My uninsured parked car hit by lorry
vokf
collected tonight (friday)
The insurance has been cancelled, but the car does have valid TAX and
MOT.
Last night, the car was damaged by a lorry, which also went on to hit
3 other cars in the street (which I can assume were insured)
The police were in attendance when I arrived, and I have the driver
(and his employers) details.
Speaking to the delivery company today, they are investigating, but
have pointed out that my car was uninsured and this is an offence
(which I wasn't aware of - otherwise I would have left it in the
drive)
The car is worth approx £300, and the damage will mean the car would
normally be written off.
I see the lack of insurance as a police matter (not sure if I'll hear
from them) - the car was pushed onto the road whilst it was still
insured, and I've since swapped the insurance to my new car - the old
car was never driven uninsured, and was due to be collected tonight.
The delivery company will be calling me back later, but I'm really
unsure as to what my options are if they make things difficult.
If the lorry had hit a cycle (probably uninsured), I guess the owner
would claim against the drivers insurance.
Any help very much appreciated.
Many thanks
Adrian
they were saying:
> I have an old car that I have sold (via ebay.), this was due to be
> collected tonight (friday)
> The insurance has been cancelled, but the car does have valid TAX and
> MOT.
>
> Last night, the car was damaged by a lorry, which also went on to hit 3
> other cars in the street (which I can assume were insured)
>
> The police were in attendance when I arrived, and I have the driver (and
> his employers) details.
>
> Speaking to the delivery company today, they are investigating, but have
> pointed out that my car was uninsured and this is an offence (which I
> wasn't aware of - otherwise I would have left it in the drive)
You weren't aware that having an uninsured car on the road was illegal?
Seriously...?
> The car is worth approx £300, and the damage will mean the car would
> normally be written off.
Your potential loss is minimal, then. You'll get £50-100 for it in scrap
value (although this may well be reduced given they'll have to come fetch
it). The fine and impact on your licence (and future premiums), though,
will be far more expensive.
> I see the lack of insurance as a police matter (not sure if I'll hear
> from them)
If it's already on their books, because of them attending, then I'm
_sure_ a producer will be coming your way, sooner or later.
> The delivery company will be calling me back later, but I'm really
> unsure as to what my options are if they make things difficult.
Your only real option is to swallow hard, take the (small) financial hit,
and hope to forget the whole mess happened.
> If the lorry had hit a cycle (probably uninsured), I guess the owner
> would claim against the drivers insurance.
There's no legal requirement for a bicycle to be insured whilst on the
road.
GB
"vokf" <quiet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7fd478dd-d09e-4ef5...@e60g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Last night, the car was damaged by a lorry, which also went on to hit
3 other cars in the street (which I can assume were insured)
SNIP
The delivery company will be calling me back later, but I'm really
unsure as to what my options are if they make things difficult.
If the lorry had hit a cycle (probably uninsured), I guess the owner
would claim against the drivers insurance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're entitled to be compensated for your loss, by the lorry driver or his
employers/insurers. If the car was sold on ebay, then your loss is the sale
amount less any scrap value the car now has. The fact that you were possibly
breaking the law by not having 3rd party insurance does not affect that.
You may be very lucky and find that your insurance covers the car for 3rd
part liability insurance purposes, ie the minimum required by law, even
though you were in the process of selling it. It's worth having a look at
your certificate of insurance quite closely. Mine says that I am covered for
driving a car that does not belong to me. That then brings up the question
of whether the car did belong to you or not. You say that you had sold it
and were waiting for the new owner to turn up and pay for it. There's a
whole section of law about when change in ownership of the goods takes
place, but the key point here is that it will be quite a grey area. You were
the 'keeper' of the car on the road, and for that you needed to have
insurance. If your policy is the same as mine, then you probably did have
insurance provided that you were not the owner of the car. I suspect that it
is sufficiently complex that the Police won't bother to investigate further.
In summary, in response to a 'producer' turn up with your certificate of
motor insurance for the new car and claim that this covers you for the old
car as you did not own it any longer. (Obviously, you need to check the
wording first.)
Adrian
they were saying:
> You may be very lucky and find that your insurance covers the car for
> 3rd part liability insurance purposes, ie the minimum required by law,
> even though you were in the process of selling it. It's worth having a
> look at your certificate of insurance quite closely. Mine says that I am
> covered for driving a car that does not belong to me. That then brings
> up the question of whether the car did belong to you or not. You say
> that you had sold it and were waiting for the new owner to turn up and
> pay for it. There's a whole section of law about when change in
> ownership of the goods takes place, but the key point here is that it
> will be quite a grey area. You were the 'keeper' of the car on the road,
> and for that you needed to have insurance. If your policy is the same as
> mine, then you probably did have insurance provided that you were not
> the owner of the car. I suspect that it is sufficiently complex that the
> Police won't bother to investigate further.
>
> In summary, in response to a 'producer' turn up with your certificate of
> motor insurance for the new car and claim that this covers you for the
> old car as you did not own it any longer. (Obviously, you need to check
> the wording first.)
The slight drawback with that theory is that the new owner's details will
immediately be asked for. As the OP wasn't _actually_ driving the car at
the time, his "Somebody Else's Car" clause won't be relevant - the
keeper's the one whose insurance is relevant when it's parked unattended.
And, if it were me who had "bought" it on fleaBay, my immediate reaction
would be to say to plod "Umm, no. Sorry. I do NOT own that car."
David Hearn
> vokf (vokf <quiet...@gmail.com>) gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying:
>
>> I have an old car that I have sold (via ebay.), this was due to be
>> collected tonight (friday)
>> The insurance has been cancelled, but the car does have valid TAX and
>> MOT.
>>
>> Last night, the car was damaged by a lorry, which also went on to hit 3
>> other cars in the street (which I can assume were insured)
>>
>> The police were in attendance when I arrived, and I have the driver (and
>> his employers) details.
>>
>> Speaking to the delivery company today, they are investigating, but have
>> pointed out that my car was uninsured and this is an offence (which I
>> wasn't aware of - otherwise I would have left it in the drive)
>
> You weren't aware that having an uninsured car on the road was illegal?
> Seriously...?
I (not the OP) might believe that it would be acceptable to *park* an
insured vehicle on a road (providing that it did have insurance whilst
parking/driving it). I'm aware that untaxed vehicles must not be parked
there - and therefore could possibly extrapolate that insurance is also
a requirement - however the insurance requirement is to provide for
damage to 3rd parties. I've only ever heard references to "*driving*
whilst uninsured". In my mind, a parked, stationary car, is unlikely to
cause damage *to* 3rd parties - although, as in this case, it may be
subject to damage *from* 3rd parties. I wouldn't be surprised though if
parking an uninsured vehicle on the road might be an offence.
>> The car is worth approx £300, and the damage will mean the car would
>> normally be written off.
>
> Your potential loss is minimal, then. You'll get £50-100 for it in scrap
> value (although this may well be reduced given they'll have to come fetch
> it). The fine and impact on your licence (and future premiums), though,
> will be far more expensive.
Surely though, the fact that it does not have insurance makes no
difference to claiming off the delivery driver's insurance? Their
insurance is to reimburse/repair damage done to 3rd parties. Yes, there
may be a legal issue for the OP (parking without insurance?) - but this
is separate to, the fact that the delivery driver damaged a 3rd party's
property and has insurance to cover such damage.
>> I see the lack of insurance as a police matter (not sure if I'll hear
>> from them)
>
> If it's already on their books, because of them attending, then I'm
> _sure_ a producer will be coming your way, sooner or later.
>
>> The delivery company will be calling me back later, but I'm really
>> unsure as to what my options are if they make things difficult.
>
> Your only real option is to swallow hard, take the (small) financial hit,
> and hope to forget the whole mess happened.
>
>> If the lorry had hit a cycle (probably uninsured), I guess the owner
>> would claim against the drivers insurance.
>
> There's no legal requirement for a bicycle to be insured whilst on the
> road.
This seems strange to me - that failure to have insurance (or an MOT, or
any other legally required feature/tax for a car) would void the OP's
claim against the driver.
How far does it extend to? If a car parked on the road is taxed and
insured but is not fit to drive (eg. failed an MOT) - if that car is
then hit by a 3rd party - does that make their claim against them void?
D
Steve Firth
> In summary, in response to a 'producer' turn up with your certificate of
> motor insurance for the new car and claim that this covers you for the old
> car as you did not own it any longer. (Obviously, you need to check the
> wording first.)
That's poor advice. If the car did not belong to the OP then his new
insurance will not cover it, unless he happened to be driving it at the
time it was hit by the lorry.
If the money had already changed hands then the vehicle clearly belongs
to the new owner and it is that individual who is responsible for
insurance and indeed for the claim. I suspect that the way the question
is presented that the purchaser had not yet paid for the vehicle, since
the OP is the one considering a claim.
It's in the OP's interests to determine the exact status of ownership.
If payment had not been made, then it will, I suspect, come down to some
dickering over what the contract was between seller and purchaser. It's
also worthwhile the OP asking the purchaser when their insurance on the
vehicle commenced since the vehicle may well have been covered.
Much depends on the time of the accident and the arrangement made by the
purchaser. Insurance policies generally start at midnight, so the
purchaser may well have had cover for the vehicle. However if the
vehicle was not the property of the purchaser until later in the day,
the vehicle may still have been uninsured at the time of the incident.
Steve Firth
> The slight drawback with that theory is that the new owner's details will
> immediately be asked for. As the OP wasn't _actually_ driving the car at
> the time, his "Somebody Else's Car" clause won't be relevant - the
> keeper's the one whose insurance is relevant when it's parked unattended.
>
> And, if it were me who had "bought" it on fleaBay, my immediate reaction
> would be to say to plod "Umm, no. Sorry. I do NOT own that car."
It's going to be an interesting point, determining when the buyer became
the owner. If it was paid for via Paypal or credit card, then I'm
guessing that as soon as payment was made it became the property of the
buyer. If it was bought CoD, then things become more interesting, since
I presume that the buyer does not have title to the vehicle until
payment is made. Althought that's where we need the opinion of someone
more knowledgeable about the law relating to contracts made between
seller and buyer in these circumstances.
I don't think it matters too much what the buyer says, it matters an
awful lot on when the buyer actually took possession of the car.
Roland Perry
<7fd478dd-d09e-4ef5...@e60g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, at
12:25:05 on Fri, 22 Feb 2008, vokf <quiet...@gmail.com> remarked:
>I have an old car that I have sold (via ebay.), this was due to be
>collected tonight (friday)
>
If you've sold the car [1], this is presumably a matter for the new
owner. He might claim that you owed him a duty of care (to store it
safely), and that the car is no longer "as described", but that's a
different issue.
Of course, there may be something about the transfer of "keepership" etc
of *cars* (and therefore the responsibility to insure them if kept on
the road) that over-rides the normal transfer of title at the end of an
auction, so that the old owner still has responsibilities. But I've not
come across it before.
[1] Which on eBay happens as soon as the "auction" ends.
--
Roland Perry
Adrian
sounding much like they were saying:
>>> I have an old car that I have sold (via ebay.), this was due to be
>>> collected tonight (friday)
>>> The insurance has been cancelled, but the car does have valid TAX and
>>> MOT.
>>>
>>> Last night, the car was damaged by a lorry, which also went on to hit
>>> 3 other cars in the street (which I can assume were insured)
>>>
>>> The police were in attendance when I arrived, and I have the driver
>>> (and his employers) details.
>>>
>>> Speaking to the delivery company today, they are investigating, but
>>> have pointed out that my car was uninsured and this is an offence
>>> (which I wasn't aware of - otherwise I would have left it in the
>>> drive)
>> You weren't aware that having an uninsured car on the road was illegal?
>> Seriously...?
> I (not the OP) might believe that it would be acceptable to *park* an
> insured vehicle on a road (providing that it did have insurance whilst
> parking/driving it). I'm aware that untaxed vehicles must not be parked
> there - and therefore could possibly extrapolate that insurance is also
> a requirement - however the insurance requirement is to provide for
> damage to 3rd parties. I've only ever heard references to "*driving*
> whilst uninsured". In my mind, a parked, stationary car, is unlikely to
> cause damage *to* 3rd parties
Wild guess - you live somewhere relatively flat? I don't, and parked cars
going walkabout are not at all rare.
> - although, as in this case, it may be subject to damage *from* 3rd
> parties. I wouldn't be surprised though if parking an uninsured
> vehicle on the road might be an offence.
Any vehicle on the public road at any time MUST be covered by valid
insurance, tax, MOT (if applicable). It's that simple. Whether you're
driving, sat in it with the engine running, or it's locked and unattended
for weeks on end.
> This seems strange to me - that failure to have insurance (or an MOT, or
> any other legally required feature/tax for a car) would void the OP's
> claim against the driver.
I very much doubt it would. But the fact remains that the likely payout -
a couple of hundred quid max - is nothing compared to the fine and future
insurance hike if Plod do get interested...
Palindrome
<snip>
> I very much doubt it would. But the fact remains that the likely payout -
> a couple of hundred quid max - is nothing compared to the fine and future
> insurance hike if Plod do get interested...
>
with him, this would be put in the "nfa" bin, IMHO. The status of ebay
auctions are, IIUC, still very much untested in court. All too
complicated. Far, far too much work and too much chance of ending up
eggified by someone doing a more thorough job. Next file please.
--
Sue
"nightjar" <cpb@
"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1icpu05.1qhnvjt1gmzco2N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
.....
> It's going to be an interesting point, determining when the buyer became
> the owner. If it was paid for via Paypal or credit card, then I'm
> guessing that as soon as payment was made it became the property of the
That would create a contract to sell the car, but, I doubt that either title
or risk is transferred until the buyer takes possession of some physical
symbol of ownership, such as the keys or possibly the V5..
Colin Bignell
Toom Tabard
Your claim is against the negligent party - presumably the lorry
owners ( or their insurers) unless they claim otherwise - e.g.. that
someone else negligently caused the lorry to swerve. In terms of their
liability it is irrelevant that the car was not insured - that is
purely a separate police matter. The easiest settlement would be for
the agreed sale value and for that to go to you or the purchaser
depending on the status of the transfer of the payment, but the
insurers might want to inspect and value the vehicle to check that
value is reasonable.
Toom
GB
> GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>> In summary, in response to a 'producer' turn up with your certificate of
>> motor insurance for the new car and claim that this covers you for the
>> old
>> car as you did not own it any longer. (Obviously, you need to check the
>> wording first.)
>
> That's poor advice. If the car did not belong to the OP then his new
> insurance will not cover it, unless he happened to be driving it at the
> time it was hit by the lorry.
My certificate says: 'The policyholder may also drive a car or motorcycle
not belonging to him [and not hired to him].'
Hmm, let's suppose that you lend me your car, I drive it away and then park
it without applying the handbrake. It runs into another car. Whose insurance
is liable for damage to the third party? I don't think that the word 'drive'
in the insurance certificate is meant to be taken literally. In any case, I
am sure there is more wording in my policy. All the OP has to do is create
enough doubt in the minds of the authorities that they won't proceed against
him. The two doubts he can raise are: a) was the keepership of the car
legally the OP's, and b) even if he was the keeper for the purpose of the
RTA was his own insurance sufficient to cover the old car? I cannot see the
authorities proceeding if it becomes a matter of determining the contractual
status of an ebay sale.
Besides, I bet that the OP can produce an email from ebay telling him that
he has sold the item. Their emails to me typically begin: 'Congratulations!
You've sold your item on eBay. Send an invoice now so that the buyer can
arrange to pay you.'
BTW, if you have an alternative, more constructive, approach, now would be a
great time to air it.
Humbug
wrote:
>If you've sold the car [1],
[snip]
>[1] Which on eBay happens as soon as the "auction" ends.
Maybe this incident could result in the long-awaited test case :-)
--
Humbug
Humbug
That was my first reaction as well.
But I have a nasty sneaking suspicion that the lorry driver's
(employer's) insurance company might try to claim that the unuinsured
vehicle should not have been parked in that location, and its presence
had *caused* the collsions, making the OP liable for the damage to the
other cars.
Some insurance companies will use any trick they can to avoid paying
out.
--
Humbug
Roland Perry
Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Humbug <hum...@tofee.net> remarked:
>>If you've sold the car [1],
>
>[snip]
>
>>[1] Which on eBay happens as soon as the "auction" ends.
>
>Maybe this incident could result in the long-awaited test case :-)
Touché.
--
Roland Perry
Palindrome
The owner would be prosecuted, 6 points, easy. Responsibility hadn't
transferred unless the keys had been handed over. Even if the
prospective purchaser had paid, he clearly would demand and get his
money back. So the contract hadn't been completed.
"Ways and means" kept getting mentioned, but I didn't quite understand
why. The guy's best chance is if the police decide not to forward the
file. Which would depend on how nice and how cooperative he is/was with
them.
The only feint chance is if the purchaser had actually already taken out
insurance specifically for the car. If he had, the case may not go ahead
on public interests grounds.
--
Sue
Grant
"vokf" <quiet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7fd478dd-d09e-4ef5...@e60g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Your car was not insured so it should not have been on a public road, I
suspect this will be sufficient for the insurance company to avoid a pay
out. If on the other hand you are covered to driver any vehicle third party
on a comprehensive policy and you were in the car when it was hit you will
be covered.
vokf
> > Speaking to the delivery company today, they are investigating, but have
> > pointed out that my car was uninsured and this is an offence (which I
> > wasn't aware of - otherwise I would have left it in the drive)
>
> You weren't aware that having an uninsured car on the road was illegal?
> Seriously...?
No...
>
> > The car is worth approx £300, and the damage will mean the car would
> > normally be written off.
>
> Your potential loss is minimal, then. You'll get £50-100 for it in scrap
> value (although this may well be reduced given they'll have to come fetch
> it). The fine and impact on your licence (and future premiums), though,
> will be far more expensive.
>
> > I see the lack of insurance as a police matter (not sure if I'll hear
> > from them)
>
> If it's already on their books, because of them attending, then I'm
> _sure_ a producer will be coming your way, sooner or later.
>
> > The delivery company will be calling me back later, but I'm really
> > unsure as to what my options are if they make things difficult.
>
> Your only real option is to swallow hard, take the (small) financial hit,
> and hope to forget the whole mess happened.
>
> > If the lorry had hit a cycle (probably uninsured), I guess the owner
> > would claim against the drivers insurance.
>
> There's no legal requirement for a bicycle to be insured whilst on the
> road.
...Yes, I know that- otherwise the cyclist would claim through their
insurance..
I was trying to draw a parallel.
vokf
> "vokf" <quietbi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Thanks GB for a helpful reply. I can see this getting really messy.
I'll contact my insurers to find out where I am - I simply swapped
over the policy to the new car last week.
I also think I have some legal helpline with my house contents
insurance, so I'll see what they say - it sounds like getting the
value of the car back is a minor problem until I know the intention of
the police.
Thanks,
Jason
Blah
> I have an old car that I have sold (via ebay.), this was due to be
> collected tonight (friday)
> The insurance has been cancelled, but the car does have valid TAX and
> MOT.
>
> Last night, the car was damaged by a lorry, which also went on to hit
> 3 other cars in the street (which I can assume were insured)
>
> The police were in attendance when I arrived, and I have the driver
> (and his employers) details.
>
> Speaking to the delivery company today, they are investigating, but
> have pointed out that my car was uninsured and this is an offence
> (which I wasn't aware of - otherwise I would have left it in the
> drive)
Contrary to what the other poster (and the lorry company) said it is NOT
illegal to have/park an ininsured vehicle on the road, it IS illegal to
USE the vehicle (see numerous threads in uk.legal in the past).
You wern't using it!
For all they know, it may have been parked there by a trader with 'trade
plate insurance' etc etc.
And to cap it all, whether you have insurance or not does not refute the
fact that THEY caused the damage and are liable.
Tell them you'll sue.
mustapha...@aol.com
> collected tonight (friday)
> The insurance has been cancelled, but the car does have valid TAX and
> MOT.
I would check with your insurance company. They usually issue
some grace overlap time when you get another car for exactly
the reasons you give. IIRC it's 14 days.
Blah
> David Hearn (David Hearn <da...@NOswampieSPAM.org.uk>) gurgled happily,
> Any vehicle on the public road at any time MUST be covered by valid
> insurance, tax, MOT (if applicable). It's that simple. Whether you're
> driving, sat in it with the engine running, or it's locked and unattended
> for weeks on end.
>
Its NOT illegal to keep an uninsured car on the road! Just illegal to
drive one.
Stop giving bad advice!
Read this:
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/insurance/car-insurance/article.html?in_article_id=428713&in_page_id=35
specifically the bit near the bottom.
"But from 2009, the pressure on uninsured drivers will ratchet up a
notch. An offence of keeping a car without insurance will be created.
Owners could be fined for having a car with no insurance, even if it is
parked off the road."
ie at the moment its legal!....
Steve Walker
> Adrian wrote:
>> David Hearn (David Hearn <da...@NOswampieSPAM.org.uk>) gurgled
>> happily,
>
>> Any vehicle on the public road at any time MUST be covered by valid
>> insurance, tax, MOT (if applicable). It's that simple. Whether you're
>> driving, sat in it with the engine running, or it's locked and
>> unattended for weeks on end.
>>
>
> Its NOT illegal to keep an uninsured car on the road! Just illegal to
> drive one.
> Stop giving bad advice!
Everyone here offers their opinion as best they can, based upon personal
experience & judgement. It's uncalled for to attack another contributor's
comments unless they're claiming to be writing with some special authority
which places them above debate. Please be civil, and address differences of
view through constructive debate.
Alex Heney
wrote:
>
>"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:1icptk9.l0bkyn1wt0t45N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
>> GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In summary, in response to a 'producer' turn up with your certificate of
>>> motor insurance for the new car and claim that this covers you for the
>>> old
>>> car as you did not own it any longer. (Obviously, you need to check the
>>> wording first.)
>>
>> That's poor advice. If the car did not belong to the OP then his new
>> insurance will not cover it, unless he happened to be driving it at the
>> time it was hit by the lorry.
>
>My certificate says: 'The policyholder may also drive a car or motorcycle
>not belonging to him [and not hired to him].'
>
>Hmm, let's suppose that you lend me your car, I drive it away and then park
>it without applying the handbrake. It runs into another car. Whose insurance
>is liable for damage to the third party? I don't think that the word 'drive'
>in the insurance certificate is meant to be taken literally.
this gets argued quite frequently in uk.legal.
to my mind, there is no possible doubt that it *is* meant to be taken
literally, because they say "drive" in that section and "use" in the
section covering the vehicle you are taking out the insurance for.
In this particular case though, it seems unlikely he would have that
clause anyhow, since he says the car was worth no more than £500. I
would never take out comprehensive insurance on a car worth that
little.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I don't eat snails... I prefer FAST food!
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Palindrome
the lowest tp/tpft one. Which can often be the case, at this end of the
market. Probably because the claims from tpft drivers are greater than
fully comp, for particular cars and drivers. I guess that your days of
buying <500GBP are now long gone!
There is another advantage to fully comp - the glass is covered. And a
solely glass claim usually doesn't hit the ncb. As a replacement screen,
fitted on site, can cost as much as the car is worth and as it is quite
easy to break one on the stone-covered tracks that pass as roads around
here, it is well worth a little extra, if necessary.
There are other advantages as well, but you get the idea, I'm sure.
--
Sue
Steve Firth
> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1icptk9.l0bkyn1wt0t45N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> > GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In summary, in response to a 'producer' turn up with your certificate of
> >> motor insurance for the new car and claim that this covers you for the
> >> old
> >> car as you did not own it any longer. (Obviously, you need to check the
> >> wording first.)
> >
> > That's poor advice. If the car did not belong to the OP then his new
> > insurance will not cover it, unless he happened to be driving it at the
> > time it was hit by the lorry.
>
> My certificate says: 'The policyholder may also drive a car or motorcycle
> not belonging to him [and not hired to him].'
But we appear to have established that he was not driving it.
> Hmm, let's suppose that you lend me your car, I drive it away and then park
> it without applying the handbrake. It runs into another car. Whose insurance
> is liable for damage to the third party?
The owner of the car. Policies which permit the insured to also drive a
car not owned by him and not hired to him under a hire purchase
agreement, often (I hesitate to say "usually") have a clause that
requires the car in question to have valid insurance in addition to the
temporary third party cover given under the terms of a comprehensive
policy.
> I don't think that the word 'drive' in the insurance certificate is meant
> to be taken literally.
Given the clause referred to above, I think you will find that you are
mistaken.
> In any case, I am sure there is more wording in my policy.
I agree, I also consider that the wording will not be favourable to the
OP.
> All the OP has to do is create enough doubt in the minds of the
> authorities that they won't proceed against him. The two doubts he can
> raise are: a) was the keepership of the car legally the OP's, and b) even
> if he was the keeper for the purpose of the RTA was his own insurance
> sufficient to cover the old car?
a) is his only hope.
> I cannot see the authorities proceeding if it becomes a matter of
> determining the contractual status of an ebay sale.
The police have got targets to meet for arrests of drivers keeping and
driving uninsured vehicles on public roads. They can be remarkably
tenacious and I wouldn't like to rely on inertia as a guarantee against
prosecution.
> Besides, I bet that the OP can produce an email from ebay telling him that
> he has sold the item. Their emails to me typically begin: 'Congratulations!
> You've sold your item on eBay. Send an invoice now so that the buyer can
> arrange to pay you.'
But does that email constitute the sale, or is it payment or is it the
moment when the keys and documents change hands. I don't know, and so
far I haven't seen any answer that I could consider authoritative.
> BTW, if you have an alternative, more constructive, approach, now would be a
> great time to air it.
I think I gave some constructive advice earlier, in the part that you
did not quote.
It is also worth noting, although possibly too late for the OP to do
anything about it, that for a small payment insurers will extend cover
to two vehicles to permit the owner to drive one car and sell the old
car. A cover note of this type usually has a short duration, but can be
renewed if the sale falls through.
Toom Tabard
>
> Your car was not insured so it should not have been on a public road, I
> suspect this will be sufficient for the insurance company to avoid a pay
> out. If on the other hand you are covered to driver any vehicle third party
> on a comprehensive policy and you were in the car when it was hit you will
> be covered.
Can you quote the legal principle or case law on that? Whether
insurance is required or in force seems a separate issue to civil
negligence and liability. If the vehicle was illegally or dangerously
parked then there may be some contributory negligence, but whether or
not it is legally insured shouldn't affect any claim against a
negligent third party - it is surely none of their business.
Toom
the Omrud
> Adrian wrote:
>> David Hearn (David Hearn <da...@NOswampieSPAM.org.uk>) gurgled happily,
>
>> Any vehicle on the public road at any time MUST be covered by valid
>> insurance, tax, MOT (if applicable). It's that simple. Whether you're
>> driving, sat in it with the engine running, or it's locked and
>> unattended for weeks on end.
>
> Its NOT illegal to keep an uninsured car on the road!
I'm sure it is.
> Just illegal to drive one.
>
> Stop giving bad advice!
>
> Read this:
> http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/insurance/car-insurance/article.html?in_article_id=428713&in_page_id=35
>
> specifically the bit near the bottom.
>
> "But from 2009, the pressure on uninsured drivers will ratchet up a
> notch. An offence of keeping a car without insurance will be created.
> Owners could be fined for having a car with no insurance, even if it is
> parked off the road."
>
> ie at the moment its legal!....
It is not possible to draw that conclusion from the extract you have
quoted - it states that it will become an offence to "keep a car without
insurance". There's no comment about it being on the road, or not.
--
David
Roland Perry
on Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Palindrome <m...@privacy.net> remarked:
>The owner would be prosecuted, 6 points, easy. Responsibility hadn't
>transferred unless the keys had been handed over. Even if the
>prospective purchaser had paid, he clearly would demand and get his
>money back. So the contract hadn't been completed.
If the buyer has paid, and the seller has delivered the car to the
kerbside awaiting collection, then I don't see why the contract is not
yet complete.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Grant <Gr...@Mcleod40.fsnet.co.ku.com> remarked:
>If on the other hand you are covered to driver any vehicle third party
>on a comprehensive policy and you were in the car when it was hit you will
>be covered.
If people claim (as they do) that the contract isn't complete until the
keys are handed over, then the car is question is not covered because
it's still owned by you.
That's one of the many reasons why it's so important to understand who
owned the vehicle at the time of the accident.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Sat, 23 Feb 2008, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> remarked:
>Policies which permit the insured to also drive a
>car not owned by him and not hired to him under a hire purchase
>agreement, often (I hesitate to say "usually") have a clause that
>requires the car in question to have valid insurance in addition to the
>temporary third party cover given under the terms of a comprehensive
>policy.
Straying a little off the original theme here, but these clauses are
being added so that cars impounded by the police for having no
tax/insurance can't be "liberated" by *anyone* with a suitable
comprehensive policy.
The police, in the general public interest I think most people would
agree, would rather see the *owner* go and get a specific policy for
that car; and eventually the insurance companies are taking the same
view (I have no idea why it has taken them so long, as it seems to be
extra business for them - maybe it's unprofitable business but that's a
matter for their actuaries who set the rates!)
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Sat, 23 Feb 2008, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> remarked:
>> he has sold the item. Their emails to me typically begin: 'Congratulations!
>> You've sold your item on eBay. Send an invoice now so that the buyer can
>> arrange to pay you.'
>
>But does that email constitute the sale, or is it payment or is it the
>moment when the keys and documents change hands. I don't know, and so
>far I haven't seen any answer that I could consider authoritative.
Normally, title passes when payment is made. So if this was a
Cash-on-collection sale, maybe the car still belonged to the seller.
>It is also worth noting, although possibly too late for the OP to do
>anything about it, that for a small payment insurers will extend cover
>to two vehicles to permit the owner to drive one car and sell the old
>car. A cover note of this type usually has a short duration, but can be
>renewed if the sale falls through.
I've done this, and never had any problem extending the cover for
several months. It's easy money for the insurance company.
--
Roland Perry
davi...@gmail.com
> If the buyer has paid, and the seller has delivered the car to the
> kerbside awaiting collection, then I don't see why the contract is not
> yet complete.
The OP doesn't say, but I can't imagine a buyer being daft enough to
pay prior to collection.
David
Roland Perry
<25e5a6ea-eb4a-4449...@p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, at
10:45:18 on Sat, 23 Feb 2008, davi...@gmail.com remarked:
>> If the buyer has paid, and the seller has delivered the car to the
>> kerbside awaiting collection, then I don't see why the contract is not
>> yet complete.
>
>The OP doesn't say, but I can't imagine a buyer being daft enough to
>pay prior to collection.
It's fairly common when buying on eBay. Apart from anything else, it may
prevent the seller changing his mind. (Yes, you could sure for "loss of
bargain, but that's an even worse can of worms).
--
Roland Perry
Adrian
were saying:
> Contrary to what the other poster (and the lorry company) said it is NOT
> illegal to have/park an ininsured vehicle on the road, it IS illegal to
> USE the vehicle (see numerous threads in uk.legal in the past). You
> wern't using it!
And see the numerous and regular threads on uk.rec.driving and uk.cars.*
> For all they know, it may have been parked there by a trader with 'trade
> plate insurance' etc etc.
Trade plates don't give an insurance exemption. They give a registration,
MOT and tax exemption. A trader's policy would still need to cover the
vehicle.
But as soon as the trade plates are removed, the exemptions that go with
them are removed.
Adrian
like they were saying:
> In this particular case though, it seems unlikely he would have that
> clause anyhow, since he says the car was worth no more than £500. I
> would never take out comprehensive insurance on a car worth that little.
I would - and have.
The difference in premium is so small, if anything, that it's not worth
worrying about - and the difference in coverage and assistance if a claim
IS needed is worth the small extra.
Grant
"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:kbBoBQKBW$vHF...@perry.co.uk...
would still have been in his name, he was the keeper. The car would be
covered Third party and therefore legally parked on the public highway if
the OP was covered to drive any vehicle and was in it at the time of the
accident.
Grant
"Toom Tabard" <to...@tabard.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:48c21119-af81-4813...@q33g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Being drunk at the wheel (and i don't nessesarily mean driving) is a legal
matter, but insurance companys don't usualy pay out even when then drunk is
not at fault.
>
The fact is the car was hit while illegaly parked on the public highway.
Roland Perry
Sat, 23 Feb 2008, Grant <Gr...@Mcleod40.fsnet.co.ku.com> remarked:
>The owner is clearly the OP as he still had possession of the car
It's not as clear as that, but let's say he was...
>and the V5
>would still have been in his name, he was the keeper.
That's a different matter. Is the law about insurance couched in terms
such that keeper is guilty (rather than the owner) if it's uninsured?
>The car would be covered Third party and therefore legally parked on
>the public highway if the OP was covered to drive any vehicle
...such a provision only covers cars *not* owned by the OP, so if you
insist he was the owner, there's no such cover.
>and was in it at the time of the accident.
It seems he wasn't.
--
Roland Perry
Palindrome
I voiced a similar argument, to my CPS person. He said that, if the
purchaser had insurance in place at the time, then probably nfa.
Otherwise the OP would be called to court and, if he couldn't produce a
policy that covered the vehicle at the time, the prosecution had proven
the case. The OP had the keys. The OP had control of the vehicle. The OP
caused the vehicle to be on the public highway without insurance, or
falied to take adequate steps to ensure that insurance was in place.
Next case.
--
Sue
Toom Tabard
> "Toom Tabard" <t...@tabard.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
It would help if you'd use 'reply' facilities which clear say who is
saying what - I've hand edited the chevrons which I hope will diplay
correctly
What you say is a separate issue of his own insurance. We are talking
about a claim against a third party (or their insurers) If a driver is
driving reasonably and considerately, but is over the limit, then if
he rounds a bend and finds someone recklessly tanking towards him on
his side of the road, then his claim for damage/injury against the
third party (or their insurers) is not affected by the decisions of
his insurers regarding them covering him or his own vehicle. He will
have a valid claim against the third party.
> The fact is the car was hit while illegaly parked on the public highway.
There is no evidence or information that it was illegally parked -
i.e. parked negligently or in an unauthorised place where it was
likely to cause damage. Whether or not it is insured in terms of RTA
is irrelevant in terms of whether the owner can claim against the
third party.
Toom
Palindrome
>> The fact is the car was hit while illegaly parked on the public highway.
>
> There is no evidence or information that it was illegally parked -
> i.e. parked negligently or in an unauthorised place where it was
> likely to cause damage. Whether or not it is insured in terms of RTA
> is irrelevant in terms of whether the owner can claim against the
> third party.
>
Whether or not it is legally parked is also irrelevant.
Drivers are required to be able to stop within their seeing distance. A
vehicle parked illegally or negligently isn't an excuse to go ahead and
hit it. The owner may be prosecuted for obstruction. The vehicle may be
clamped or towed away. But decreasing its width or otherwise reducing
the obstruction using a lorry is not a valid alternative. Unfortunately.
--
Sue
Tim Woodall
Toom Tabard <to...@tabard.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> What you say is a separate issue of his own insurance. We are talking
> about a claim against a third party (or their insurers) If a driver is
> driving reasonably and considerately, but is over the limit, then if
> he rounds a bend and finds someone recklessly tanking towards him on
> his side of the road, then his claim for damage/injury against the
> third party (or their insurers) is not affected by the decisions of
> his insurers regarding them covering him or his own vehicle. He will
> have a valid claim against the third party.
>
if one of the two drivers in a collision is drunk then it is presumed
that the collision would not have happened if they had been sober even
if the sober driver has done something that would otherwise have made
the collision their fault. The sober driver might still be done for
jumping a red light etc, but they won't be liable for the damage to the
drunk party who also had a duty of care to prevent the accident
happening. So there is a distinction here. Hitting a parked uninsured
car is not affected or caused by the lack of insurance. Had the car
been insured it would still have been hit.
Tim.
--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.
Tim Woodall
the vehicle.
When I've bought houses, my solicitor has always been insistent that I
have buildings insurance from the date of exchange[1]. I was told that
even
if the house burns down between exchange and completion I'm still
committed to paying what was agreed. I don't have the keys, I haven't
paid the money and I don't even have the legal right to enter the house.
In the case of a car it's slightly more difficult because the purchaser
could have thought that his car was being kept off road and so didn't
need insurance. The seller could similarly assume that the purchaser
would have insurance from the moment of purchase.
It could make a very interesting test case.
Tim.
[1] If you have a mortgage then it's a requirement of the mortgage and
the solicitor won't exchange until the insurance is in place. If you buy
cash then the solicitor (presumably - not tested it) won't insist but
they strongly recommend it.
Toom Tabard
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 17:40:05 +0000,
> Toom Tabard <t...@tabard.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > What you say is a separate issue of his own insurance. We are talking
> > about a claim against a third party (or their insurers) If a driver is
> > driving reasonably and considerately, but is over the limit, then if
> > he rounds a bend and finds someone recklessly tanking towards him on
> > his side of the road, then his claim for damage/injury against the
> > third party (or their insurers) is not affected by the decisions of
> > his insurers regarding them covering him or his own vehicle. He will
> > have a valid claim against the third party.
>
> I think drunk driving is more complicated than this. In general, I think
> if one of the two drivers in a collision is drunk then it is presumed
> that the collision would not have happened if they had been sober even
> if the sober driver has done something that would otherwise have made
> the collision their fault. The sober driver might still be done for
> jumping a red light etc, but they won't be liable for the damage to the
> drunk party who also had a duty of care to prevent the accident
> happening. So there is a distinction here. Hitting a parked uninsured
> car is not affected or caused by the lack of insurance. Had the car
> been insured it would still have been hit.
>
> Tim.
>
certainly if someone is over the limit they are much more likely to be
involved in an accident and to be the cause of that accident. But, if
they are driving reasonably and considerately within the speed limit
and on the correct side of the road, and they round a bend and are hit
by someone driving recklessly at high speed on the wrong side of the
road, then it would be difficult to blame them for the accident. They
would have a claim for any injury or damage against the third pary who
has been negligent. It might be possible to argue some contributory
negligence if a more prompt reaction by the inebriated driver could
have lessened the impact, but the reckless driver would be mainly or
wholly responsible. How could it be otherwise?
Toom
Adrian
sounding much like they were saying:
> I'm not convinced. The prosecution also have to prove that the OP owned
> the vehicle.
They have to prove he's the keeper.
Which is easy, given that there's a V5C in his name.
Tim Woodall
been time to change the details. And he can point to his ebay auction as
proof that he's sold the car.
I don't think it's clear cut either way.
Tim.
Simon Finnigan
news:slrnfs0o2d....@laptop.home.woodall.me.uk...
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 17:40:05 +0000,
> Toom Tabard <to...@tabard.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> What you say is a separate issue of his own insurance. We are talking
>> about a claim against a third party (or their insurers) If a driver is
>> driving reasonably and considerately, but is over the limit, then if
>> he rounds a bend and finds someone recklessly tanking towards him on
>> his side of the road, then his claim for damage/injury against the
>> third party (or their insurers) is not affected by the decisions of
>> his insurers regarding them covering him or his own vehicle. He will
>> have a valid claim against the third party.
>>
> I think drunk driving is more complicated than this. In general, I think
> if one of the two drivers in a collision is drunk then it is presumed
> that the collision would not have happened if they had been sober even
> if the sober driver has done something that would otherwise have made
> the collision their fault. The sober driver might still be done for
> jumping a red light etc, but they won't be liable for the damage to the
> drunk party who also had a duty of care to prevent the accident
> happening. So there is a distinction here. Hitting a parked uninsured
> car is not affected or caused by the lack of insurance. Had the car
> been insured it would still have been hit.
Your post suggests that if I where sat in a stationary queue of traffic
while being over the drink drive limit, and was rear-ended by a sober
driver, that it would be my fault. Despite the fact that my car is not
moving at all, and the other car drove into the rear of my car. is this
correct?
Palindrome
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 19:05:04 +0000,
> Adrian <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Tim Woodall (Tim Woodall <dev...@woodall.me.uk>) gurgled happily,
>> sounding much like they were saying:
>>
>>> I'm not convinced. The prosecution also have to prove that the OP owned
>>> the vehicle.
>> They have to prove he's the keeper.
>>
>> Which is easy, given that there's a V5C in his name.
>>
> And he merely has to point out that he's sold the car but there hasn't
> been time to change the details. And he can point to his ebay auction as
> proof that he's sold the car.
>
> I don't think it's clear cut either way.
>
is the car registered to, at this moment? The OP, or the "new owner"?
Were it to be otherwise, I could keep my car uninsured on the public
highway, simply by creating a false ebay account every few weeks that
would "buy" it from my auction.
The completion of an ebay auction *may* create an obligation to buy the
item at the agreed price but ownership does not transfer at that point.
The Op was clearly in control of the vehicle and was responsible for it
being on the public highway without insurance.
--
Sue
Tim Woodall
car on a hill in a queue of traffic and commented to his passenger "I
don't trust that car" and left a good gap behind it. Suddenly Bang. A
cloud of black smoke and the car started rolling backwards. The driver
who was suspicious of the dodgy car quickly pulled out of the way (onto
the pavement, into a bus lane, into the opposing lane or something like
that) and the dodgy car rolled back into the car that was behind him.
It's not to say there are never cases where an accident is 100% one
party's fault and the other party can do absolutely nothing to help
avoid it but they are few and far between.
In your example - did you sound the horn when you saw the car going to
hit? Would you have sounded it earlier (or at all) if you'd been sober?
If you were drunk then you're going to have an almost insurmountable
obstacle arguing you didn't have significant contributory negligence.
And no, I'm not saying it's your fault. I'm saying that you will find it
hard to claim for your losses against the other driver.
Steve Firth
> The completion of an ebay auction *may* create an obligation to buy the
> item at the agreed price but ownership does not transfer at that point.
I think more at issue is not ownership, but the status as registered
keeper. When I had a company car, years ago, the car was owned by a
leasing company. However the responsibility for insuring the car was
mine and had I not insured it I would have been the guilty party, not
the owner.
the Omrud
> A story I heard once on the IAM mailinglist. Someone came up behind a
> car on a hill in a queue of traffic and commented to his passenger "I
> don't trust that car" and left a good gap behind it. Suddenly Bang. A
> cloud of black smoke and the car started rolling backwards. The driver
> who was suspicious of the dodgy car quickly pulled out of the way (onto
> the pavement, into a bus lane, into the opposing lane or something like
> that) and the dodgy car rolled back into the car that was behind him.
Mailing list? There's a mailing list?
--
David
Palindrome
have had other things to worry about than being done for not insuring
it.. ;)
Most people that own a particular vehicle tend to be the registered
keeper of the vehicle. Using the two terms interchangeably, when
considering their situation, isn't too much of a risk.
--
Sue
Steve Firth
Yes, but I think your CPS friend is echoing the statement above. That is
the CPS seems to be much more concerned about who was the keeper than
who was the owner. So determining the ownership of the car may well be a
red herring. The OP appears to have been the keeper even if the vehicle
was sold.
Palindrome
He was totally certain that he could get a guilty verdict, no problem.
--
Sue
Alex Heney
wrote:
>Alex Heney wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 18:10:04 +0000, "GB" <NOTso...@microsoft.com>
>> wrote:
>>
<snip>
>> In this particular case though, it seems unlikely he would have that
>> clause anyhow, since he says the car was worth no more than £500. I
>> would never take out comprehensive insurance on a car worth that
>> little.
>>
>>
>Of course you might. If you got a fully comp quote that was cheaper than
>the lowest tp/tpft one. Which can often be the case, at this end of the
>market. Probably because the claims from tpft drivers are greater than
>fully comp, for particular cars and drivers. I guess that your days of
>buying <500GBP are now long gone!
Good point. I'd forgotten that actually happened to us a few years ago
when my daughter was first insuring an old (E reg) micra, and Fully
comp was about £30 cheaper than TPFT.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Pobody's Nerfect!
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Alex Heney
>vokf wrote:
>> I have an old car that I have sold (via ebay.), this was due to be
>> collected tonight (friday)
>> The insurance has been cancelled, but the car does have valid TAX and
>> MOT.
>>
>> Last night, the car was damaged by a lorry, which also went on to hit
>> 3 other cars in the street (which I can assume were insured)
>>
>> The police were in attendance when I arrived, and I have the driver
>> (and his employers) details.
>>
>> Speaking to the delivery company today, they are investigating, but
>> have pointed out that my car was uninsured and this is an offence
>> (which I wasn't aware of - otherwise I would have left it in the
>> drive)
>
>
>Contrary to what the other poster (and the lorry company) said it is NOT
>illegal to have/park an ininsured vehicle on the road, it IS illegal to
>USE the vehicle (see numerous threads in uk.legal in the past).
>You wern't using it!
How on earth can you suggest he see numerous threads on uk.legal as
support for an argument which has been clearly and comprehensively
demolished in each of those numerous threads.
There is not the slightest doubt that it *is* an offence to keep an
uninsured car on the road.
>
>For all they know, it may have been parked there by a trader with 'trade
>plate insurance' etc etc.
>
>And to cap it all, whether you have insurance or not does not refute the
>fact that THEY caused the damage and are liable.
>Tell them you'll sue.
This, of course, is another matter altogether.
Whether he had committed an offence by parking the car without
insurance is utterly irrelevant as to whether the truck driver (or his
company/insurance) is liable for any damage he caused.
And you are quite right that he IS liable.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
My cat is good for nothing, but he's very, very good!
Simon Finnigan
To be fair, from the people I know involved in the IAM, I`d be very wary of
taking their advice too much to heart.
> It's not to say there are never cases where an accident is 100% one
> party's fault and the other party can do absolutely nothing to help
> avoid it but they are few and far between.
>
> In your example - did you sound the horn when you saw the car going to
> hit? Would you have sounded it earlier (or at all) if you'd been sober?
> If you were drunk then you're going to have an almost insurmountable
> obstacle arguing you didn't have significant contributory negligence.
Ok then, a driver slightly over the drink drive limit is performing an
overtake. The vehicle being over taken is driving perfectly normally, no
obvious reason to be any more concerned about the driver than any other
vehicle on the road. The visibility is good, the speed limit is suitably
high and the vehicle being over taken is driving at an appropriate speed to
allow a safe overtake without speeding. As you accelerate past the vehicle
and come level with it the driver suddenly swerves to the right into the
drunk drivers vehicle. The vehicle being over taken is the only car in
sight (and remember, visibility is good), there is no vehicle infront of it
for it to overtake. There is no obstruction/debris on the road, the driver
over the limit can see that (lets say the road is on a slight downhill
angle, giving both drivers good visibility of the road surface and condtions
ahead. There is NO good reason for the vehicle being overtaken to swerve,
but the driver decided to do so anyway, and hit a vehicle being driven by a
driver slightly over the drink drive limit, who is otherwise performing an
effectively perfect overtake. How is that the overtaking drivers fault -
the only way to have prevented the accident would have been to remain behind
the slower movgin vehicle - not making good progress and therefore a poor
driving style.
> And no, I'm not saying it's your fault. I'm saying that you will find it
> hard to claim for your losses against the other driver.
Ok, lets change my initial example. The driver under the influence is
driving along a road. Traffic going the other direction is nose to tail,
nowhere to go there. The pavement is full of pedestrians, no way to go
there. A vehicle pulls out of a road infront of the driver (who is
traveling at an appropriate speed), causing the driver under the influence
to brake quite hard to stop safely, which they do. Not an emergency stop.
The driver behind, who is stone cold sober but not paying attention to the
road, drives straight into the rear of the first vehicle without slowing at
all. Is it still the drunk drivers fault? How can anyone argue that the
drunk driver had a way to prevent the other driver hitting their car?
Grant
the chevrons i find this nearly always happens when replying to google group
users
>
> What you say is a separate issue of his own insurance. We are talking
> about a claim against a third party (or their insurers) If a driver is
> driving reasonably and considerately, but is over the limit, then if
> he rounds a bend and finds someone recklessly tanking towards him on
> his side of the road, then his claim for damage/injury against the
> third party (or their insurers) is not affected by the decisions of
> his insurers regarding them covering him or his own vehicle. He will
> have a valid claim against the third party.
>
reasons of being over the limit had no claim because he should not have been
driving and had he been sober he could have avoided it. It why the police
will always prosecute a drunk drive even if a person commits suicide on his
bonnet.
>> The fact is the car was hit while illegaly parked on the public highway.
>
> There is no evidence or information that it was illegally parked -
> i.e. parked negligently or in an unauthorised place where it was
> likely to cause damage. Whether or not it is insured in terms of RTA
> is irrelevant in terms of whether the owner can claim against the
> third party.
>
uninsured*. It had no right to be where it was. I could even see the lorry
drivers insurance having a claim against the owner of the car.
Grant
There you go no chevrons again!!!
Of all the people that i have known who had been involed in an accident
while over the limit, not one has had a single penny from an insurance
company. And they will often not pay out to the victims of the drunk driver
either as being drunk at the wheel voids their insurance.
Simply put you should not be where you are because you are drunk.
Adrian
much like they were saying:
>> The completion of an ebay auction *may* create an obligation to buy the
Hmmm. I strongly suspect the lease agreement would have contained a
clause requiring you to insure the vehicle, which would have transferred
the onus to you.
Adrian
sounding much like they were saying:
>>> I'm not convinced. The prosecution also have to prove that the OP
>>> owned the vehicle.
>> They have to prove he's the keeper.
>>
>> Which is easy, given that there's a V5C in his name.
> And he merely has to point out that he's sold the car but there hasn't
> been time to change the details.
His legal duty as keeper is to give the green slip to the new keeper,
fill in and send off the remainder to DVLA. That's the point at which the
keeper changes.
> And he can point to his ebay auction as proof that he's sold the car.
Except it isn't. There's a whole stack of circumstances where you can bid
on and win an auction, especially for a used car, and the sale not go
through.
> I don't think it's clear cut either way.
Perhaps. But the evidence is heavily against the sale having gone through.
- The keeper has not been transferred.
- The buyer has not collected the vehicle.
- The buyer has not paid for the vehicle.
At the moment, there is nothing more binding than an agreement to buy in
the future, providing the particulars of sale are adhered to by all
parties.
the Omrud
> Of all the people that i have known who had been involed in an accident
> while over the limit, not one has had a single penny from an insurance
> company. And they will often not pay out to the victims of the drunk driver
> either as being drunk at the wheel voids their insurance.
Are you sure about that?
--
David
Roland Perry
24 Feb 2008, Adrian <tooma...@gmail.com> remarked:
>> And he can point to his ebay auction as proof that he's sold the car.
>
>Except it isn't. There's a whole stack of circumstances where you can bid
>on and win an auction, especially for a used car, and the sale not go
>through.
Although eBay is not "an auction" in the sense you may be suggesting. It
does not have an auctioneer, and according to eBay's rules that both
buyers and sellers agree to, sales are final at the end of the bidding
process.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Sat, 23 Feb 2008, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> remarked:
>I think more at issue is not ownership, but the status as registered
>keeper. When I had a company car, years ago, the car was owned by a
>leasing company.
This reminds me of the potential answer to a policeman asking "excuse me
Sir, is this your car", of "No, it belongs to Ford Motor Credit".
However, the "ownership" in that case is defined by a lease or hire
agreement.
>However the responsibility for insuring the car was mine and had I not
>insured it I would have been the guilty party, not the owner.
We seem to be developing a concept of "user" of a car. Who is "using" a
car in between agreeing to sell it, and the keys being handed over?
--
Roland Perry
Graham Murray
> We seem to be developing a concept of "user" of a car. Who is "using"
> a car in between agreeing to sell it, and the keys being handed over?
Maybe nobody. Not the buyer as he has the authority (by virtue of
ownership) to use it but not the means (he does not have the keys). Not
the seller as he has the means (the keys) but not the authority (no
longer being the owner).
Maybe the same question could be asked of a hire vehicle or one which is
part of a transport pool when the previous user has signed it back in
but it has not yet been signed out.
Roland Perry
24 Feb 2008, Graham Murray <news...@gmurray.org.uk> remarked:
>> We seem to be developing a concept of "user" of a car. Who is "using"
>> a car in between agreeing to sell it, and the keys being handed over?
>
>Maybe nobody. Not the buyer as he has the authority (by virtue of
>ownership) to use it but not the means (he does not have the keys).
Not having the keys doesn't seem to me to be a useful defence as it
would mean that a "normal" owner could escape prosecution for lack of
insurance simply by saying he's lost the keys.
> Not the seller as he has the means (the keys) but not the authority
>(no longer being the owner).
The buyer could ask him to deliver the car, or leave somewhere specific
for collection, but perhaps the seller should only agree to that if the
buyer can demonstrate that there is insurance in place (if the seller is
unwilling to extend his own insurance).
>Maybe the same question could be asked of a hire vehicle or one which is
>part of a transport pool when the previous user has signed it back in
>but it has not yet been signed out.
They are owned by a company that will normally have insurance that
endures between "outings", rather than insurance that has gaps in it.
--
Roland Perry
Toom Tabard
>
>
>
> > "Tim Woodall" <devn...@woodall.me.uk> wrote in message
Why would that be? If an inebriated driver is not at fault then he has
a good claim. Reponsibility to act reasonably and not cause injury to
others is not excused by subsequently finding the other driver is
under the influence of drink or drugs (or has no RTA insurance, road
tax, mot or driver's licence) if these factors play no part in the
occurrence. I can see no difficulty in establishing a full and valid
right to compensation for any damage or injury.
Toom
Toom Tabard
Of course the police will prosecute the drunk driver, since it is
criminal offence. The other aspect is an offence of civil liabilty for
negligence. Sometimes a criminal conviction will be relevent, but if
the circumstances are as I desrcribed and a sober driver would have
had little chance of avoiding injury then the degree of sobriety is
irrelevent and the other driver (or his insurers) would be liable to
pay for damage./injuries.
> > There is no evidence or information that it was illegally parked -
> > i.e. parked negligently or in an unauthorised place where it was
> > likely to cause damage. Whether or not it is insured in terms of RTA
> > is irrelevant in terms of whether the owner can claim against the
> > third party.
>
> The car was illegally parked as it was on the public highway and *was
> uninsured*. It had no right to be where it was. I could even see the lorry
> drivers insurance having a claim against the owner of the car.- Hide quoted text -
>
No that is not the case. Again, the insurance offence is a separate
matter. The other driver has a duty to drive in a manner which does
not cause injury to others or damage to their property. The fact is
that the car was there. That does not allow the other party to damage
it and then avoid liabilty because of subsequent discovery of some
technical offence. If e.g. you drive recklessly and cause serious
injury to another driver, you won't avoid civil liability for your
actions just because the other driver didn't have insurance or car tax
or an MOT.
Toom
Toom Tabard
>
> Of all the people that i have known who had been involed in an accident
> while over the limit, not one has had a single penny from an insurance
> company. And they will often not pay out to the victims of the drunk driver
> either as being drunk at the wheel voids their insurance.
>
>
(Well, I won't sort out all the chevrons to quote the context)
What you say may well be true in the instances known to you. But it
still depends on the circumstances of the accident, so you'd have to
quote these.
And who are 'all the people you know' who have been drunk in
accidents. Do you deal with this professionally and have a significant
sample of these occurrences. Can you give an example of a drunk driver
who was not at fault for the accident whose civil claim was defeated
because of his drink driving conviction following the accident? Can
you quote the principle on which his claim was rejected?
The principle still holds that if you are driving reasonably and
carefully then your right to claim against another driver who causes
you injury or damage by their negligence is not decided by your state
of sobriety. I'm still interested in hearing what principle of
negligence, or what case law, states otherwise
Graham Murray
> Can you cite where you find such a rule with those exact words? It implies
> that sales become final before any payment is made and that seems unlikely.
Could it be similar to the situation of exchange of contracts when
buying/selling property; that the buyer is committed to buy from the
seller and the seller is committed to sell to the buyer and neither can
back out once the 'auction' has ended?
GB
"Palindrome" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:Tn2wj.271376$kw6.1...@fe10.news.easynews.com...
>> The OP appears to have been the keeper even if the vehicle
>> was sold.
>>
> That may easily be the heart of it.
>
> He was totally certain that he could get a guilty verdict, no problem.
I'm slightly confused why having the keys, but no intention of using them as
the car was already sold, makes the OP have control over the vehicle? I
don't see why there should always be a 'keeper' for a motor car.
GB
"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:xTZtDeZe...@perry.co.uk...
>
>
> >and the V5
> >would still have been in his name, he was the keeper.
>
> That's a different matter. Is the law about insurance couched in terms
> such that keeper is guilty (rather than the owner) if it's uninsured?
>
The V5 is a red herring imho. First, there is normally a period between a
change of ownership and the V5 being changed, whilst the forms are in the
Post. Second, more controversially, the OP can send his part of the V5 off
to DVLA saying that the new owner was XXX, who purchased the car at the time
the auction ended and give that date as the change of ownership. I would not
particularly recommend doing that, but it points out that keepership is not
solely defined by what's on the V5.
Roland Perry
24 Feb 2008, Graham Murray <news...@gmurray.org.uk> remarked:
>Could it be similar to the situation of exchange of contracts when
>buying/selling property; that the buyer is committed to buy from the
>seller and the seller is committed to sell to the buyer and neither can
>back out once the 'auction' has ended?
Not sure, because in a "real" auction the sale of property seems to be
final too. Note, this is not intended to suggest (by analogy) that eBay
is either a real auction or not, but there do seem to be many ways that
a contract for sale (even for property) can be final.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Sun, 24 Feb 2008, Anthony R. Gold <not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> remarked:
>> Although eBay is not "an auction" in the sense you may be suggesting. It
>> does not have an auctioneer, and according to eBay's rules that both
>> buyers and sellers agree to, sales are final at the end of the bidding
>> process.
>
>that sales become final before any payment is made and that seems unlikely.
It's a combination of making a binding bid, and yours being the winning
one at the end of the auction):
http://pages.ebay.co.uk/help/policies/buyer-rules-overview.html
"Most of the items on eBay are auction-like listings and each bid is a
binding contract."
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Sun, 24 Feb 2008, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com> remarked:
>I don't see why there should always be a 'keeper' for a motor car.
That's a separate issue, but I can easily believe the law thinks that
every vehicle always has a keeper (until scrapped), with possibly some
let-out for secondhand car dealers.
For example, if such a dealer keeps cars on the public road while "for
sale", and without trade plates on, does he have to insure them
individually. Or is there some sort of "trade" insurance policy that
covers such a situation?
And if there is such a policy, why the need to put trade plates on when
doing a test-drive?
--
Roland Perry
Adrian
much like they were saying:
> For example, if such a dealer keeps cars on the public road while "for
> sale", and without trade plates on, does he have to insure them
> individually. Or is there some sort of "trade" insurance policy that
> covers such a situation?
Yes.
Most people in the motor trade - garages as well as retail sales - will
have a trade policy which fully covers named employees to use any vehicle
for business purposes. Somebody selling cars may have test-drive cover
for any potential customer, too.
> And if there is such a policy, why the need to put trade plates on when
> doing a test-drive?
Because trade plates excuse you from the need for an MOT and current tax
disc, not insurance. They would also cover new unregistered vehicles, for
example during PDIs or transfer between dealers.
Roland Perry
>implication that title has already passed - indeed the implication that a
>new contract has been created to pass the title suggests the very opposite.
What is this "new contract" of which you speak?
--
Roland Perry
Blah
> Blah wrote:
>> Adrian wrote:
>>> David Hearn (David Hearn <da...@NOswampieSPAM.org.uk>) gurgled happily,
>>
>>> Any vehicle on the public road at any time MUST be covered by valid
>>> insurance, tax, MOT (if applicable). It's that simple. Whether you're
>>> driving, sat in it with the engine running, or it's locked and
>>> unattended for weeks on end.
>>
>> Its NOT illegal to keep an uninsured car on the road!
>
> I'm sure it is.
>
>> Just illegal to drive one.
> >
>> Stop giving bad advice!
>>
>> Read this:
>> http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/insurance/car-insurance/article.html?in_article_id=428713&in_page_id=35
>>
>> specifically the bit near the bottom.
>>
>> "But from 2009, the pressure on uninsured drivers will ratchet up a
>> notch. An offence of keeping a car without insurance will be created.
>> Owners could be fined for having a car with no insurance, even if it
>> is parked off the road."
>>
>> ie at the moment its legal!....
>
> It is not possible to draw that conclusion from the extract you have
> quoted - it states that it will become an offence to "keep a car without
> insurance". There's no comment about it being on the road, or not.
>
Which bit of "having a car with no insurance, even if it is parked off
the road." doesn't mention the road then?
Blah
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 15:05:04 +0000, Blah <bi...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>> Adrian wrote:
>>> David Hearn (David Hearn <da...@NOswampieSPAM.org.uk>) gurgled happily,
>>> Any vehicle on the public road at any time MUST be covered by valid
>>> insurance, tax, MOT (if applicable). It's that simple. Whether you're
>>> driving, sat in it with the engine running, or it's locked and unattended
>>> for weeks on end.
>>>
>> Stop giving bad advice!
>>
>> Read this:
>> http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/insurance/car-insurance/article.html?in_article_id=428713&in_page_id=35
>>
>> specifically the bit near the bottom.
>>
>> "But from 2009, the pressure on uninsured drivers will ratchet up a
>> notch. An offence of keeping a car without insurance will be created.
>> Owners could be fined for having a car with no insurance, even if it is
>> parked off the road."
>>
>> ie at the moment its legal!....
>
> would be wrong.
>
> http://www.desktoplawyer.co.uk/dt/browse/law/index.cfm?fs=lga&sid=75993&aid=35055#link6
> http://www.dayinsure.com/news/elementsofdrivingwithoutinsurance.htm
>
> etc.
>
> Tony
>
So every used car sealer that parks a car in the street , then moves his
tradeplates across to another car to back that one into the lot , has
committed an offence?
Blah
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 13:45:10 +0000, Blah <bi...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>> vokf wrote:
>>> I have an old car that I have sold (via ebay.), this was due to be
>>> collected tonight (friday)
>>> The insurance has been cancelled, but the car does have valid TAX and
>>> MOT.
>>>
>>> Last night, the car was damaged by a lorry, which also went on to hit
>>> 3 other cars in the street (which I can assume were insured)
>>>
>>> The police were in attendance when I arrived, and I have the driver
>>> (and his employers) details.
>>>
>>> Speaking to the delivery company today, they are investigating, but
>>> have pointed out that my car was uninsured and this is an offence
>>> (which I wasn't aware of - otherwise I would have left it in the
>>> drive)
>>
>> Contrary to what the other poster (and the lorry company) said it is NOT
>> illegal to have/park an ininsured vehicle on the road, it IS illegal to
>> USE the vehicle (see numerous threads in uk.legal in the past).
>> You wern't using it!
>
> How on earth can you suggest he see numerous threads on uk.legal as
> support for an argument which has been clearly and comprehensively
> demolished in each of those numerous threads.
>
> There is not the slightest doubt that it *is* an offence to keep an
> uninsured car on the road.
Give me ONE cite for someone being succesfully prosecuted for no
insurance (but having full tax/mot) having the car parked up on the
street. Every case you'll find will involve the motorist being accused
of recently having transported the car to is positioned uninsured.
Just about every motorist in Britain will have had an example of
insurance renewals, transfer etc causes a car to be out of insurance
even if very briefly - you saying they all were guilty of offence?
>
>
>> For all they know, it may have been parked there by a trader with 'trade
>> plate insurance' etc etc.
>>
>> And to cap it all, whether you have insurance or not does not refute the
>> fact that THEY caused the damage and are liable.
>> Tell them you'll sue.
>
> This, of course, is another matter altogether.
>
> Whether he had committed an offence by parking the car without
> insurance is utterly irrelevant as to whether the truck driver (or his
> company/insurance) is liable for any damage he caused.
>
> And you are quite right that he IS liable.
Adrian
they were saying:
> I'm slightly confused why having the keys, but no intention of using
> them as the car was already sold, makes the OP have control over the
> vehicle?
Who else "has control"?
> I don't see why there should always be a 'keeper' for a motor car.
There isn't always. There's many cars where the registration record is
out of date or plain fabricated. Usually, they're driven by unlicenced
scrotes.
If nobody's responsible for a vehicle, it's essentially abandoned.
Adrian
were saying:
> Just about every motorist in Britain will have had an example of
> insurance renewals, transfer etc causes a car to be out of insurance
> even if very briefly - you saying they all were guilty of offence?
Unless the car was off the road at all times whilst uninsured, yes.
Adrian
were saying:
> So every used car sealer that parks a car in the street , then moves his
> tradeplates across to another car to back that one into the lot , has
> committed an offence?
Perhaps.
The car will be covered by his trade insurance, but it may not be MOTd or
taxed - both of which would be offences whilst the car was on the road.
Roland Perry
>>>> binding contract."
>>>
>>> Binding contract seems far more sensible that "final sale" and also has no
>>> implication that title has already passed - indeed the implication that a
>>> new contract has been created to pass the title suggests the very opposite.
>>
>> What is this "new contract" of which you speak?
>
At the time you bid, you make a contract that says: "If I'm the highest
bidder at the end of the auction, I will pay you for the item".
At the end of the auction, the highest paying of these contracts of sale
is the successful one.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
>> bidder at the end of the auction, I will pay you for the item".
>
>me. It's a contract of two parties, with each having mutual obligations.
What process does the (car) seller have to do to transfer title?
--
Roland Perry
GB
"Adrian" <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fpru9q$hoc$4...@registered.motzarella.org...
> I'm slightly confused why having the keys, but no intention of using
> them as the car was already sold, makes the OP have control over the
> vehicle?
Who else "has control"?
------------------------------
So, you are going on the assumption that somebody has to have control,
therefore it's the OP, as he most nearly has control.
the Omrud
OK, the road is mentioned at the end, but only in terms of what the
offence will be in the future. The extract makes no statement about
what the current law may be.
Can you explain how the extract relates to keeping a car on the road,
without insurance, today?
--
David
the Omrud
I'm always extremely careful to ensure that there is no gap in
insurance, even if I have to pay for an extra day, and even though the
car is off the road overnight.
Until very recently, the police had no easy way of establishing whether
a parked car had any insurance, espeically if they could not find the
owner or keeper, and so they were not likely to be aware of a car being
uninsured.
I bet there are more such prosecutions now that they have access to the
insurance database.
--
David