Jump to content

Dangerous driving - LL62 PRZ


jmyrobinson

Recommended Posts

On the way into Peckham (near Lidl), the driver of this car deliberately drove into the rear wheel & pannier of a cyclist.


I don't know what the back story was (there was lots of beeping and shouting previously), but deliberately causing a collision is never cool.


If anyone knows the driver, please ask her to consider others on the roads, and we'll keep Southwark safe for cyclists. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, as the car was observed to be driving dangerously, recklessly or in a threatening manner that can be immediately reported to the police; the tax, MOT and Insurance issues are secondary - icing on the cake when and if a case comes to court.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

flocker spotter Wrote:

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

> No it doesn't, Insurance is still valid

> irrespective of the condition etc of the car but

> as you have broken the terms of the agreement

> between you and the insurer, then they will take

> you to task for their losses. this is basic stuff.


So in other words, yes your insurance is effectively invalid as if the insurer has to pay out to a 3rd party they will then recover that payment from you, and they won't pay out on any claim of your own?


Just checked the website of Mrs.H's insurers, Liverpool Victoria, which says:


Why do I need an MOT?


Your insurance is invalid without one. If you don't have an MOT then your car insurance won't cover you in an accident.


This means you'll need to pay for any repairs to your car yourself and cover the costs of any other drivers involved if you are at fault. And, if your insurance is invalid, you could also receive a fine and points on your licence.


So at least for that company it's not "basic stuff"!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beulah Wrote:

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

> An Audi driver? Who would have thought...

> You should report them here:

>

> https://www.met.police.uk/report/report-a-road-tra

> ffic-incident/

>

> That could have been you / your child / someone

> you know



Yes, as a family we own TWO Audi's...which makes it doubly enjoyable when ramming cyclists off the road.


What a stupid statement in the context of a serious issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes it is, think about it and the relationship of the indemnity cover provided. A third party cannot be penalised because you have failed to meet your side of the contract and the contract is still extant between the first 2 parties - this is basic insurance practice. Otherwise every TP claim would be rejected where a car was deemed unroadworthy after an accident .walk away from google and have a think.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

flocker spotter Wrote:

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

> yes it is, think about it and the relationship of the indemnity cover provided. A third party cannot

> be penalised because you have failed to meet your side of the contract and the contract is still

> extant between the first 2 parties - this is basic insurance practice. Otherwise every TP claim would

> be rejected where a car was deemed unroadworthy after an accident .walk away from google and have

> a think.


I understand your logic, but surely there is no contract between the insurance company and the third party? The insurance company is just covering the insured's losses - should that contract fail then the insured person is merely liable for the losses him/herself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. It cannot be any other way or the whole industry would collapse. The important distinction is the indemnification of the 3P here- this is the minimum requirement under the RTA.


obviously if you have a wretched car with slicks and broken suspension, then you will likely be penalised if you claim for your own damage, this it cannot affect the cover that the 3P is guaranteed, whatever the insure may say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

flocker spotter Wrote:

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

> yes it is, think about it and the relationship of

> the indemnity cover provided. A third party cannot

> be penalised because you have failed to meet your

> side of the contract and the contract is still

> extant between the first 2 parties - this is basic

> insurance practice. Otherwise every TP claim would

> be rejected where a car was deemed unroadworthy

> after an accident .walk away from google and have

> a think.


No need for the rudeness. Yes, the insurer will still pay out to a third party, but if you don't have an MOT the insurer will then claim those costs back from you, therefore your insurance is, de facto, invalid - ultimately you will pay, not the insurer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn - my first time back for several months and I find myself agreeing with Rendel.


My understanding is that 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> flocker spotter Wrote:

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

> -----

> > yes it is, think about it and the relationship

> of

> > the indemnity cover provided. A third party

> cannot

> > be penalised because you have failed to meet

> your

> > side of the contract and the contract is still

> > extant between the first 2 parties - this is

> basic

> > insurance practice. Otherwise every TP claim

> would

> > be rejected where a car was deemed unroadworthy

> > after an accident .walk away from google and

> have

> > a think.

>

> No need for the rudeness. Yes, the insurer will

> still pay out to a third party, but if you don't

> have an MOT the insurer will then claim those

> costs back from you, therefore your insurance is,

> de facto, invalid - ultimately you will pay, not

> the insurer.



No,, no de facto required, you are insured unless the insurance has been expressly revoked. This is not a grey area. This is enshrined in the basics of the RTA with regard to the insurers minimum responsibilities. Whatever happens outside that requirement wrt to non adherence to the T&C is between P1 and P2 and is a civil matter.


Now no more man in pub guff. No need for any thanks, I am more than happy to assist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being rude is such a much better substitute for the facts, isn't it? 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. But of course you know better, because you've posted a snotty comment! Ain't t'internet wonderful!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Plenty for sale online from various ticket vendors but you'll need to part with £250 and upwards by the looks of it. Out of interest i kept an eye on the prices for the England and Italy Euro final. At one point they were on offer for a couple of grand each. On the day sellers were obviously getting itchy feet and prices dropped somewhat but never went any lower than £400. That was a few hours before kick off. There was plenty still available half an hour before kick off.   Having been to Wembley a couple of times for play off finals i found it to be not a great place to watch football. Sat three rows back from the pitch side advertising hoardings for one game and way way up in the gods for the other. We felt to far away from the pitch on both occasions. Up in the goods was just stupid because we felt cut off as well.  I don't think it was rebuilt with acoustics in mind either. Even with most of our 25k fans singing it never sounded loud because it's pretty much uncovered and too open.   Happy hunting!
    • It doesn't work as a commercial venture.  Bit churlish to say I told you so.  I told you so.  I'll send less greetings cards.  What pees me off is international postage where you can no longer send light letters at 10 grammes, normal ones up to 20g, now all at the much more expensive 100 g  Didn't we vote to take back control and price everything according to irrational units like ounces? That's some obscure humour btw   
    • Available from Monday April 8th 2024, 2on2Walkies take pride in doggie care and only walk 2 furry friends at a time. I make sure that they get plenty of doggie interaction and socialisation in the park as well as making friends. Back home happy and tired I always check that the water bowl has fresh water and always make sure the doggie is left comfortable before I leave. I'm fully insured and have a couple of slots available for local walks to either Peckham Rye Park or Dulwich Park.  Thank you!  
    • Why would they only send them recorded delivery? I used the signed for option yesterday.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...