What happens if you hit an uninsured driver

Le_Kirk

stator wrote: »

If they make a claim it will be paid out. The fact that they are insured doesn't stop them from claiming off your insurance. <snip>

Did you mean uninsured? This comment has confused me!

spadoosh wrote: »

Can you argue a pedestrian should be in the road so its their fault if you hit them?

Did you mean shouldn't be in the road?

EdGasket

Tigger_looks_bigger wrote: »

Having worked at a personal injury solicitors for a while a few years ago. When a call came in from an unisured driver who had been rear ended the solicitor with 15+ years experience in rta cases refused to take the case.

He said because the unisured drivers car shouldn't have been there it was his fault and so we didn't stand a hope of winning/ recovering costs. This guy knew his stuff, it was about 2-3 years ago so unless there has been a law change/ precedence set since then I'd think it was still the case.

The above supports my argument that as the driver is uninsured and hence shouldn't have been on the road, he/she is not in a good position to initiate a claim.

ukmike

Give way to pedestrians and cyclists on the pavement[/Q

Not on the road.

peter_the_piper

AdrianC wrote: »

"Oh, him? The naked man in bed with my wife? Yes, I shot him - but he shouldn't have been there in the first place..."

do you have a license for that gun?

AdrianC

peter_the_piper wrote: »

do you have a license for that gun?

Is anybody suggesting that the OP doesn't have a driving licence?

Rotor

AdrianC wrote: »

"Oh, him? The naked man in bed with my wife? Yes, I shot him - but he shouldn't have been there in the first place..."

But he'd been invited in - just not by you!
You, on the other hand had not been invited in by either party and therefore should have shot yourself or lent the undressed gentleman your gun.

facade

peter_the_piper wrote: »

do you have a license for that gun?

Of course!
if he had no licence he shouldn't have had the gun, then he couldn't have shot anybody, so there was no shooting, case closed

Or do 2 wrongs make a right? If you shoot someone who shouldn't be there with a gun you shouldn't have what happens?

Nonsense isn't it?

Like saying it isn't your fault that you just ran into an illegally parked car rather than steering round it because it shouldn't have been there.

I suspect that Lawyer could see that he might have to do a little work for his money and turned it down in favour of easier money.

angrycrow

Tigger_looks_bigger wrote: »

Having worked at a personal injury solicitors for a while a few years ago. When a call came in from an unisured driver who had been rear ended the solicitor with 15+ years experience in rta cases refused to take the case.

He said because the unisured drivers car shouldn't have been there it was his fault and so we didn't stand a hope of winning/ recovering costs. This guy knew his stuff, it was about 2-3 years ago so unless there has been a law change/ precedence set since then I'd think it was still the case.

The solicitor may well have declined the claim for other reasons such as moral views or because the uninsured claimant wanted to pursue unrecoverable losses such as hire but it was not due to liability.

Frustratingly the uninsured driver can claim for their vehicle damage and personal injury but is barred from pursuing hire or loss of use as the car was not legally available to him before the accident so providing a fully insured hire car would be betterment which breaches the indemnity principle of insurance.

Before anyone jumps in with quote your source my copy of Binghams is back at the office.

George_Michael

Fat_Walt wrote: »

Of course it's a criminal matter.

Probably a criminal matter but not 100% guaranteed.

Car_54

George_Michael wrote: »

Probably a criminal matter but not 100% guaranteed.

Driving without insurance is an offence under section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

If that is not a criminal matter, what do you suggest it is?