Dangerous driving - LL62 PRZ

[rendelharris]

Well obviously as you've said "this is not contestable" that ends any discussion. Wow. So if a person does not pay their VED and does not have a valid MOT, if they're involved in an incident in which they're at fault, if they have insurance their company will pay up, no question, and they will not be liable? They won't have to pay a penny? Good luck with trying that out in the real world.

You're not "considered" rude, you are extremely rude - "walk away from Google and have a think" - "Now no more man in the pub guff" - plain bad manners.

[flocker spotter]

one last time as you do not seem to understand

the insurer agrees to - as a legal miniumum for the RTA- insure you for 3P liability

As long as that P1 and P2 contract is extant, they are obliged to meeet any 3P claims

Should you fail to adhere to that P1/P2 contract, then P1 can cancel the indemnity. This is not retrospective, until they cancel,you are insured and they are obliged to meet any 3P claims until that that time.Its is not possible to backdate that cancellation.You are insured under the RTA.

Should the agreement be cancelled due to your failures, then from that point onwards, your are formally uninsured. Until then, they will meet 3P claims.

If there is a claim during this period of cover, they will pay out. At that point, they can take civil action to recover their losses due to breach of contract between P1 and P2. the 3P does not suffer due to the P1/P2 dispute.

This is how the insurance industry works. As I flippantly alluded to , what do you think would happen if P1 decided that

they didnt actually want to cover you for something that happened last month, despite a P1/P2 contract being in place during that period?

I fail to see why this is such a complex issue

[rendelharris]

No you're absolutely right of course, and the clause in most insurance policies which says the policy is invalid if you fail to maintain the vehicle MOT is simply window dressing.

Let's see what people who sell insurance, such as confused.com, say: "If you don't have an up-to-date MOT, it could invalidate your car insurance. This could in turn lead to penalties for driving uninsured."

But of course you understand better than those whose business it is, which entitles you to be both patronising and rude. Nighty night.

[Loz]

flocker spotter Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> RTA section 148-155 Loz- unless the insurer formally revokes the insurance contract between 1P

> and 2P , then it is valid for the third party claimant.

That may be so, but it still does not establish a contract between the insurance company and the third party. There is a very important legal difference between being allowed to 'make a claim' versus a legal contract being established.

[peckham_ryu]

Is that a blow-up doll in the passenger seat?

[ianr]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If you actually look at many

> car insurance policies, they will specifically

> state that they are invalidated if the policy

> holder does not maintain their MOT certificate and

> VED. I've actually taken the trouble to dig out

> Mrs.H's policy, and it says exactly that.

Could you please copy that part here verbatim.

[rendelharris]

ianr Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rendelharris Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > If you actually look at many

> > car insurance policies, they will specifically

> > state that they are invalidated if the policy

> > holder does not maintain their MOT certificate

> and

> > VED. I've actually taken the trouble to dig

> out

> > Mrs.H's policy, and it says exactly that.

>

> Could you please copy that part here verbatim.

"It is the duty of the owner to maintain the vehicle in roadworthy condition and ensure it has a valid current MOT certificate. All modifications to the vehicle which significantly affect its performance and/or value should be reported to your broker. If you do not tell your broker about any relevant changes, or fail to keep the vehicle roadworthy, we may:

- reject or reduce your claim.

- cancel the policy and/or treat it as though it never existed, or

- do both of the above."

[ianr]

Thank you. That's not "invalidated" as I understand it.

[jmyrobinson]

Thank you all for your comments.

Rather than debate the ins and outs of insurance, emissions duties, and MOTs, can we just agree to share the road safely and conscientiously?

Incident has been reported through the appropriate channels.

[miga]

flocker spotter Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I am right on this. I may be considered rude but i

> have outlined how the industry works & the

> liabilities of the insurer. This is not

> contestable. Whether you take that on board is

> your decision. have a great evening

Who ate your bowl of sunshine, thundercloud?

[robbin]

ianr Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Thank you. That's not "invalidated" as I

> understand it.

Ah, spot the lawyer?!

I agree - as I said yesterday... whether or not letting an MOT expire would cause problems with a policyholder's insurance cover depends upon the terms of each individual policy. Having no valid MOT will not render a policy void ab initio (unless you have no MOT at the outset and you misrepresent to the insurer that you have). If you let your MOT expire after the policy commences, this means that the policy would be voidable at the election of the insurer, so much would depend upon whether or not the insurer decided to repudiate (avoid) the policy. The chances are, of course, that they would repudiate if it was going to cost them a lot otherwise.

[Cardelia]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "It is the duty of the owner to maintain the

> vehicle in roadworthy condition and ensure it has

> a valid current MOT certificate. All

> modifications to the vehicle which significantly

> affect its performance and/or value should be

> reported to your broker. If you do not tell your

> broker about any relevant changes, or fail to keep

> the vehicle roadworthy, we may:

>

> - reject or reduce your claim.

> - cancel the policy and/or treat it as though it

> never existed, or

> - do both of the above."

Assuming that's a direct copy and paste from the policy document, note that they're quite careful in their use of language surrounding what may cause invalidation of the policy. The key term is that a vehicle has to be maintained in a roadworthy condition, not whether it has a valid MOT certificate. Many insurance companies use the presence of a valid MOT certificate as a proxy for roadworthiness, but this is a lazy approach because it's perfectly possible for a roadworthy vehicle to not have an MOT certificate, but equally it's perfectly possible for an unroadworthy vehicle to have a valid MOT certificate. Both scenarios are illegal, but it's only the latter case which risks having the insurance policy invalidated.

Also, for what it's worth, Flocker Spotter is right about this. The point of everybody taking out motor insurance is to ensure that third parties are not penalised in the event of an accident which they're not responsible for. If the insurance company refuses to pay the third party because you haven't maintained your vehicle in a roadworthy condition, how do you think the third party would feel? So the insurance company will pay the third party, not least because these are part of the terms and conditions it signs up to when it registers with the MIB. Once it has covered the third party's costs, there are two possible scenarios: (1) the insurance company swallows the cost (that's what premiums are there for...) or (2) the insurance company seeks to recover its costs from you. In both cases, the third party's liabilities are taken care of and this third party right cannot be taken away even if your vehicle is in an unroadworthy condition. That's what Flocker Spotter means when the insurance company cannot invalidate your policy.

[Loz]

Cardelia Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If the insurance company refuses to pay the third party because you haven't maintained your vehicle in a

> roadworthy condition, how do you think the third party would feel?

Same way that if you had failed to pay for you third-party insurance and the company cancelled it, I suspect.

> So the insurance company will

> pay the third party, not least because these are part of the terms and conditions it signs up to

> when it registers with the MIB. Once it has covered the third party's costs, there are two

> possible scenarios: (1) the insurance company swallows the cost (that's what premiums are there

> for...) or (2) the insurance company seeks to recover its costs from you. In both cases, the

> third party's liabilities are taken care of and this third party right cannot be taken away even

> if your vehicle is in an unroadworthy condition. That's what Flocker Spotter means when the

> insurance company cannot invalidate your policy.

Possibly, but there is still no *contract* established between the insurance company and the third party. That's where flocker spotter is wrong.

[flocker spotter]

I am not wrong. read the RTA sections I mentioned.

If you do not understand how the insurance industry functions wrt to the auto arena, then read up on it rather than entering a yeahbut whataboutery death spiral.

[flocker spotter]

anyway, I am out of this thread for good. I have work to do, deals to close, fish to fry, dogs to walk. I trust that my input has been appreciated for its accuracy, if not for its delivery.

Your obedient servant

etc

[Cardelia]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Same way that if you had failed to pay for you

> third-party insurance and the company cancelled

> it, I suspect.

If you don't pay the premiums and the insurance company cancels the policy then you are driving uninsured. The MIB 'uninsured driver' protocol comes into effect in the event of any accident. But until the insurance company formally cancels the policy, you are insured. If you have an accident before the policy is cancelled then your third party liabilities are still covered even if you are in arrears on the payment schedule.

> Possibly, but there is still no *contract*

> established between the insurance company and the

> third party. That's where flocker spotter is

> wrong.

Motor insurance works by creating a contract between the first party (policyholder) and second party (insurer). The contract is for the insurer to cover liabilities for damage to third parties caused by the policyholder. Until the contract between policyholder and insurer is formally annulled, that third party cover exists. A contract between the insurance company and the third party is established when the third party (or policyholder) instigates a claim AND a valid contract between policyholder and insurer is in place.

If the policyholder does not keep to their side of the bargain (fails to maintain the payment schedule, fails to maintain their car in a roadworthy state, etc.) then the contract can be cancelled by the insurer. The insurer can also seek to recover costs from the policyholder. However, it is illegal for the insurer to retrospectively annul its responsibilities to any third parties which were in place before the contract was formally cancelled. That's why Flocker Spotter is right.

[malumbu]

Wow. FM. Vigilantism/chattering classes gone mad. And we have the cheek to complain about the Daily Mail. Shop them to the feds. Job done. Well done. Been there done it myself a number of times.

[Loz]

flocker spotter Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I am not wrong. read the RTA sections I mentioned.

I did, it mentioned liabilities, but it did not mention contracts. Not unsurprisingly as the RTA really isn't concerned with contract law. A liability is not a contract.

You might understand the insurance game, but you just don't understand what a contract is.

[robbin]

To be fair Loz, although FS seems like a bit of a rude n*b, the issue of whether or not there's a contract between the insurer and the third party seems to be irrelevant in the context of this particular conversation isn't it? I agree that there isn't any privity of contract between the two, but notwithstanding this, the effect of the RTA (as amended) is to prevent an insurer from avoiding liability to pay a third party, albeit only after that third party has obtained a court judgment against the insured.

The insurer can, of course then pursue the insured for reimbursement of the judgment sum and costs.

[robbin]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> flocker spotter Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I am not wrong. read the RTA sections I

> mentioned.

>

> I did, it mentioned liabilities, but it did not

> mention contracts. Not unsurprisingly as the RTA

> really isn't concerned with contract law. A

> liability is not a contract.

>

Also, that's not correct - the relevant provisions of the RTA do specifically address contracts - in that they render invalid/unenforceable any contractual terms that would otherwise permit an insurer to avoid such part of a contract that may oblige them to pay out to a third party.

[KidKruger]

Yawnsville, TN.

[Sue]

KidKruger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yawnsville, TN.

Ah, come on KK, keep up :))

[camberlou]

In case anyone is interested I've been told by a reliable source that the driver of the car has been given 6 points on their licence and fined/costs over ?200.

[KidKruger]

Cool.

Let?s have some more ?my Dads bigger than your Dad? back and forth, again.

[Sue]

camberlou Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> In case anyone is interested I've been told by a

> reliable source that the driver of the car has

> been given 6 points on their licence and

> fined/costs over ?200.

Good.