Sold bike, new owner crashes it, old owners responsible??
Discussion
Gallen said:
This is ridiculous.
Effectively, it means that there is no such thing as an uninsured driver, so long as there is a motor insurance policy on the vehicle.
It's not really. The MID effectively ensures such a thing anyway.Effectively, it means that there is no such thing as an uninsured driver, so long as there is a motor insurance policy on the vehicle.
The point at debate is whether they should be able to reclaim the costs incurred from the original policyholder.
On reflection, I just can't see that happening.
How many times? They can't* reclaim their outlay. That is a BS comment from an attention seeking ambulance chasing solicitor.
* by "can't" I mean the process is so long winded and convoluted as to make it virtually impossible. It'd be easier to try to offload the claim onto the MIB and that is only marginally easier.
* by "can't" I mean the process is so long winded and convoluted as to make it virtually impossible. It'd be easier to try to offload the claim onto the MIB and that is only marginally easier.
LoonR1 said:
How many times? They can't* reclaim their outlay. That is a BS comment from an attention seeking ambulance chasing solicitor.
* by "can't" I mean the process is so long winded and convoluted as to make it virtually impossible. It'd be easier to try to offload the claim onto the MIB and that is only marginally easier.
So by can't you mean they won't?* by "can't" I mean the process is so long winded and convoluted as to make it virtually impossible. It'd be easier to try to offload the claim onto the MIB and that is only marginally easier.
I mean after 20 years of working at a very senior level in motor insurance claims that I know when there's a chance of recouping our outlay or not. The chances of recouping third party outlay from a policyholder are microscopic. It involves a very complex legal process that makes it twice as expensive as it needs to be and then we still need a court to rule in our favour and then we need to go about finding the assets and then we need to seize them and so on and so forth. It won't happen and it's highly unlikely that it even can happen. Of course an ambulance chaser whipping up a Daily Mailesque frenzy is far more believable.
LoonR1 said:
I mean after 20 years of working at a very senior level in motor insurance claims that I know when there's a chance of recouping our outlay or not. The chances of recouping third party outlay from a policyholder are microscopic. It involves a very complex legal process that makes it twice as expensive as it needs to be and then we still need a court to rule in our favour and then we need to go about finding the assets and then we need to seize them and so on and so forth. It won't happen and it's highly unlikely that it even can happen. Of course an ambulance chaser whipping up a Daily Mailesque frenzy is far more believable.
I agree. For such a crap article it got a lot of replies. Including from me.Will be more selective in future.
dacouch said:
Real information, from a real person, who knows real stuff?It'll never catch on.
This is old, but seems to be on point that there is no right of recovery as the (potential) defendant in this case has not in fact either caused or permitted the use of the vehicle on the road otherwise than in accordance with a policy of motor insurance.
As there is no s.143 (1) (b) offence following the logic in Goodbarne -v- Buck (whereby the defendant had funded the purchase of a vehicle by the driver, but did not retain title in the vehicle and therefore could not prevent the use) then there is no s.151 (8) right of recovery.
http://www.uniset.ca/other/css/19401AER613.html
NB ignore the Canadian URL, it's an English case.
As there is no s.143 (1) (b) offence following the logic in Goodbarne -v- Buck (whereby the defendant had funded the purchase of a vehicle by the driver, but did not retain title in the vehicle and therefore could not prevent the use) then there is no s.151 (8) right of recovery.
http://www.uniset.ca/other/css/19401AER613.html
NB ignore the Canadian URL, it's an English case.
t balls. 
Speed Badger said:
So what would happen if your car was stolen and then the thief crashed it into another car, killing the driver.
Technically you're still insured, regardless of the bike being taken, so how does that work?
If the thief is caught then your insurance pays out and has the theoretical right to recover from the thief (not you). The thief is uninsured as the insurer pays as RTA insurer under Sect 151. Technically you're still insured, regardless of the bike being taken, so how does that work?
If the thief isn't caught then the MIB deal under the Untraced Driver agreement.
I'm sure I've already said this but maybe that was in the SP&L thread.
Where the (previously) insured is no longer the owner or registered keeper of a vehicle, it's bizarre and illogical that an insurer's statutory responsibility for that vehicle should continue when the contractual responsibility - upon which the statutory responsibility is based - has been terminated i.e the (previously) insured is no longer the owner, registered keeper, main driver/rider and has no controlling interest or even any involvement.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff