The economic consequences of Brexit (Vol 2)

[sidicks]

chrispmartha said:

A person forgets to renue insurance for one day, gets totalled by a car thief and is severely injured, man has paid into the pot for as long has its been going - tough titty?

Yes, he had the cover for the previous years, but he just didn't need to claim. He is now not insured - you get plenty of insurance reminders.

The base principle that if you've not paid for cover, then you're not entitled to cover, seems a reasonable one to stick to!

Edited by sidicks on Saturday 14th January 19:38

[SKP555]

sidicks said:

Yes, he had the cover for the previous years, but he just didn't need to claim. He is now not insured - you get plenty of insurance reminders.

The base principle that if you've not paid for cover, then you're not entitled to cover, seems a reasonable one to stick to!

Edited by sidicks on Saturday 14th January 19:38

But you are entitled to claim against his insurance if he damages your car. It doesn't seem all that controversial to me.

If a car crashes into my house his insurance should pay for it, regardless of whether or not I have home insurance.

[Troubleatmill]

desolate said:

Why would anyone trust The Times?

A prolific poster on this thread will only ever post The Grauniad as a source of supporting their argument.

Pretty much when I was a kid - the bloke in the town centre peddling the Morning Star..... swore blind .... that this was the only credible source of news.

[Mrr T]

alfie2244 said:

Mrr T said:

alfie2244 said:

EU - Will you allow EU approved vehicles / drivers to use UK roads / cars etc? UK - Yes

UK - Will you allow UK approved................................................EU - Yes

simples - Next

Help me who is this EU person who will make this agreement? I have never seen him/her on TV. Does he/she exist.

The same one that wants a special deal with the City of London.....Michel Barnier IIRC.

So we should talk to the person who has been appointed to negotiate by the commission even though the commission has no say in the out come?

[sidicks]

SKP555 said:

But you are entitled to claim against his insurance if he damages your car. It doesn't seem all that controversial to me.

If a car crashes into my house his insurance should pay for it, regardless of whether or not I have home insurance.

Is home insurance a legal requirement?

[Mrr T]

don4l said:

FiF said:

Mrr T said:

don4l said:

FiF said:

Richard North raises another one today, completely relevant to PH. Mutual recognition of driving licences, and the need to have some sort of agreement, otherwise it's International Driving Permits, renewable every year. Plus of course agreement on recognition of extra training for HGV and PCV drivers, currently embodied in the CPC. Not to mention the insurance issue, and vehicle roadworthiness , operator's licences.

No doubt there will be accusation of an alternative version of Project Fear, far from it, but people need to be aware of the fallacy behind the siren call of "oh it will be all so easy, we just walk away", as there are a lot of specifics to be discussed, really a lot of specifics.

more here, for those interested

I've hired cars in the USA, Malaysia, Spain (before and after she joined the EEC) without any issue at all. Why should there be a problem with the EU?

Mutual recognition of driving licences has got sod all to do with the EU. This is an imaginary problem.

Our boneheaded brexiter at his finest.

Quite, bluster and ignoring much of the details based on one minor part that's already been covered. As previously, some don't want to understand. Don't underestimate the destructive potential of those with not much clue.

It isn't bluster. It is simple fact.

I've driven in many countries around the world without any ptoblems. Why on Earth should there be a problem for us. Is there a problem for Turkish lorry drivers?

I've driven in France, Spain, Italy, Holland and Belgium before the EU existed. I was never even asked to produce a UK Licence.

I'm not the one being boneheaded here.

We had mutual recognition of licences before we joined the EEC/EU. Anybody who imagines that there will be a problem after we leave is fearmongering.

I know of a better word than "fearmongering". It begins with "B".

I love it PH leading boneheaded brexiter is even to boneheaded to read Richard Norths blog post so he knows what he talking about.

[chrispmartha]

sidicks said:

chrispmartha said:

A person forgets to renue insurance for one day, gets totalled by a car thief and is severely injured, man has paid into the pot for as long has its been going - tough titty?

Yes, he had the cover for the previous years, but he just didn't need to claim. He is now not insured - you get plenty of insurance reminders.

The base principle that if you've not paid for cover, then you're not entitled to cover, seems a reasonable one to stick to!

Edited by sidicks on Saturday 14th January 19:38

The point being he wouldn't be trying to claim from the insurance he didn't have.

[Mrr T]

davepoth said:

Mrr T said:

Explain that to me.

MIFID 2 will not be implemented until Jan 2018. The regime for agreeing passporting for non EU countries will be determined by ESMA.

It's now 2 years since AIFMD granted some limited passporting and ESMA have still not decided how it will work.

So no it will not be ready for 2019 and it's not in the control of the council or commission to change this.

The voting members of ESMA are the market regulators of EU member countries (the FCA for the UK and their equivalents in the rest of Europe. What do they all have in common? Their ultimate bosses are the members of the European Council, who are the people who will determine the Brexit settlement.

While the FCA (and I imagine a number of the other authorities are too) is independent, its strategic objectives are set by the government. If every government in the EU decided that allowing the UK to have MIFID II on day one after Brexit was a strategic objective then it would happen.

You I assume have never any of the ESMA council. Let me assure you if there governments told them to do something they would do the opposite.

[sidicks]

chrispmartha said:

The point being he wouldn't be trying to claim from the insurance he didn't have.

Eh?

The MIB provides cover for insured drivers against costs incurred as a result of uninsured drivers.

If he is uninsured himself, then he certainly would be trying to claim on insurance he doesn't have!

Edited by sidicks on Saturday 14th January 20:08

[chrispmartha]

sidicks said:

chrispmartha said:

The point being he wouldn't be trying to claim from the insurance he didn't have.

Eh?

The MIB provides cover for insured drivers against costs incurred as a result of uninsured drivers.

If he is uninsured himself, then he certainly would be trying to claim on insurance he doesn't have!

Edited by sidicks on Saturday 14th January 20:08

Where are you getting that description of the MIB from? (Genuine question as I can't see it on there website)

Can an uninsured driver claim from an insured driver in an accident?

[sidicks]

chrispmartha said:

Where are you getting that description of the MIB from? (Genuine question as I can't see it on there website)

Can an uninsured driver claim from an insured driver in an accident?

From the MIB website:
If you are involved in an accident with a driver who is not insured, or who leaves the scene you may still be able to claim compensation. MIB is here to help with these claims.

What we do
The MIB (Motor Insurers' Bureau) is here to help people involved in road accidents where the normal routes to compensation might not exist or be difficult to trace. We will consider claims for vehicle and property damage as well as injury where compensation cannot be claimed from another source such as an insurance company.

[chrispmartha]

sidicks said:

chrispmartha said:

Where are you getting that description of the MIB from? (Genuine question as I can't see it on there website)

Can an uninsured driver claim from an insured driver in an accident?

From the MIB website:
If you are involved in an accident with a driver who is not insured, or who leaves the scene you may still be able to claim compensation. MIB is here to help with these claims.

[u]What we do[/u]
The MIB (Motor Insurers' Bureau) is here to help people involved in road accidents where the normal routes to compensation might not exist or be difficult to trace. We will consider claims for vehicle and property damage as well as injury where compensation cannot be claimed from another source such as an insurance company.

So not at all the same as your description then.

[SKP555]

sidicks said:

Is home insurance a legal requirement?

It isn't the point.

Should you not be entitled to claim against someone else's insurance for an accident that is entirely their fault if you have expired tax? Bald tyre? Forgot to pay the Dart Charge?

[sidicks]

chrispmartha said:

So not at all the same as your description then.

eh?

A reminder from the MIB website:

Paul Ryman-Tubb, Chief Technical Officer at MIB said: “Whilst we will deal with these claims in a professional manner, the principle of using honest premium paying motorists money to pay for the damage to an uninsured driver’s car seems crazy.”

This has come about through changesto the Uninsured Drivers Agreement and Untraced Drivers Agreement between MIB and the Government which are being introduced this week.

MIB has exercised its views with government advisors and debated this for many months. We understand that the government felt its hands were tied and they must comply with the Directive; so both of the Agreements have to change.

So why do you think that, as currently structures, the MIB is intended to support uninsured drivers?

[sidicks]

SKP555 said:

It isn't the point.

Should you not be entitled to claim against someone else's insurance for an accident that is entirely their fault if you have expired tax? Bald tyre? Forgot to pay the Dart Charge?

If you have paid for insurance then you have contributed to the MIB.

[chrispmartha]

sidicks said:

chrispmartha said:

So not at all the same as your description then.

eh?

A reminder from the MIB website:

Paul Ryman-Tubb, Chief Technical Officer at MIB said: “Whilst we will deal with these claims in a professional manner, the principle of using honest premium paying motorists money to pay for the damage to an uninsured driver’s car seems crazy.”

This has come about through changesto the Uninsured Drivers Agreement and Untraced Drivers Agreement between MIB and the Government which are being introduced this week.

MIB has exercised its views with government advisors and debated this for many months. We understand that the government felt its hands were tied and they must comply with the Directive; so both of the Agreements have to change.

So why do you think that, as currently structures, the MIB is intended to support uninsured drivers?

Why the eh? The text you provided from the MIB website was not the same description you posted, it didn't mention anything about only being for insured drivers.

[sidicks]

chrispmartha said:

Why the eh? The text you provided from the MIB website was not the same description you posted, it didn't mention anything about only being for insured drivers.

Yet the evidence available confirms that is the intention, and always has been.

Reading the underlying documents (2015 uninsured driver's agreement):

Vehicle damage
7. (1)
MIB is not liable for any claim, or any part of a claim, in respect of damage to a motor vehicle, or losses arising therefrom, where at the me when the damage to it was sustained-
(a) there was no contract of insurance in force in rela on to that use of the vehicle; and
(b) the claimant either knew or had reason to believe that that was the case.

Edited by sidicks on Saturday 14th January 20:39

[SKP555]

Hang on, I've got the wrong end of the stick here

So their insurance can still be liable but the MIB fund is not liable for damage to an uninsured car?

[Murph7355]

///ajd said:

Hey its not all bad news.

But I still fear the risks of an awkward and damaging divorce.

I'm sure everyone does tbh. Governments are pretty good at buggering things up.

We just need to keep the debate sensible though and focused on the real issues (e.g. driving license recognition. Really?). Preferably without name calling (take heed MrrT...you're slipping and it doesn't help with the acceptance of your stance).

There is a long, long way to go yet.

[anonymous-user]

chrispmartha said:

A person forgets to renue insurance for one day, gets totalled by a car thief and is severely injured, man has paid into the pot for as long has its been going - tough titty?

Yes tough. What a naive and silly expectation. Insurance is a simple contract between 2 parties with an end date. If you think there should be a grace period after the end of that contract, how long should that be for? A day, a week, a year? Once we're clear that will just be the new end date with the premium recalculated. Ridiculous.