Driving no insurance

[saaby93]

Noger said:

Have you looked at the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Regulations 1972 ?

You won't find "thou shalt not backdate insurance even for a mistake" but you should find something along the lines of not providing a certificate for a period when the was no cover. Or something like that. Wearing flares, probably.

Is what you're saying (in a roundabout way) that there is nothing to prevent insurers rectifying mistakes, so leaving the insured in the position they would have been if they mistake had not been made, it's just they prefer not to do that when they can cause the insured to go to court, gain 6 points, a fine, and future increased premiums, and of course not cover any claims if they collide with one of the rest of us?

Are there any insurers which don't do this?

[R1 Loon]

Let me get this straight. You've drawn this conclusion

saaby93 said:

Is what you're saying (in a roundabout way) that there is nothing to prevent insurers rectifying mistakes

From this

Noger said:

Have you looked at the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Regulations 1972 ?

You ......... should find something along the lines of not providing a certificate for a period when the was no cover.

The reason I'm confused is that the statement is pretty clear, that a certificate can't be provided, without aa certificate you are not insured.

saaby93 said:

Are there any insurers which don't do this?

Unsurprisingly, no. All the insurers like the idea of complying with the law.

[saaby93]

R1 Loon said:

Unsurprisingly, no. All the insurers like the idea of complying with the law.

I hadnt thought about this practice being unlawful
We'll set you insurance to auto renew next year
12 months plus 2 weeks later - Ive had a pull and dont seem to be covered
yes that's right, there's been a mistake
Can you unmistake it please
no we can't backdate
Thats no good, mr plods here
You've been driving uninsured? we're quids in, your premium will go up

[boobles]

I was informed today by phone that my renewel is due on the 16 Jan 2011.
It has gone up from £500 to £980!
As you can imagine I told him to shove it & found a better deal for £400.....
He tried justifying it by blaming un-insured drivers etc but no way was I buying that.

[R1 Loon]

saaby93 said:

I hadnt thought about this practice being unlawful
We'll set you insurance to auto renew next year
12 months plus 2 weeks later - Ive had a pull and dont seem to be covered
yes that's right, there's been a mistake
Can you unmistake it please
no we can't backdate
Thats no good, mr plods here
You've been driving uninsured? we're quids in, your premium will go up

Where to start, well let's start with auto renewal. The OP is below - no mention of auto-renewal in it is there?

richardsheen said:

Sadly my insurance lapsed for a week and was unaware, a car hit me, he admitted liability. But have to go to magistrates court on monday for driving with no insurance, any idea of fine and points will get. got a solicitor to represent me.

Here's the first mention by another poster in post 3, page 1

Jonny671 said:

Didn't your insurance auto-renew? I thought nearly all do this..

And in post 7, page 1, look who jumps on the bandwagon.

saaby93 said:

Jonny671 said:

Didn't your insurance auto-renew? I thought nearly all do this..

I posted about this a few months back
Although they send you a letter saying it's going to auto renew, the first you know it hasnt auto renewed is when they remind you about lack of insurance 2 weeks after it's run out.

If you then ask them to renew it to including those 2 weeks they say tough you're on your own matey, we can't back date.

It's another way of adding to the list of uninsured (but thought they were) on the roads.

So based on your failure to understand even the basic aspect of this

Now on to the purpose of this thread. Here's the OP giving the reason why he didn't insure his car. He forgot, not the insurer. He forgot and why did he forget, because he has a lot of vehicles in his opinion. I have more, I remember to renew, service, tax and fill them up with petrol when needed. Oh and the broker stopped their specialist TVR scheme, which he seems well informed about.

richardsheen said:

i have two cars a motorbike,three houses and a business to insure. The insurance company who insured me pulled out of the TVR market and did not want to renew.
I do not gamble with my insurance. but thanks for your rather mindless comment

Except 3 posts later he seems not to have been told this information

richardsheen said:

no they did not otherwise i would have not driven the car

Now, based on all the above information saaby, will you please STFU with your irrelevant comments that have no connection to the thread and are based purely on your made up view of the world.

And as for the "unmistake it" bit, again, stop being a thick and accept that an insurer will provide a letter of indemnity, if it is their fault. This is sufficient for cover to be provided and in 99.99% of cases for any court to be happy not to pursue a charge of driving without insurance. Oh look, no insreaase in premium, no point son licence, no nothing.

If, as is the case on this thread, the driver simply did not have any insurance arranged, then they deserve a royal bumming.

Again, I apologise for posting facts, you continue with your opinion based drivel all you like now.

[saaby93]

R1 Loon said:

accept that an insurer will provide a letter of indemnity, if it is their fault. This is sufficient for cover to be provided and in 99.99% of cases for any court to be happy not to pursue a charge of driving without insurance.

Source?
99.99% doesn't quite tie in with what's happened to various posters
Where does your figure come from?

[R1 Loon]

saaby93 said:

R1 Loon said:

accept that an insurer will provide a letter of indemnity, if it is their fault. This is sufficient for cover to be provided and in 99.99% of cases for any court to be happy not to pursue a charge of driving without insurance.

Source?
99.99% doesn't quite tie in with what's happened to various posters
Where does your figure come from?

Read the rest of the post, then come back with something more constructive.

[saaby93]

R1 Loon said:

Read the rest of the post, then come back with something more constructive.

Still in front of that mirror
C'mon R1Loon where do you get 99.99% from?

or are you saying it's 99.99 % of only the cases where the insurers go as far as issuing a letter of indemnity

Would that be just about none of the cases where a mistake has been made?

[R1 Loon]

saaby93 said:

R1 Loon said:

Read the rest of the post, then come back with something more constructive.

Still in front of that mirror
C'mon R1Loon where do you get 99.99% from?

or are you saying it's 99.99 % of only the cases where the insurers go as far as issuing a letter of indemnity

Would that be just about none of the cases where a mistake has been made?

I give up, it was a figure taken at random. The statement (bar the number) is true, the rest of the post that you've conveninently ignored is true.

I'm bored with you now. In fact, I'm so bored, I'm going to run a report tomorrow and see just how few cases exist with your favourite AMC and then put a block on all payments. You can sue me if you want, but I reckon the cashflow issue will kill you long before we reach that stage and I can always pay on the court steps.

Edited by R1 Loon on Thursday 16th December 20:52

[saaby93]

R1 Loon said:

I give up, it was a figure taken at random. The statement (bar the number) is true, the rest of the post that you've conveninently ignored is true.

How true? 99.99% or a random number

[R1 Loon]

saaby93 said:

R1 Loon said:

I give up, it was a figure taken at random. The statement (bar the number) is true, the rest of the post that you've conveninently ignored is true.

How true? 99.99% or a random number

What do you think Einstein?

[saaby93]

It's been quoted before but is section (c) useful for drivers that thought they were insured but it turns out not?
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/sectio...

RTA said:

A person charged with using a motor vehicle in contravention of this section shall not be convicted if he proves—
(a)that the vehicle did not belong to him and was not in his possession under a contract of hiring or of loan,
(b)that he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment, and
(c)that he neither knew nor had reason to believe that there was not in force in relation to the vehicle such a policy of insurance or security as is mentioned in subsection (1) above.

[vonhosen]

saaby93 said:

It's been quoted before but is section (c) useful for drivers that thought they were insured but it turns out not?
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/sectio...

RTA said:

A person charged with using a motor vehicle in contravention of this section shall not be convicted if he proves—
(a)that the vehicle did not belong to him and was not in his possession under a contract of hiring or of loan,
(b)that he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment, and
(c)that he neither knew nor had reason to believe that there was not in force in relation to the vehicle such a policy of insurance or security as is mentioned in subsection (1) above.

Only if b) also applies.

[saaby93]

vonhosen said:

Only if b) also applies.

That was it thanks

[R1 Loon]

vonhosen said:

saaby93 said:

It's been quoted before but is section (c) useful for drivers that thought they were insured but it turns out not?
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/sectio...

RTA said:

A person charged with using a motor vehicle in contravention of this section shall not be convicted if he proves—
(a)that the vehicle did not belong to him and was not in his possession under a contract of hiring or of loan,
(b)that he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment, and
(c)that he neither knew nor had reason to believe that there was not in force in relation to the vehicle such a policy of insurance or security as is mentioned in subsection (1) above.

Only if b) also applies.

And (a) - all 3 need to apply. I know you could take apart the grammar & punctuation, but all 3 need to apply to use this defence.

[Biker's Nemesis]

I'll have a "p" please Bob.

[R1 Loon]

Biker's Nemesis said:

I'll have a "p" please Bob.

Don't tell me, get your nurse to bring your potty

[Biker's Nemesis]

R1 Loon said:

Biker's Nemesis said:

I'll have a "p" please Bob.

Don't tell me, get your nurse to bring your potty

She was to late.

[R1 Loon]

Biker's Nemesis said:

R1 Loon said:

Biker's Nemesis said:

I'll have a "p" please Bob.

Don't tell me, get your nurse to bring your potty

She was to late.

Oh, the pedants will be out in force later to take issue with you over that faux pas.

[Biker's Nemesis]

R1 Loon said:

Biker's Nemesis said:

R1 Loon said:

Biker's Nemesis said:

I'll have a "p" please Bob.

Don't tell me, get your nurse to bring your potty

She was to late.

Oh, the pedants will be out in force later to take issue with you over that faux pas.

I do it Purpose.