ROAD TRAFFIC (INSURANCE) (Hansard, 18 March 1969)

§ Mr. Gurden

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for compulsory motor vehicle insurance against liability for damage to the property of third parties; to give third parties a right of action against insurance companies in respect of damage to their persons or property caused by motor vehicles insured by those insurance companies; and for connected purposes. This Motion seeks leave to bring in a Bill to extend the effect of subsection (3) of Section 203 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, to protect the property of any person arising out of the use of a motor vehicle. The Act of 1960 requires a vehicle to be insured for liability to a third party suffering death or bodily injury. I seek to extend that liability to property of a third party. The person insured in respect of the vehicle has to complete a claim form to comply with the insurance policy that he is obliged to take out for liability for death or bodily injury, even though the injury to the person may be only a cut finger. But where property damage only is sustained, and not personal injury, there is, under the law as it stands today, no obligation upon the owner or driver, or upon his insurance company, to meet the damages.

There is no such obligation so long as the owner or the driver declines to fill in a form of claim upon his insurance company. At times, insurance companies refuse to pay, or even to consider a claim simply because under the terms of the policy the insured person has not filled in a claim form. This Bill seeks to make it obligatory for the insured person to make out a claim form where property is involved, just as he does in the case of personal injury.

Most drivers and owners of vehicles, of course, do fill in a claim form where they have incurred damage or where damage is involved. But a growing number of drivers and owners refuse to do this, for several reasons. One is that the insured person may lose his no claim bonus. Another is that he may not be insured against property damage of the kind that can arise. The reason why the law is in the position that it is, and why Governments have refused to do anything about this, is that 40 years ago a Royal Commission refused, on balance, to recommend that this provision should be 227 included in an Act of Parliament. But we all know the changes that have happened in motoring in the last 40 years. Car ownership is much wider. It is now for the masses. Indeed, some owner-drivers could not possibly pay for the extensive damage which a vehicle can do. Many owners take out the absolute minimum of insurance and wish to protect their no claim bonuses, so there is a growing number of cases of damage to property every day in which recovery is not possible. Of course, one can resort to civil action, but many people who have written to me have not the resources or the ability to do so. In any case, the procedure is very slow and there is always the risk of losing. This does not apply in the case of personal injury, when the law says that an insurance company must meet its liabilities.

This amending Bill is not aimed at the ordinary honest and decent citizen who insures himself properly and meets his obligations by filling in a claim form, but against the negligent and certainly the dishonest and unscrupulous people who get into difficulties, sometimes through no bad intentions. Police action usually does not apply, because there is not always evidence of a driving offence and it may not be the driver's own fault that property damage has occurred.

The exact situation is this. Any of us may be resting calmly in a deckchair in the garden one afternoon, with the vehicle that we own parked in the front drive or garage, when some other vehicle 228 runs off the road and damages our vehicle, or even the garage or the house, or a pram or a cycle or other property. There is no redress and thousands of £s worth of damage may be done which could not be recovered. Of course, if all steps are taken, the person responsible may go into bankruptcy and the person injured receive nothing.

There have been few cases of this in years gone by, but a growing number is happening now and I have a large number of letters and evidence. I do not propose to put it all before the House now, since there would not be time, but I should be happy to do so if the Bill were given a Second Reading. Since this is my second attempt, I hope that the Government will at least give facilities for a Second Reading of the Bill.