Ready, steady… save!
You don’t need a chart to join in. Here are 2 ways to record your savings:
1. Cross it off
Pop a chart into your first post. Saved an amount? Cross it out! Read more »
£0.01 £0.02 £0.03
2. Write it down
Skip the chart and add updates to your first post. Read more »
“Another +£3 saved today. Go me!”
Use +£ before each new saving so it counts towards your total.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Motorcycle insurance refusing cover
Comments
-
[quote=[Deleted User];74427567]The relevant section (143) of the Act covers third-party risks[/QUOTE]
It doesn't actually - the words third party do not appear. It requires the policy to cover liabilities arising out of the driver/rider's use of the vehicle, then lists some exceptions, none of which obviously apply to the mate's liability for damaging the op's property. So assuming I've got the facts right jn my post above, again, what law allows the op's mate to ride with a policy which apparently doesn't cover any of his liabilities to the OP?0 -
It doesn't actually - the words third party do not appear. It requires the policy to cover liabilities arising out of the driver/rider's use of the vehicle, then lists some exceptions, none of which obviously apply to the mate's liability for damaging the op's property. So assuming I've got the facts right jn my post above, again, what law allows the op's mate to ride with a policy which apparently doesn't cover any of his liabilities to the OP?
Eh? The relevant section [Road Traffic Act 1988, 143] is headed "Users of motor vehicles to be insured or secured against third-party risks", and clauses 1(a) & (b) are specifically about such risks.
There is no legal requirement to be insured against any other risks.
The policy would fully cover the mate's legal liabilities to 3rd parties, it's simply the case that the OP isn't one of them.0 -
[quote=[Deleted User];74428509]Eh? The relevant section [Road Traffic Act 1988, 143] is headed "Users of motor vehicles to be insured or secured against third-party risks", and clauses 1(a) & (b) are specifically about such risks.
There is no legal requirement to be insured against any other risks.
The policy would fully cover the mate's legal liabilities to 3rd parties, it's simply the case that the OP isn't one of them.[/QUOTE]
Surely it’ll be the law in the given European country, he may not have cover.0 -
A British insurance policy will usually (always?) give at least the minimum required cover anywhere in the EU.AndyMc..... wrote: »Surely it’ll be the law in the given European country, he may not have cover.
The fact that the accident was abroad seems to be irrelevant. The issue is that the OP is not a 3rd party to the policy.0 -
[quote=[Deleted User];74427567]The relevant section (143) of the Act covers third-party risks. You are not a third party. (The insurer and yourself are the first and second parties to the contract.)
So the damage to your bike is not covered by the TP element of the policy.[/QUOTE]
Agreed - as much as i dont like the answer I have personally, and multiple other folk as well, confirmed that apparently if another insured under the same policy driver hits a vehicle you own - insurance doesnt work.
Anyhow I mean I`ll deal with it somehow. I hope the post at least at some point helps a folk in similar situation.
Thank you all for everything!
Cheers0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 355.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 255K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 456.2K Spending & Discounts
- 248.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 606.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 179.1K Life & Family
- 263.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards