just reading a wee thread there on D.U.N. originally on visor down regarding an uninsured and banned rider being killed in an accident. the previous owners insurance is liable but because the previous owner effectively gave permission (in the eyes of the law) to ride the bike with out insurance, his insurance is void and is currently being taken to the cleaners to recoup the costs. :Wtf::Wtf:
story is doing the rounds of face ache principle is that the new owner is uninsured but as the previous owners still had the bike insured so mce his insurance company is liable and now they are going after the previous owner to recoup their costs if story is true then the law is a complete joke that needs to be sorted out
Biker may be forced to pay thousands after banned new owner has fatal crash - Motorcycle news : General news - Visordown
Fife man faces crippling costs after motorbike he sold was involved in fatal accident - Fife / Local / News / The Courier
Doesn't sound like a joke to me. Perhaps you would care to clarify what you mean by "sorted out"? If there is an insurance policy in force on a vehicle which has not been cancelled or transferred, and there is no other insurance policy on that vehicle, then the policy is in effect. What's to "sort out"?
Pete I think the issue is that MCE are going back to the insured to claim back the monies. Clearly there was no intention of fraud or wrong doing on the part of the seller. Most people wouldn't bother cancelling the insurance on a policy that was due to run out shortly. It would reduce the no-claims bonus by one year and would probably result in additional charges. To me this is MCE being way too sharp....I would see the ombudsman about this.
Quite simply if somebody has sold a vehicle then the policy that they held on that vehicle should automatically be invalid as they have no equitable interest in that vehicle. Many policies are also for named drivers / riders and are also invalid if somebody else is in charge of that vehicle. This is an archaic law that stitches people up, its far from equitable fair and serves no logic whatsoever except to allow insurance companies to recover losses from hapless people who for what ever reason did not cancel a policy when they sold a vehicle. However Pete in the interests of informed discussion I would love to hear the rationale / justice behind making a person who sold a vehicle personally liable for actions of somebody else breaking the law, because it is this injustice that needs to be sorted out.
JUST remember it's MCE Insurance....keep spreading the word and DON'T renew or buy new insurance with them. If everyone did this or even 5% they'd change their actions in this case immediately.
Here's the scenario: you are travelling along when another vehicle causes you to suffer injury or damage. You make a third party claim against an insurance policy which is in effect on that vehicle, and the insurance company pays you out. This is the present situation - which you describe as "... an archaic law that stitches people up, its far from equitable fair and serves no logic whatsoever ...". You advocate changing to a system in which the insurance (without having been cancelled or transferred) is "... automatically invalid". Thus presumably the person who has suffered injury cannot claim, and must go uncompensated. Is that really what you intend? It seems to me that what you advocate is a good deal less fair and equitable than the present arrangement, as far as the injured person is concerned.
i sell you a car, you don't insure it there for i should be held liable?. there is the reason for new tax law.
Surely the policy was invalid, as he was no longer the legal owner. I assume that a court has determined that MCE must pay, therefore they are chasing him using a breach of contract clause as he failed to inform them of the change of status of ownership? I'm sure they tried the insurance is invalid at the beginning.
So if i was caught driving without insurance , but insurance is held on that vehicle by someone else then thats an active policy? Id guess not, and id be expecting 6 points and fine.
Absolutely right. We can safely assume the insurance company would try to get out of paying anything at all if possible. They might try to argue the insurance policy was void, or had been voided, or had never been valid, etc etc. But the law is pretty strict at pinning the obligation to pay on the insurance company for third party claims. I would oppose any move to give insurance companies any more get-outs than they have already - which is what our friend Mr Oaff seems to be advocating.
You're confusing two different issues. Whether the vehicle is insured to be on the public highway is one thing; whether that insurance covers you to drive it is another thing.
Pete's partially right yet wrong too and just being argumentative - clearly needs some middle ground between the two arguments.
