Whether you insure the car is entirely up to you and what you feel comfortable with. The way I see it, you have terminated the agreement and you no longer have the right to possession or use of the car and your obligations under the HP agreement to maintain continuous insurance falls away.
In law, you are what is known as an involuntary bailee as you are in possession of something you do not wish to keep. Your only obligation is to ensure you take reasonable care whilst it is in your possession i.e. don't cause or allow damage to be caused to the car. Does that extend to keeping a car that you no longer have any ownership or rights to insured? I would argue not and that's the lender's responsibility since they own the car, not you. If you do insure it, then you won't be able to recover that back unless Close Brothers agree to reimburse you.
Just make sure to keep any of this in writing especially if you object to what they are saying. If they say you need to insure it otherwise any damage you are liable for and are silent or non-responsive, if the matter went to court, a judge may find you liable since you said nothing and therefore a reasonable inference from that would be you accepted that responsibility, because any ordinary person who disagreed with that position would have piped up and said so.
In law, you are what is known as an involuntary bailee as you are in possession of something you do not wish to keep. Your only obligation is to ensure you take reasonable care whilst it is in your possession i.e. don't cause or allow damage to be caused to the car. Does that extend to keeping a car that you no longer have any ownership or rights to insured? I would argue not and that's the lender's responsibility since they own the car, not you. If you do insure it, then you won't be able to recover that back unless Close Brothers agree to reimburse you.
Just make sure to keep any of this in writing especially if you object to what they are saying. If they say you need to insure it otherwise any damage you are liable for and are silent or non-responsive, if the matter went to court, a judge may find you liable since you said nothing and therefore a reasonable inference from that would be you accepted that responsibility, because any ordinary person who disagreed with that position would have piped up and said so.
Comment