Company avoiding insurers

Billy_Bullocks

George_Michael wrote: »

Whilst it's certainly true that you can lodge a bond (£500,000) with the government and by doing so you do not have to have 3rd party insurance in place, section 144 of the RTA only refers to doing this for a vehicle and not a fleet of vehicles.
If it's £500,000 for each vehicle, I can't see it being done by many companies, especially if they have dozens or hundreds of motors.

£500,000 doesn't seem a great deal of money to cover 3rd party risks for a large fleet as the losses from a single accident could easily exceed this if there are multiple fatalities involved.

http://www.fleetnews.co.uk/fleet-management/fleet-insurance/insurance-balancing-the-risk

Mercdriver

Billy_Bullocks wrote: »

You've been shown it's not, some police forces and the post office did just that.

Wow some people sure like to make themselves seem so right. I don't know everything and will come forward and say so. Does it really take 4 posters to do so??

Does it make you all feel bigger? Good. Give yourselves a pat on the back for being so clever. Now it's time to grow up.

Such fun this cesspit can be sometimes.

Billy_Bullocks

Mercdriver wrote: »

Wow some people sure like to make themselves seem so right. I don't know everything and will come forward and say so. Does it really take 4 posters to do so??

Does it make you all feel bigger? Good. Give yourselves a pat on the back for being so clever. Now it's time to grow up.

Such fun this cesspit can be sometimes.

:rotfl::rotfl:🎣🎣🎣🎣🎣:rotfl::rotfl:

Mercdriver

Billy_Bullocks wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl:🎣🎣🎣🎣🎣:rotfl::rotfl:

Case proven. Go back to kindergarten.

Quentin

Mercdriver wrote: »

Wow some people sure like to make themselves seem so right. I don't know everything and will come forward and say so. Does it really take 4 posters to do so??

Does it make you all feel bigger? Good. Give yourselves a pat on the back for being so clever. Now it's time to grow up.

Such fun this cesspit can be sometimes.

But why did you bother posting your advice when you clearly made it up?

Why not simply stand corrected and back off ?

Mercdriver

Quentin wrote: »

But why did you bother posting your advice when you clearly made it up?

Why not simply stand corrected and back off ?

I answered to the best of my knowledge. Ok so that was deficient. Fine. But are people so desperate to be be seen to be right they have to post in multiples. Only takes one. Not four.

Billy_Bullocks

Mercdriver wrote: »

I answered to the best of my knowledge. Ok so that was deficient. Fine. But are people so desperate to be be seen to be right they have to post in multiples. Only takes one. Not four.

So it was your best guess then?

Shows you don't know the law you were referring to.

Quentin

Mercdriver wrote: »

I answered to the best of my knowledge. Ok so that was deficient. Fine. But are people so desperate to be be seen to be right they have to post in multiples. Only takes one. Not four.

Why keep digging?

Your "authoritative" post needed correcting.

You could help now by editing it and standing corrected

Mercdriver

Quentin wrote: »

Why keep digging?

Your "authoritative" post needed correcting.

You could help now by editing it and standing corrected

I'm editing nothing. I'm already standing corrected. I have no problem with being corrected where I am wrong, I'm not as arrogant as some. I just stated it was unnecessary for 4 people to all come in and say the same thing.

My post was my opinion. I'm not a lawyer and have never professed to be one.

marlot

Mercdriver wrote: »

I'm editing nothing. I'm already standing corrected. I have no problem with being corrected where I am wrong, I'm not as arrogant as some. I just stated it was unnecessary for 4 people to all come in and say the same thing.

My post was my opinion. I'm not a lawyer and have never professed to be one.

The problem is that you quoted someone else who was giving correct advice and slapped them down with apparent certainty, so the OP would be inclined to believe you. If you'd said 'I think that ...' then the OP could have interpreted that.

I could have added my knowledge, but saw that sufficient weight had been applied to correct your fake-fact.

I'd rather a world where incorrect things were corrected than one where myths were allowed to roam free.