Dangerous driving - LL62 PRZ

[jmyrobinson]

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. :)

[Beulah]

An Audi driver? Who would have thought...

You should report them here:

https://www.met.police.uk/report/report-a-road-traffic-incident/

That could have been you / your child / someone you know

[Beulah]

Oh dear - it would appear that the car is neither taxed nor insured....

[Beulah]

It seems you need to know where they are usually parked to report untaxed vehicles anonymously to the DVLA:

https://www.gov.uk/report-untaxed-vehicle

unless someone knows different?

[Penguin68]

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.

[kford]

It's insured

[rendelharris]

kford Wrote:

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

> It's insured

Not if it hasn't got tax or an MOT it isn't, is it? Insurance is automatically invalid if you don't keep those up to date, surely?

[Tractorlad]

Correct. No MOT invalidates the insurance.

[flocker spotter]

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.

[Louisa]

No MOT doesn?t always invalidate the insurance, but it can do. It depends on the terms of the agreement.

Either way, no MOT is a risk to the driver and other road users.

Louisa.

[flocker spotter]

.

[rendelharris]

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"!

[TheCat]

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.

[flocker spotter]

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.

[Beulah]

You didn't mention "road tax"

[flocker spotter]

there is no such thing as "road tax". It is irrelevant however to the status of a third party claimant.

[Loz]

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?

[flocker spotter]

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

[Robert Poste's Child]

How about sending it to the Met on Twitter? Might actually get a response that way - the last few times I've contacted the police via the online form or non-urgent number there has been no response at all.

[rendelharris]

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.

[robbin]

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.

[rendelharris]

robbin Wrote:

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

> Damn - my first time back for several months and I

> find myself agreeing with Rendel.

Sorry Robbin, sure it won't happen again!

[flocker spotter]

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.

[rendelharris]

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!

[flocker spotter]

I am right on this. I may be considered rude but i have outlined how the industry works & the liabilities of the insurer. This is not contestable. Whether you take that on board is your decision. have a great evening