Author: Dennis Chapman
Published: April 2, 2012
Reading time: 1 minute
This article is 9 years old.
Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down
This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.
The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.
The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.
Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.
If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.
All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.
Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.
The financial Ombudsman agreed with insurers that a claim should be turned down when a car was apparently stolen, and then set on fire, given the car had an ‘intelligent’ programmed key.
The son of the insured gave evidence that he arrived home and said the car was missing. The insurer said the only other way to remove the car was by transporter or low truck but in such cases the alarm would have sounded.
In defence of the insured and her claim the original dealer said the car’s security could be by-passed. That evidence however was not sufficient to counter that of the insurers.
The case very much highlights the need for dealers to have a very strict key control policy to avoid being turned down on theft claims.