Jump to content

Dangerous driving - LL62 PRZ

jmyrobinson

By jmyrobinson
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

jmyrobinson

jmyrobinson

Posted
Posted

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
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/186262-dangerous-driving-ll62-prz/
Share on other sites
rendelharris

rendelharris

Posted
Posted

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

TheCat

Posted
Posted

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

flocker spotter

Posted
Posted
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.
Loz

Loz

Posted
Posted

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

flocker spotter

Posted
Posted

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

rendelharris

rendelharris

Posted
Posted

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

robbin

Posted
Posted

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.

flocker spotter

flocker spotter

Posted
Posted

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

rendelharris

Posted
Posted
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!

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
 Share
Go to topic listing
  • Advertise Here

  • Latest Discussions

    • malumbu
      Oh David / Is David Lammy Toast?

      By malumbu · Posted

      The current wave of xenophobia is due to powerful/influential people stirring up hatred.  It;'s what happened in the past, think 1930s Germany.  It seems to be even easier now as so many get their information from social media, whether it is right or wrong.  The media seeking so called balance will bring some nutter on, they don't then bring a nutter on to counteract that. They now seem to turn to Reform at the first opportunity. So your life is 'shite', let;s blame someone else.  Whilst sounding a bit like a Tory, taking some ownership/personal responsibility would be a start.  There are some situations where that may be more challenging, in deindustrialised 'left behind' wasteland we can't all get on our bikes and find work.  But I loathe how it is now popular to blame those of us from relatively modest backgrounds, like me, who did see education and knowledge as a way to self improve. Now we are seen by some as smug liberals......  
    • Dogkennelhillbilly
      Dell Autos is closing tomorrow

      By Dogkennelhillbilly · Posted

      Kwik Fit buggered up an A/C leak diagnosis for me (saying there wasn't one, when there was) and sold a regas. The vehicle had to be taken to an A/C specialist for condensor replacement and a further regas. Not impressed.
    • HeadNun
      Oh David / Is David Lammy Toast?

      By HeadNun · Posted

      Yes, these are all good points. I agree with you, that division has led us down dangerous paths in the past. And I deplore any kind of racism (as I think you probably know).  But I feel that a lot of the current wave of xenophobia we're witnessing is actually more about a general malaise and discontent. I know non-white people around here who are surprisingly vocal about immigrants - legal or otherwise. I think this feeling transcends skin colour for a lot of people and isn't as simple as, say, the Jew hatred of the 1930s or the Irish and Black racism that we saw laterally. I think people feel ignored and looked down upon.  What you don't realise, Sephiroth, is that I actually agree with a lot of what you're saying. I just think that looking down on people because of their voting history and opinions is self-defeating. And that's where Labour's getting it wrong and Reform is reaping the rewards.   
    • malumbu
      The economy, a sensible debate in advance of the budget

      By malumbu · Posted

      @Sephiroth you made some interesting points on the economy, on the Lammy thread. Thought it worth broadening the discussion. Reeves (irrespective of her financial competence) clearly was too downbeat on things when Labour came into power. But could there have been more honesty on the liklihood of taxes going up (which they have done, and will do in any case due to the freezing of personal allowances).  It may have been a silly commitment not to do this, but were you damned if you do and damned if you don't?

East Dulwich Forum

Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.

Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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