Help - Uninsured driver

cox377

In your scenario you don't mention whether the murderer has a license. If someone doesn't have a license, to operate something that requires a license, be it anything from a chainsaw to an airplane, and an accident happens, they are not in a position to make a judgement on how to operate correctly. In this instance, Mirror, signal and maneuver.

InsideInsurance

HappyMJ wrote: »

The police have accepted that it isn't 100% your fault and can't prosecute you on that basis.

The police neither look at the civil issue of "fault" in an accident nor are trained to do so even if they wanted to.

The police simply apply criminal law and they will have their own views on the criminal offenses such as Driving Without Due Care and Attention plus the fact that for criminal law you have the hurdle of "beyond reasonable doubt".

Civil law is handled by insurers/ solicitors/ directly between those involved and in court you have the lower hurdle of "on the balance of probabilities" - ie what is most likely.

The fact that the TP has no license and no insurance does not invalidate their claim. Small children who run into roads equally do not have a license or insurance but you cannot run them over without consequences.

That said, the fact the TP has shown themselves not to be of the highest moral standing would be of aid when arguing over which version of events to believe in court.

The case law for someone overtaking at a junction accident is 70:30 against the person overtaking. Given the TP's situation I would probably try my luck first of all with a 50:50 settlement offer.

It will always be considered high risk to create your own lane of traffic and overtake at a junction and so you will always be held partially liable for any accident that occurs.

Quentin

cox377 wrote: »

In your scenario you don't mention whether the murderer has a license. If someone doesn't have a license, to operate something that requires a license, be it anything from a chainsaw to an airplane, and an accident happens, they are not in a position to make a judgement on how to operate correctly. In this instance, Mirror, signal and maneuver.

Your third party did have a licence, according to your OP, this had been "revoked" (ie. the driver had passed her test, obtained the licence, but it subsequently had been revoked).

But get your head around the fact that this is irrelevant! If you want to dispute the liability issue, you need to concentrate on the incident itself!

Unless you get it agreed as 100% the third party's fault then you end up with a fault accident against you, and even you must agree (in the face of your own adviser saying 30/70 to you is the best they could hope for in court) getting 0% liability in your favour is going to be impossible.

No point wasting any more of your time over this (as your insurer has stated it's not worth taking it to court)

scheming_gypsy

cox377 wrote: »

The fact that if you're unlicensed to operate a vehicle, you're not in a position to be operating that vehicle or to be on the road. How can that not add to my favor. The 3rd party at the very least didn't check their mirrors.. that is obvious else she would have seen me. The indicating I'm unable to prove.

I understand that liability is a civil matter. I can't however understand that the above has no bearing on liability.

because it would still have happened if she had a license and insurance.

cox377

Thank you for your response, As much as 50/50 seems like a more fair settlement than 100%, I don't think the example of a child running into the road being the same. For example, if someone who is unlicensed and working on installing a new boiler, doesn't see an obvious fault left by a previous installation. The unlicensed engineer should have seen the obvious fault and checked at the time of installation, if there was then to be a gas explosion, who would be liable? With original installer or the unlicensed cow boy who didn't take standard steps to ensure it was safe before installation?

The TP driver should have made the standard checks before making the maneuver. The fact they were unlicensed means they're not in a position to make those compulsory checks. A license dictates that procedures are adhered to, to prevent accidents.

cox377

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

because it would still have happened if she had a license and insurance.

You can't make that assumption. If the TP had a valid license they may have followed the highway code.

Your third party did have a licence, according to your OP, this had been "revoked" (ie. the driver had passed her test, obtained the licence, but it subsequently had been revoked)..

A revoked license is still an unlicensed driver. If we went back to the gas engineer scenario, if the engineer had their license revoked for malpractice, they still wouldn't be licensed.

Quentin

cox377 wrote: »

The TP driver should have made the standard checks before making the maneuver. The fact they were unlicensed means they're not in a position to make those compulsory checks. A license dictates that procedures are adhered to, to prevent accidents.

You seem in denial about your responsibility here (apart from the constant advice you are getting here, your own claim handler has advised you your own insurer's view!)

As far as the licence implication goes, you seem to be saying the third party you hit is liable as it has turned out they were "unlicensed", because (in your eyes) this means they didn't know how to drive properly.

In fact you earlier told us the TP did have a licence, but had been revoked!

This "defence" is a non starter (had it got any credence, your claim handler would have seized on it!)

cox377

Quentin wrote: »

You seem in denial about your responsibility here (apart from the constant advice you are getting here, your own claim handler has advised you your own insurer's view!)

As far as the licence implication goes, you seem to be saying the third party you hit is liable as it has turned out they were "unlicensed", because (in your eyes) this means they didn't know how to drive properly.

In fact you earlier told us the TP did have a licence, but had been revoked!

This "defence" is a non starter (had it got any credence, your claim handler would have seized on it!)

To be honest, the claims handler didn't even know the driver was unlicensed and uninsured until I told them yesterday.

I am not in denial about my responsibility. I know I made all the necessary checks before making my maneuver. It wasn't a solid white line, I didn't break the speed limit and I had all the relevant paper work for driving. Opposed to a driver who had no license or insurance, didn't indicate and didn't check their mirror.

Now I accept that I was the over taking party and I've got some part to blame, but I do not hold 100% of that blame.

InsideInsurance

You also dont say why it was revoked. It could be for a medical condition which whilst making it not safe for her to drive doesnt actually make her a bad driver which is what you are trying to imply.

HappyMJ

cox377 wrote: »

You can't make that assumption. If the TP had a valid license they may have followed the highway code.

A revoked license is still an unlicensed driver. .

It's actually more likely someone with a revoked license will drive carefully to avoid the attention of the police. Disqualified drivers still are found driving cars and they are only found as they may have been driving in an erratic manner. If they are caught it's going to be a good chance of a prison sentence so they drive extra carefully to avoid being caught and going to prison. Some will just never learn. Many more will drive very carefully and avoid being pulled over for a license check. Most though should be abiding by the courts decision and not drive at all.

Just because someone has been disqualified doesn't mean they don't know how to drive at all. They can get a licence back without having to pass anything. They just need to ask for it back at the end of the disqualification.