Drove without insurance

wonn

Strictly speaking it wasn't a specific question I got wrong, in as far as I agreed to about 50 statements with one tick, but I see what you mean.

Agreed about why should the garage be at a loss. I was trying to be amicable with them throughout. The trouble is they already have £1000 of my money, and even after I left that night I got texts threatening me with legal action for about 2/3rds of the vehicle's supposed value if I didn't just buy it outright. And since then they've refused to respond to contact from me, so I couldn't arrange to have the vehicle inspected. (by the way, it requires servicing already, and an MOT in January, having not been driven for 18 months I've since discovered)

As I was saying, they were doing all sorts at the actual time, so basically I've got not faith in them. As such, if we assume the damage will cost less than £1000 to rectify, they owe me money. I was handling that, but then suddenly with the insurance thing hanging over me (and they know about it), suddenly things look/ed a lot more grim. I already know they'd threaten to report me, and at the moment firmly believe it's me out of pocket, not them, so them grumbling is them being malicious.

Like I say, I don't and never have objected to doing whatever legitimately needs doing. If it really was the case that the damage cost £1250 to fix, I'd pay the extra £250 to top it up. Horrible but I'd pay it. But at the moment I think they might actually owe me £600 and yet are still are demanding thousands more plus (I fear/ed) able to report me to the police.

But again, thank you for your time and effort in reading this.

epninety

Not quite the same situation, but the OP might like to read this?

dacouch

Note the selling garage are not a third party when it comes to insurance

vax2002

They are several layers to most insurance:
Extras, such as damage, fire loss, comprehensive those are contractual extras
Then there is this :
Road traffic act;
Under section 143(1)(a) RTA 1988 'a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road or other public place unless there is in force in relation to the use of that vehicle by that persona policy of insurance '. Under section 145 the policy must be issued by an authorised insurer and must insure for death or bodily injury to any person, or damage to property, caused by, or arising out of, the use of a vehicle on a road in Great Britain, i.e. third party insurance.
A statutory defence is provided by section 143(3) RTA in relation to a driver who unwittingly drives his employer's uninsured vehicle.
Offences of causing or permitting the uninsured use of a vehicle should be regarded as being as serious as using a motor vehicle without insurance.
It can often be vital to correctly choose between using, causing or permitting. For the definition of using, causing or permitting, (see Wilkinson's 1.159 - 1.192).
Where a driver has obtained a policy of insurance by deception, the policy will be valid so far as liability under section 143 is concerned until the insurers have taken steps to 'avoid' it.


So in short : Will they pay for the damage, probably not as this is contractual :
were you insured as far as the police will be concerned : Yes if you HOLD the bond (certificate") and they have not served notice to cancel it, it can not be retrospectively cancelled.
If you do have the certificate, they will send all sorts of threatening letters to get hold of it and destroy it .

wonn

vax2002 wrote: »

They are several layers to most insurance:
Extras, such as damage, fire loss, comprehensive those are contractual extras
Then there is this :
Road traffic act;
Under section 143(1)(a) RTA 1988 'a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road or other public place unless there is in force in relation to the use of that vehicle by that persona policy of insurance '. Under section 145 the policy must be issued by an authorised insurer and must insure for death or bodily injury to any person, or damage to property, caused by, or arising out of, the use of a vehicle on a road in Great Britain, i.e. third party insurance.
A statutory defence is provided by section 143(3) RTA in relation to a driver who unwittingly drives his employer's uninsured vehicle.
Offences of causing or permitting the uninsured use of a vehicle should be regarded as being as serious as using a motor vehicle without insurance.
It can often be vital to correctly choose between using, causing or permitting. For the definition of using, causing or permitting, (see Wilkinson's 1.159 - 1.192).
Where a driver has obtained a policy of insurance by deception, the policy will be valid so far as liability under section 143 is concerned until the insurers have taken steps to 'avoid' it.


So in short : Will they pay for the damage, probably not as this is contractual :
were you insured as far as the police will be concerned : Yes if you HOLD the bond (certificate") and they have not served notice to cancel it, it can not be retrospectively cancelled.
If you do have the certificate, they will send all sorts of threatening letters to get hold of it and destroy it .

That's pretty brilliant, thanks. Well, they sent me a letter saying they wouldn't cover the claim and refunding me the cost of my policy, but it happened well after the incident, and being told of the claim of course, as well as the expiration of the actual 24 hours-long policy of course, so I suppose that's about as retrospective as it gets.

They haven't ever asked for the certificate (they couldn't really - it only was offered as an email attachment which I have saved on my computer/can repeatedly print).

Notmyrealname

wonn wrote: »

There's no compensable injury to man or goods beyond the vehicle I was driving, which was owned by the garage. So no concerns on that kind of score.

Unless you had an accident where you hit something you own or fresh air then yes there is compensable injury to man, goods or property. If you went off the road and into a field, the Highways Agency can claim for damage to the verge and the farmer for damage to the field and any fence or hedge you went through. I once had some timber fall off a lorry. It didn't hit anything. However it did remove a couple of cats eyes and the council claimed for the cost of replacing them and repainting the central white lines.

As it happens, the cost of repairing the damage to the vehicle ought to be 'relatively' low, the only concerns are over the garage manipulating any assessment. As I say, they were threatening to carry out unnecessary repairs, whacking on star-spangled thingamybobs and sticking it all on the bill. I also suspect they worsened the damage for good measure (at least I have video evidence of how it was when I last saw it). In terms of genuine costs, we could be talking as little as £250 here, but they're trying to suggest 10 times that figure, plus fantasy 'damage to the intrinsic value of the vehicle'.

Considering you're uninsured that is a bitter pill you may have to be prepared to swallow.

Thinking about it, tentatively I'm prepared to say I don't mind if the insurer's would want to sue me for anything they did have to pay, so long as within the road traffic act I was actually an insured driver.

Doesn't work like that.

Beyond this, it's occurred to me, I suppose the vehicle, being owned by the garage, is actually a third party's concern? And therefore covered by the insurance after all? As I say, purely hypothetically, and if NMRM is right then I may not want them to have to cover it, of course.

Assuming it is, you will be sued by the insurance company for the payout.

In regards to an insurance claim or civil claim by the garage for damage to the vehicle there is one real easy way out of this. You claim the value of the damage to the vehicle is £250. So buy the vehicle at the price it was being sold at and get the damage repaired. Garage won't pursue you and you may even be able to barter over the cost of the repair. Then that way the only thing you need to then worry about is whether or not the Police pick up on the fact the policy was retrospectively cancelled.

ruggedtoast

Aside from all this I think you need to check if you have been recorded now as having been refused insurance. If you have that will have to be disclosed whenever you take out a new policy, if you don't, you have, and they check in the event you do claim; you'll be refused cover all over again.

missile

wonn wrote: »

The garage. I entered my pin number with a debit card. Wish I had a credit card. But I was told they couldn't let me leave until I did, that they knew where I and my family lived, was surrounded by three men, and tried to put it on record with the insurers' out of hours service that weird stuff was happening and this money was not a compensation payment or anything, just a deposit against whatever happened afterwards. Their story changed several times, they were trying to make me buy the bike right there and then, telling me it the repairs would be made sure to cost a lot more if I didn't buy it myself. The whole thing seemed well rehearsed, talking about how you pay excesses directly, and that the insurance wouldn't cover damage to the vehicle's value beyond the physical (which I realise now is nonsense). They pretty much used the 2008 protection against unfair trading regulations for toilet paper.

As I say, it was stupid, but I was in a bad way (I did suffer minor injuries myself, but also realised (some of) the ramifications of this incident... just needed to warm up and get some food and sleep into me so I could think straight, was too busy gearing up for them tooling up in the mean time, in all seriousness. I was a long way from home, by the way). Trading standards have pretty much told me to go away though, don't want to know, 'one word against three'. I know all this was being filmed by the garage - if that could be got hold of it would support my case.

Was this 24 hour cover comprehensive or third party? What did you sign at the garage before you took the bike? I.e. are you liable for the damage to the bike?

It seems you feel you were intimidated by the garage into authorising payment from your debit card. I would report it to the police, but I doubt they will be interested.

Next time you take a bike for a test ride, use reputable dealer who will provide insurance - usually free of charge. I would never deal with a back street garage:eek:

From what you have written here it doesn't seem you have much of a case, but if you think you do, see a solicitor asap. Most offer a free initial consultation.

Bad time of year to be test riding a motor cycle, particularly for an inexperienced(?) rider.

missile

wonn wrote: »

....
As it happens, the cost of repairing the damage to the vehicle ought to be 'relatively' low, the only concerns are over the garage manipulating any assessment. As I say, they were threatening to carry out unnecessary repairs, ..... In terms of genuine costs, we could be talking as little as £250 here, .....

What was the bike and what was damaged? I would guess your £250, might cover ...... replacing a broken wing mirror

thenudeone

HappyMJ wrote: »

You can of course be done for obtaining a financial advantage by deception

Much more likely to be "making a false statement to obtain an insurance certificate" http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/174
but unlikely since it was inadvertent rather than knowingly.