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

    • you know when you take your pro-cash stance too far? yeah....
    • Easter Bunny Bonus Week 29 fixtures...   Saturday 30th March Newcastle United v West Ham United AFC Bournemouth v Everton Chelsea v Burnley Nottingham Forest v Crystal Palace Sheffield United v Fulham Tottenham Hotspur v Luton Town Aston Villa v Wolverhampton Wanderers Brentford v Manchester United   Sunday 31st March Liverpool v Brighton & Hove Albion Manchester City v Arsenal   Tuesday 2nd April Newcastle United v Everton Nottingham Forest v Fulham AFC Bournemouth v Crystal Palace Burnley v Wolverhampton Wanderers West Ham United v Tottenham Hotspur   Wednesday 3rd April Arsenal v Luton Town Brentford v Brighton & Hove Albion Manchester City v Aston Villa   Thursday 4th April Liverpool v Sheffield United Chelsea v Manchester United
    • A repetitive tried and tested cycle that seems to be slowing down in London thankfully. Brixton was the start. Councils consciously and purposely let an area decline until that area is next on the list for social and ethnic cleansing and ultimately gentrification. In come the first wave of arty/ creatives to squat and house share. A few coffee shops and cool but inexpensive cafe/ bars and art spaces open up. The crackheads, dealers and other assorted criminals who were once left to operate openly and brazenly to sell, shop lift, mug, beg, purchase,  publicly consume on decent folks doorsteps, stairwells,in bin sheds and without fear of the law begin to be targeted, rounded up and moved on. A few more jaunty and sustainable coffee shops/ bars appear . The Guardian and other facilitators in the media jump on the bandwagon, first claims of vibrancy are rolled out. Next step a few cool retro clothing shops pop up selling ' reclaimed Levi's for more than they originally cost and ten times the price of what the recently departed charity shop charged. Foxtons open a branch and the arty types and first wavers/ drivers have there first moan about there initially paltry rents going up. The guardian do a generic lets move to Brixton, Dalston, Hackney, Deptford, Walthamstow type double pager. Interview a graphic designer or two who have just bought a former crack den on the manor for next to peanuts. They will later bemoan the next wave who have more money than them. Cool, edgy and vibrant are now the buzzword bingo must use lingo. Few more coffee shops ( how original ) Pop up everything,. Organic and sour dough move in. The night time economy starts to thrive, more cool bars and eateries open. More squats and the last crack house that was once one of many are cleared out. Second wave is around the corner.   All of a sudden there's a visible police presence again and the streets are safe for fun seekers with plenty of disposable cash to chuck about on a dose of vibrancy with added coolness. By this stage even the locally brewed beer is organic. There's queues outside the newly arrived organic, sourdough, artisan and sustainable bakers. Instagram has Brixton trending. The greasy spoon of thirty year has gone cause the lease is up and the landlord has hiked the rents up by 60/70%. Followed by small family run independents that served the community  for decades and more.  The local characters, activists, eccentrics are getting less and less. There's a new show in town for a week or two and until the next brand arrives. Brewdog move in. Former job centres are converted into bars but peak edginess means it's still called the job centre. Followed by a couple more chain eateries. The resident DJ'S and music venues are replaced by another generic brand boasting guest chefs. The Guardian lifestyle section is now on it's fifth or sixth orgasm. Turn a few pages and hypocrisy is rampant with articles on the evils of gentrification, foxtons, capitalism, social cleansing and unaffordable housing. The middle classes continue to arrive in there droves to buy into the vibrancy and multiculturalism supposedly on offer. There isn't much multiculturalism going on at the packed latest place to eat, drink and fart. The multiculturalism on show comes in the form of bar staff, doorman and cheap as chips uber drivers and delivery workers. Rice and peas, jerk everything, red stripe at six quid a can from some hipster haunt that is currently flavour of the month and the place to be seen. The first wavers are now blaming the latest hedge funded brand that's pulled into town for driving gentrification and there soon to be hastened departure to be first wavers again somewhere else. Less cool but up and coming here we come. Covid has certainly helped/ been a factor in slowing down the process of gentrification. I also think it may be the driver for almost putting a stop to it. Remote working, less need to move to London to be near an office, less disposable cash, sky high rents, worthless degrees that relied on that disposable cash , different priorities, knife and gang crime and a large dose of much needed realism has put a huge spanner in the works for the shitty process and cycle that is/ was the gentrification and social cleansing of working class London. Manchester and Liverpool is next on the list for the planners. Thankfully.
    • Can you just queue up to withdraw cash or are other transactions like stamp purchasing required?  Do M&S do cash back?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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