Crashing in street furniture

CardinalWolsey

Gloomendoom wrote: »

The car was self insured by the company I worked for.

Your company would have had third-party liability only - they can't self-insure their total risk, but it is fairly common for fleets to cover their own damage cost. a) it's illegal (and your car would carry a no-insurance marker against it) and b) your accountant/head of finance/CFO would have heart failure.

Gloomendoom

CardinalWolsey wrote: »

Your company would have had third-party liability only - they can't self-insure their total risk, but it is fairly common for fleets to cover their own damage cost. a) it's illegal (and your car would carry a no-insurance marker against it) and b) your accountant/head of finance/CFO would have heart failure.

You are correct, the total third party risk was not self insured, however, claims below a certain level were. I forget where the threshold was back then. With my current employer it is £12k.

Warwick_Hunt

CardinalWolsey wrote: »

Your company would have had third-party liability only - they can't self-insure their total risk, but it is fairly common for fleets to cover their own damage cost. a) it's illegal (and your car would carry a no-insurance marker against it) and b) your accountant/head of finance/CFO would have heart failure.

No it's not.

The charge for no insurance reads you either don't have insurance or a surity against third party risk.

There is no law requiring it to have insurance for your car, the reason most have it is because the cannot afford not to.

Gloomendoom

Warwick_Hunt wrote: »

No it's not.

The charge for no insurance reads you either don't have insurance or a surity against third party risk.

There is no law requiring it to have insurance for your car, the reason most have it is because the cannot afford not to.

I think the surety option is only open to individuals, not corporate bodies.

Warwick_Hunt

Gloomendoom wrote: »

I think the surety option is only open to individuals, not corporate bodies.

Since when?

If it's a recent change then you maybe right.

Several police forces and the post office did it.

sheramber

the company my husband worked for did not have insurance cover on their company car.

they considered they paid out less for claims than it would cost to insure all the cars.

shaun_from_Africa

sheramber wrote: »

the company my husband worked for did not have insurance cover on their company car.

But they must still have had 3rd party insurance of have submitted a deposit of £500,000 to the UK courts to cover any potential claims against them.

Rover_Driver

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

But they must still have had 3rd party insurance of have submitted a deposit of £500,000 to the UK courts to cover any potential claims against them.

The deposit in the court would be 'such a security in respect of third party risks' and would comply with s.143, Road Traffic Act 1988, and be instead of an insurance policy.

A company I was involved with had a large fleet of vehicles and had a 'Certificate of deposit' rather than a 'Certificate of insurance'.

Car_54

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

But they must still have had 3rd party insurance of have submitted a deposit of £500,000 to the UK courts to cover any potential claims against them.

It may be different in Africa, but in the U.K. the deposit ('security') is INSTEAD of third-party insurance. That's the whole point.

shaun_from_Africa

Car_54 wrote: »

It may be different in Africa, but in the U.K. the deposit ('security') is INSTEAD of third-party insurance. That's the whole point.

That's what I get for not proof reading my posts.
it should have stated:
"But they must still have had 3rd party insurance or have submitted a deposit of £500,000 to the UK courts to cover any potential claims against them."


I won't edit my earlier posts as it will make the two corrective posts appear incorrect.