Hit by disqualified driver

[saaby93]

matt12023 said:

I hate w*ankers who drive while banned as because i've mentioned before I was nearly killed by one on my motorcycle.

As with you it appears he was banned but had obtained insurance and omitted to tell them. His insurance company have paid out for the bank and made an interim payment though have still not admitted liability 8 months on. I believe my solicitor is preparing to savage them over that soon

I just wish the punishments where a bit better. The moron who hit me will just get a further ban.

Ditto but I'd prefer they were insured if theyre going to drive while banned, assuming the insurance still works

[^Slider^]

10 Pence Short said:

I agree with all of that. Just making a point that if the political will was to do things properly, rather than cheaply, the justice system could operate intact, instead of the toothless add ons we seem to have.

I totally agree, money should not be the deciding factor where policing, justice etc is concerned, same goes for other things such as the NHS.

[herewego]

ZOLLAR said:

herewego said:

^Slider^ said:

ZOLLAR said:

funkyrobot said:

saaby93 said:

herewego said:

Bit strange really. The driver was convicted of not having insurance but in fact there was insurance covering third party claims.

+1

Nothing about this episode has been straightforward!

Perhaps he wasn't "adequately" insured meaning that his insurance company wouldnt have covered him if they knew he was disqualified but he carried on driving knowing there was a strong possibility that his insurer wouldn't payout for a claim (they would have and will due to the RTA ACT) but he probably didnt know that but still continued to drive, he's definately a huge "moral risk".

If hes convicted of Disqual, then they are always convicted of no insurance as the condition is that they hold a current valid D/L.

However he may have had insurance in his name on the car but its invalidated by the disqual. This doesnt negate the insurers requirement to pay out for third party claims.

Thats my understanding.

Your issue seems to be one of liability and not of no insurance.

If the insurance company is required to cover anybody who drives the car then people are being wrongly prosecuted for having no insurance aren't they?

Insurer's have a legal responsibility to cover third parties, but if your not named on the insurance or are covered under some sort of policy there is no "legal" contract of insurance so your driving uninsured.

Yes I know but it doesn't seem right to me that he should be prosecuted for not having something that he actually had.

[saaby93]

funkyrobot said:

I'm finding it a struggle to understand why someone who has no insurance is fined £50.00. But for me to insure my vehicle after this mess will result in me paying around £400.00 (i think)!
..........
Does make me wonder why I should bother renewing my insurance later in the year though .

It does doesnt it
Shouldnt the fine be more than the cost he would have paid for insurance?
Otherwise there's no incentive

[herewego]

saaby93 said:

funkyrobot said:

I'm finding it a struggle to understand why someone who has no insurance is fined £50.00. But for me to insure my vehicle after this mess will result in me paying around £400.00 (i think)!
..........
Does make me wonder why I should bother renewing my insurance later in the year though .

It does doesnt it
Shouldnt the fine be more than the cost he would have paid for insurance?
Otherwise there's no incentive

What about the community service?

[ZOLLAR]

herewego said:

ZOLLAR said:

herewego said:

^Slider^ said:

ZOLLAR said:

funkyrobot said:

saaby93 said:

herewego said:

Bit strange really. The driver was convicted of not having insurance but in fact there was insurance covering third party claims.

+1

Nothing about this episode has been straightforward!

Perhaps he wasn't "adequately" insured meaning that his insurance company wouldnt have covered him if they knew he was disqualified but he carried on driving knowing there was a strong possibility that his insurer wouldn't payout for a claim (they would have and will due to the RTA ACT) but he probably didnt know that but still continued to drive, he's definately a huge "moral risk".

If hes convicted of Disqual, then they are always convicted of no insurance as the condition is that they hold a current valid D/L.

However he may have had insurance in his name on the car but its invalidated by the disqual. This doesnt negate the insurers requirement to pay out for third party claims.

Thats my understanding.

Your issue seems to be one of liability and not of no insurance.

If the insurance company is required to cover anybody who drives the car then people are being wrongly prosecuted for having no insurance aren't they?

Insurer's have a legal responsibility to cover third parties, but if your not named on the insurance or are covered under some sort of policy there is no "legal" contract of insurance so your driving uninsured.

Yes I know but it doesn't seem right to me that he should be prosecuted for not having something that he actually had.

He didnt technically have insurance as his insurer weren't aware he was disqualified so its a voided policy he was driving without valid insurance RTA simpy states that the insurer though has to cover third party losses just because they do that dosnt mean he's insured.

Edited by ZOLLAR on Thursday 28th January 17:44 due to my spelling ability's being useless today!

Edited by ZOLLAR on Thursday 28th January 17:49

[Noger]

It is worth clarifying the statutory requirements in s151.

Whilst this does make an insurer liable, it only refers to unsatisfied judgement.

I.e the insurer only becomes liable when the TP has obtained an unsatisfied judgement against their insured.

That us not to say that the insurer will always wait for the judgement (particularly
in injury cases) but there are times when they will deny liability until such time as they are forced to accept it.

Worth bearing in mind for the the situations where it seems like the insurer is being bloody minded. Firstly, their insured
gets a ccj against them. Secondly, they have the right to recovery (which is still possible without the judgement but requires the agreement of either the driver or the TP insurer).

Also, in this case. The insurer can duck the RTA because, unlike condition of vehicle, lack of licence is not something that is immaterial for for section 148(2) to apply. They will be Article 75 insurers.

[DavidHM]

All of the above is true, of course... but except in the case of small claims, where a claimant (or his insurer) may give up and go away, there's not much incentive on the insurer to defend a claim to the hilt and be faced with post-issue and/or indemnity costs, when the matter can be dealt with predictively instead.

[Noger]

Yes, to drop to Article 75 needs work as well, so you may as well stick at RTA insurer and manage the costs.

There are various Market agreements to consider too (although these are under review).

Certainly "we" would normally deal as RTA, except for things like hirecar with unknown driver, the "consent and indemnity" scenarios do crop up.

All depends. Was just pointing out that whilst "cock up" may well be the answer, "conspiracy" is a possibilty

[herewego]

Noger said:

It is worth clarifying the statutory requirements in s151.

Whilst this does make an insurer liable, it only refers to unsatisfied judgement.

I.e the insurer only becomes liable when the TP has obtained an unsatisfied judgement against their insured.

That us not to say that the insurer will always wait for the judgement (particularly
in injury cases) but there are times when they will deny liability until such time as they are forced to accept it.

Worth bearing in mind for the the situations where it seems like the insurer is being bloody minded. Firstly, their insured
gets a ccj against them. Secondly, they have the right to recovery (which is still possible without the judgement but requires the agreement of either the driver or the TP insurer).

Also, in this case. The insurer can duck the RTA because, unlike condition of vehicle, lack of licence is not something that is immaterial for for section 148(2) to apply. They will be Article 75 insurers.

Are you saying that not having a licence allows the insurance to avoid paying third party costs? So in this case the insurer of the unlicenced guy has agreed to pay voluntarily?

[Noger]

herewego said:

Noger said:

It is worth clarifying the statutory requirements in s151.

Whilst this does make an insurer liable, it only refers to unsatisfied judgement.

I.e the insurer only becomes liable when the TP has obtained an unsatisfied judgement against their insured.

That us not to say that the insurer will always wait for the judgement (particularly
in injury cases) but there are times when they will deny liability until such time as they are forced to accept it.

Worth bearing in mind for the the situations where it seems like the insurer is being bloody minded. Firstly, their insured
gets a ccj against them. Secondly, they have the right to recovery (which is still possible without the judgement but requires the agreement of either the driver or the TP insurer).

Also, in this case. The insurer can duck the RTA because, unlike condition of vehicle, lack of licence is not something that is immaterial for for section 148(2) to apply. They will be Article 75 insurers.

Are you saying that not having a licence allows the insurance to avoid paying third party costs? So in this case the insurer of the unlicenced guy has agreed to pay voluntarily?

Yes, the RTA allows the Insurer to avoid paying in the instance of misrepresentation. Takes a bit of work, mind.

Having avoided the RTA, they then fall into Article 75 (mostly) insurer. So you would probably pay anyway.

So as David says, you may choose to just pay the thing and manage costs. But not always.

Like paying a NIP fine for speeding vs going to court and arguing.

[voyds9]

funkyrobot said:

I'm also finding it hard to understand why he hasn't had to give me any compensation for this.

Have you taken him to court for some. Now he has been convicted of driving whilst disqualified it should be a relatively simple process.

[funkyrobot]

voyds9 said:

funkyrobot said:

I'm also finding it hard to understand why he hasn't had to give me any compensation for this.

Have you taken him to court for some. Now he has been convicted of driving whilst disqualified it should be a relatively simple process.

I am thinking of doing this now. Just need to get some time together to get some advice and see where I can take this. I don't like the idea of having to wait for months and months for the insurance companies to fight it out.

[sjn2004]

Hows he getting to work these days? Is he driving illegally again or getting the bus?

[funkyrobot]

sjn2004 said:

Hows he getting to work these days? Is he driving illegally again or getting the bus?

There is no bus to our work place, so I'm guessing that he is still driving illegally. Why not though eh? It's not like there is an incentive to drive legally is there!

[ZOLLAR]

funkyrobot said:

sjn2004 said:

Hows he getting to work these days? Is he driving illegally again or getting the bus?

There is no bus to our work place, so I'm guessing that he is still driving illegally. Why not though eh? It's not like there is an incentive to drive legally is there!

If he is ring the police and keep getting him done for driving without licence and insurance its the least you can do for him!
Anymore news on if you can use the legal cover to take civil action op??

[ZOLLAR]

If your reading Op, any more updates? everything sorted now?.

[funkyrobot]

ZOLLAR said:

If your reading Op, any more updates? everything sorted now?.

Blimey, has it already been so long since my last reply?

Things have moved on. I eventually got the payout I wanted for my car but the legal side of things (and proving liability etc) rolls on. I had a letter last week about my complaint from the insurer's legal company. Basically what they have said is rubbish and i'm not too happy about their excuses, but i'll address that in a nice letter back when I get some time this week.

I'm thinking of asking the legal company about how they will pursue uninsured losses etc so that will go in the letter to (as I'm not too confident in the way they work).

Oh yes, one thing that does spring to mind though is the attitude of the legal company when I have spoken to them in the past. One woman who called me said that they couldn't help me whatsoever and I was on my own. Apparently this was very, very naughty and is seriously frowned upon. But, rather un-surprisingly, the legal company have told me that they have no record of that call being made etc. So nothing can be done.

Funny that, they record everything, but this seems to have gone amiss? Oh well. I'll get my follow-up letter drafted and we'll take it from there!

Thanks for asking Zollar

[funkyrobot]

ZOLLAR said:

funkyrobot said:

sjn2004 said:

Hows he getting to work these days? Is he driving illegally again or getting the bus?

There is no bus to our work place, so I'm guessing that he is still driving illegally. Why not though eh? It's not like there is an incentive to drive legally is there!

If he is ring the police and keep getting him done for driving without licence and insurance its the least you can do for him!
Anymore news on if you can use the legal cover to take civil action op??

Still a bit hazy about the legal cover and civil action, at least until the insurer's legal company have done their bit for now. I went to see a solicitor but they informed me that they cannot do anything for now as it's all tied up with the insurer's company.

I'll ask more specific questions of them though in my reply.

Thanks.

[saaby93]

Which insurance paid out in the end?
Was the legal company the one provided by your insurance?
Ta