer. It was actually someone else that was dealing with the customer in his absence.
It now makes a lot more sense to me. The person dealing with the customer (and probably your mate too) was presumably unfamiliar with the keys & fob. It was still pretty careless of him or her though, IMO.
Regarding exclusion clauses, the onus is on the policyholder to read the policy in its entirety. If there's a deception clause, there's a deception clause, and if they believe that the theft was in fact a deception, the insurer is entitled to refuse the claim. It will then be up to the policyholder to start a process of claim, if he or she believes they can show that on the balance of probabilities, no deception occurred.
I don't agree that the onus is on the insurer, nor is the onus initially on them to prove their case. They would though have to defend themselves in a civil court, and it would be for the court to decide, based on all the evidence. For what it's worth, if teemyob's mate made a criminal complaint to the Police, based on what he' said here, I would consider it deception.
Regarding insurance cowboys/rip-offs etc, Edddie makes an excellent point. I have always maintained - and will always do so - that the onus is on each of us to know exactly what we're doing when we enter into a contract. If we fail to read the details (the "small print" as it's still stupidly called), we cannot then whinge about being ripped-off. I will not be pressurised in a shop/office or anywhere else when being asked to sign something - I'll make damn sure I either read it carefully and understand every last thing first, or take it away & come back later. Better still, buying insurance online means I can read at my leisure before buying. (And that's not even considering the cooling-off period....)
I would have thought that the onus would be on an Insurer to explain why they were not going to meet any claim by pointing out which clause in the contract between them and the insured party had been breached thus absolving them of responsibility, Alan.
I would have thought that the onus would be on an Insurer to explain why they were not going to meet any claim by pointing out which clause in the contract between them and the insured party had been breached thus absolving them of responsibility
I agree they would do that, Alan - they'd obviously explain their reasons for refusing the claim, and would rely on the exclusion. It would then be up to the insured to challenge that by whatever means he/she thought appropriate, and the ultimate recourse would be the court.
I'm a little bit confused, where is there a Deception with regards to the taking of the vehicle. The Keys yes I can accept, how long between the keys and the taking of the vehicle.?
Exclusions to Section 1 of your policy (loss or damage to your motor caravan).
3. Loss by deception.
The time between handing over the key and the actual taking of the vehicle is not relevant, the proximate cause of the loss was the actual transfer of the key to the thief which enabled him to take control of the vehicle.
A sad reflection on parts of our society. At one time you did not have to consider that you might be dealing with a crook, nowadays when selling a vehicle you have to start from that position until it is proven otherwise.
I recently sold an expensive BMW 5 series car on eBay, had a couple of neighbours handy when the buyer came to pay and collect, turned out to be a detective from the Met, so no problems there!
I'm a little bit confused, where is there a Deception with regards to the taking of the vehicle. The Keys yes I can accept, how long between the keys and the taking of the vehicle.?
Criminally, it's one single act. The Mens Rea (Latin - mental intent, what was in their mind) was there from the start, i..e they always intended to steal the car, so the offence was in fact complete when they obtained the key.
Dougie.
Sorry - missed the previous post before writing, but it proves the point.
I would have thought that the onus would be on an Insurer to explain why they were not going to meet any claim by pointing out which clause in the contract between them and the insured party had been breached thus absolving them of responsibility
I agree they would do that, Alan - they'd obviously explain their reasons for refusing the claim, and would rely on the exclusion. It would then be up to the insured to challenge that by whatever means he/she thought appropriate, and the ultimate recourse would be the court.
Dougie.
And the onus is on the insurer to prove that the exclusion applies, which is what I said in the first place.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
All times are GMT + 1 Hour Page 2 of 2Goto page Previous1, 2
Croatia
For "Our Mavis."
