Simply can not afford to pay speeding fine?

Head_The_Ball

Head_The_Ball wrote: »

I like to give people the benefit of the doubt but this forum is plagued by newly registered users posting controversial stories that invariably end up in the regulars arguing amongst themselves.

I therefore reserve judgement on the veracity of this tale.

It may be true in which case I offer my sympathy to Jennifer and hope she finds a way out of her predicament.

gilbert_and_sullivan wrote: »

Troll.
Nil points awarded due to shabby effort, if this had been a homework exercise, writ at the bottom in red pen would have been the ominous words...''see me''

Troll? I'm inclined to agree.

Jennifer hasn't been back but has certainly achieved the objective of getting the regulars arguing amongst themselves.

facade

Head_The_Ball wrote: »

Troll? I'm inclined to agree.

Jennifer hasn't been back but has certainly achieved the objective of getting the regulars arguing amongst themselves.

However, as most of us (myself included at times ) seem to enjoy pedantry, small mindedness, point scoring, baseless statement making, and pointless arguing, I'd say she has done us a great service if that is the case :beer:

Cheaper than going down the Pub to do it too.:D

shaun_from_Africa

facade wrote: »

However, as most of us (myself included at times ) seem to enjoy pedantry, small mindedness, point scoring, baseless statement making, and pointless arguing, I'd say she has done us a great service if that is the case

But surely if it's something that you enjoy, the arguments can't be pointless as the whole point in arguing is to get enjoyment.
(And yes, that's just me being pedantic!)

Head_The_Ball

Do you want to have the full argument, or were you thinking of taking a course?

iammumtoone

Marktheshark wrote: »

As to a car does not have insurance, yes it does.
Insurance is two components, personal and Road traffic act.
If a policy is held upon the car, it is covered for any driver for purposes of the road traffic act for third party liability only even if stolen.

This happen to me, my car was stolen (I had stupidly left the keys in the car :eek:).

The thief could not drive they cashed into two other cars down my street writing off 3 cars in total!

My car was insured fully comprehensibly. The insurance company would not pay out for the other cars as they stated I was not driving the car at the time. My neighbours all had to claim against their own policies.

facade

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

But surely if it's something that you enjoy, the arguments can't be pointless as the whole point in arguing is to get enjoyment.
(And yes, that's just me being pedantic!)

Feels good, doesn't it? :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

George_Michael

Marktheshark wrote: »

As to a car does not have insurance, yes it does.
Insurance is two components, personal and Road traffic act.
If a policy is held upon the car, it is covered for any driver for purposes of the road traffic act for third party liability only even if stolen

According to may websites, this is only the case if the thief can be identified.
http://findlaw.co.uk/law/accidents_and_injuries/car_and_vehicle_accidents/500611.html

If someone steals a vehicle and causes a road traffic accident, the vehicle owner’s insurance policy will compensate any injured victim, or damaged-property owner, provided the driver is identified by the police.
However, the decision to pay out compensation to a victim is at the discretion of the insurance company. If they are unwilling to do so, or there is no insurance policy covering the vehicle, the only potential remedy available to the victim is through the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB).

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2001/may/21/motorinsurance.insurance

A legal loophole allows the company insuring the stolen car to avoid paying if the driver is unidentified. So if a joy rider crashes into your parked car, even if the stolen vehicle is insured, you have to claim on your own policy.

Nodding_Donkey

neilmcl wrote: »

Name me one person on this thread that has the any driver policy you've described. It sounds like you're the one that "should read what is written, not what you think is written"

Here's 2

Post #21

tight_scotsman wrote: »

some folk like myself have a any driver with owners permission to drive.Yet again people jumping to conclusions when they are not aware of the facts.

Post #27

Mercdriver wrote: »

I too have any driver fully comp on my insurance

Thank me later.

Zandoni

Head_The_Ball wrote: »

Troll? I'm inclined to agree.

Jennifer hasn't been back but has certainly achieved the objective of getting the regulars arguing amongst themselves.

It's the same story nearly every time, a person has a problem so they google to find a forum that might help. They end up here, join up and explain their problem. People jump on them and start asking all sorts of questions.

The OP then disappears and the magic 'Troll' word appears.

The bullies then wait patiently for the next poor soul who dares to have a problem.

shaun_from_Africa

Zandoni wrote: »

They end up here, join up and explain their problem. People jump on them and start asking all sorts of questions.

The OP then disappears and the magic 'Troll' word appears.

I don't think that the OP is a troll but is simply someone who made a mistake whilst driving but I do think that asking them about insurance was a sensible point to bring up.

If they opted to go to court so that a plan could be set up for paying off any fine and associated costs, it's almost certain that insurance would be looked at so if for some reason there was a problem with this, it would be far better for the OP to realise it now before they make a decision that could seriously affect both them and their sister.

Their sister may well have the OP as a named driver in which case there is no problem whatsoever, but asking the question:

cameltoe wrote: »

Were you even insured to drive your sisters car?

in the way that it was asked isn't IMO, out of order.