Who is liable for this crash
Options
Comments
-
Clive_Woody wrote: »So are you suggesting that because the daughter hadn't opened her post her insurance company would still be obliged to cover her, despite her not paying her premiums and having no reasonable excuse for not opening her mail?
Seems like a good scam to me, take out an insurance policy, pay the first months premium, then cancel your DD and refuse to open any mail from them and still be covered.
The poster who mentioned that above is technically correct in many ways, but overlooked the pertinent fact that if an insurer is forced to pay a claim by law that it would not otherwise have paid (e.g. when a policy has been cancelled but the certificate not returned, the insurer may be forced to pay as 'Road Traffic Act insurer') then they will sue the policyholder to recover their outlay. So it's not a very sensible 'scam'.0 -
Thanks for the clarification. Somehow I couldn't see the insurers losing out.The poster who mentioned that above is technically correct in many ways, but overlooked the pertinent fact that if an insurer is forced to pay a claim by law that it would not otherwise have paid (e.g. when a policy has been cancelled but the certificate not returned, the insurer may be forced to pay as 'Road Traffic Act insurer') then they will sue the policyholder to recover their outlay. So it's not a very sensible 'scam'. "We act as though comfort and luxury are the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about” – Albert Einstein0 -
She wont be covered for her own damage, but she will be covered for Third Party damage. They might try to recover from her but as they didnt cancel here insurance properly I am not sure how far she would get, yes they do have the right of recovery but they are unlikely to pursue it if it isnt financially viable.
I am not certain if the police can prosecute either if she still has the insurance certificate.
Also, even if she had surrendered the certificate and then went on to have an accident I believe her insurance company would still have to deal with the Thirtd Party claim, it used to be called Domestic Regulations Insurer, as far as I know that is still in place.0 -
The problem is the DVLA let you self certificate re driving.
If you know that a person has defective vision then you must report them to the DVLA. The person who has the defective vision also has a responsiblity to inform the DVLA of a change in circumstances ie. they cannot see too well. Please do not tell me that I am wrong on this because I am not, as soon as I was diagnosed with glaucoma I advised the DVLA who looked into all my medical notes held by the eye hospital and I had to take a field vision test (not conducted by the eye hospital) to see how my vision was affected, at that time they decided that I could drive without restriction. I have regular eye tests conducted at the eye hospital and the DVLA are kept informed of my vision at all times.
It is the driver's responsibility to notify the DVLA, he can be reported too by a member of his family, a friend or even his consultant.0 -
She wont be covered for her own damage, but she will be covered for Third Party damage. They might try to recover from her but as they didnt cancel here insurance properly I am not sure how far she would get, yes they do have the right of recovery but they are unlikely to pursue it if it isnt financially viable.
There's no evidence to suggest that they 'didn't cancel it properly' - the OP said that her daughter had been ignoring the insurer's letters. If the certificate was not returned by the policyholder - also an offence under s.147 of the RTA - then the insurer may have had to deal with it as Road Traffic Act insurer but they would 100% have a right of recovery against the policyholder. As the damage in the case is quite minor they would almost certainly pursue the driver for the couple of thousand pounds it may have cost them if they had incurred a liability, anyone in employment would be able to make repayment of such a sum fairly quickly.I am not certain if the police can prosecute either if she still has the insurance certificate.
They could prosecute her under s.143 (which requires that a policy be inforce, not only that a certificate is in the possession of the driver) s.147 (failing to return the certificate) and potentially s.174 of the RTA (if she had produced a certificate as evidence of cover despite knowing that the policy was cancelled). Prosecutions for the latter two are very rare though.Also, even if she had surrendered the certificate and then went on to have an accident I believe her insurance company would still have to deal with the Thirtd Party claim, it used to be called Domestic Regulations Insurer, as far as I know that is still in place.
No, if the policy had been cancelled and the certificate returned before the accident then there is no contractual, RTA or Article 75 (formerly DRI) liability on the insurer. Any third party liabilities would be dealt with and paid for from the MIB's central fund. Then the MIB would acquire the right of recovery from the driver.0 -
There's no evidence to suggest that they 'didn't cancel it properly' - the OP said that her daughter had been ignoring the insurer's letters. If the certificate was not returned by the policyholder - also an offence under s.147 of the RTA - then the insurer may have had to deal with it as Road Traffic Act insurer but they would 100% have a right of recovery against the policyholder. As the damage in the case is quite minor they would almost certainly pursue the driver for the couple of thousand pounds it may have cost them if they had incurred a liability, anyone in employment would be able to make repayment of such a sum fairly quickly.
I glad you have a job where you could repay a couple of thousand pounds quite quickly. Not everybody is so lucky!!0 -
Your daughter can expect six points, a fine, to repair her own damage at her cost and a vastly increased premium because she has a claim against her and also six points for driving without insurance. Your insurance company will take care of the damage to the third party.
Sadly this could prove to be quite a costly lesson! Unfortunately if the OP's daughter has held a licence for LESS than two years, 6 points menas that the licence is revoked. She will have to reapply for a provisional licence and re-take her test, and the points stay on the licence until they expire (meaning she is in effect banned).
If I don't respond to your posts, it's probably because you're on my 'Ignore' list.0 -
Sadly this could prove to be quite a costly lesson! Unfortunately if the OP's daughter has held a licence for LESS than two years, 6 points menas that the licence is revoked. She will have to reapply for a provisional licence and re-take her test, and the points stay on the licence until they expire (meaning she is in effect banned).
She has had her licence for 5 years!0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards