The Road Traffic Act basically means that if there's an accident and the driver is identified (Judgement Against) and there's an insurance policy on the car then the Insurer of the car is liable irrespective of whether the driver is named on the policy or not.

The above would apply to a car thief or someone you've loaned the car to as in your specific case providing they're identified.

If the driver is not identified the Insurer is not liable although if the MIB become involved they will often pass it back to the Insurer anyway.

The wording of 151 refers to "Judgement" by claiming against your Insurance the other party can go through to court and obtain judgement although this is fairly rare as Insurers generally look to settle a claim before court to save on costs when they know they will lose.

This basically means your Insurer will be liable, they will pay the third party claim as per their obligations under 151 of the RTA.

Obviously if your Insurers pay the claim it will be recorded as a fault claim (Which is likely to increase your premium) and affect your no claims bonus(Which is likely to increase your premium) if it's not protected.

Once they've paid the claim they will either go after your friend or more likely you to repay them their losses.

As the amount is relatively low it's worth considering paying this yourself depending on the size of the premium. However bear in mind that they may not have included their client's excess in the amount they're asking for and if the other driver has any injuries or car hire these will normally be claimed by a different company and will be many more times more expensive.

So basically your Insurers will be liable due to RTA 151 which they will seek to recover from someone which will probably be you.

RTA 151 can also apply when you sell your car and don't cancel your Insurance if the new owner does not insure the car and has an accident, hence why it's sensible to cancel your policy when you sell the car.

If you're a member of a union, you may get free legal advice. Speaking to a solicitor (Unless you use the 30 min free advice) will cost you money and they will tell you exactly the same as I have.

I could post links from claims companies explaining this but other posters don't like links. Google "RTA Insurer 151" or "Uninsured Driver 151" which will bring up websites explaining it along with relevant case law.

Thanks for the responses so far.

My insurance company have denied liability under S.151 - without going into details, due to certain specific details of my policy it seems they are able to do this, and their denial of liability certainly seems to have been accepted by the other party's insurers, who mentioned this as a reason when I queried why they were coming after me.

I'm aware that if my insurance company had paid out, they'd be entitled to take me to court to recover their outlay, but this isn't the situation here - it is the other party's insurer who is coming after me directly, and I can't see how they are legally entitled to do this.

Dacouch - yes it is a motortrade policy. This is the grounds on which my insurers have denied liability - that it is not a policy covering a specific vehicle, but a general policy covering me to drive any vehicle in my custody or control. As I say, the other party's insurers appear to have accepted this.

Erm, nope - nothing to hide. Not sure why you'd think that. Even if I did it wouldn't really matter - it's not like I'm using my full name and address to post on here.

I didn't mention the motortrade policy simply because I didn't think it was relevant to the original question I asked, which was whether the third party's insurer can come after me directly, under S.151 or another part of the RTA, to recover their outlay. At this stage of the proceedings it seems they have accepted my insurer's denial of liability, so the question as to whether my insurer can or can't deny liability under S.151 is a bit of a moot point for the time being.

B_i_G, the wording of subsection 8 (b) would have me worried if it were not subject to subsection 8 (a), which states that that part of the subsection only applies to a person who is insured under a policy issued by the insurer who is trying to make the recovery. At least that's my reading of it. So in other words, if my insurance company had paid out to the third party and was trying to recover from me, I would imagine that subsection 8 (b) would pretty much have me screwed - but that isn't the case here.

I would agree that this is probably a matter for a specialist solicitor, but in view of the relatively small amount being claimed I could easily end up forking out more in legal fees than I would have done if I'd simply paid up... Which is why I thought I'd ask on here first. I might try the CAB and see if they can help.

Claiming against my mate would be a non-starter unfortunately as he's currently out of work and skint, so any recovery I was able to make against him would doubtless be paid to me at the rate of about £10 a month - so not really worth bothering with...