• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum.
    Please Register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
    REGISTER
    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.

MIB rejected Claim.

Collapse
Loading...
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • MIB rejected Claim.

    Hello, I am new to the forum so thanks for accepting me as a member. I was diverted to this site while reading the pro's and cons of the MIB website.
    My wife parked her Mercedes outside of her workplace and later found her car had substantial damage to the front O/S (Hit and Run) ,no one had seen the incident and she immediately phoned the police who would only give a crime number. We followed the necessary insurance requirements etc.
    It was suggested by the Police to apply to the MIB for reimbursement of our insurance excess , now the MIB rejected the claim under Clause 7 (1) 'they won't cover damage by an unidentified motor vehicle'... ???
    It sounds wrong , does anyone know about this 'clause' and has anyone had the same reply ?
    I would appreciate any feedback.
    Tags: None

  • #2


    MIB are acting correctly in line with the agreement with the secretary of state for transport

    This is as per 6 (1) and 7 (1) (b) of the agreement:
    6. (1) 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 or the giver of a security), not being the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority or its successor.
    7. (1) MIB is not liable for any claim, or any part of a claim, in respect of damage to property caused by or arising out of the use of an unidentified vehicle, unless — (a)..........(b) the loss incurred in respect of damage to property exceeds the specified excess.

    Comment


    • #3
      So we just say goodbye to £450 excess ? through the actions of someone unknown who probably had
      NO insurance cover ? I thought a percentage of our insurance was paid into this fund for just these circumstances.

      Comment


      • #4
        I'm afraid a large number of people misunderstand the agreement between MIB and the minister, but it is what it is.

        Perhaps it would have been better if MIB had told you the reason for declinature of your claim was that property damage can only be claimed in cases where any Claimant has sustained significant personal injury in respect of the same event.

        Comment

        View our Terms and Conditions

        LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

        If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


        If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.
        Working...
        X