oh yeah? Scots biker in insurance hell after legal loophole forces him to pay thousands for death crash on his old bike - Daily Record
had been trying to ring the DVLA for the last 4 days as i forgot to tax the bike when i got the reminder early last month (was due 31st of march) but as i was working away and didnt have the log book or reminder on me i couldnt do so.. bit of a shit system, surely just the reg number and my details as the registered keeper would do? it goes without saying that all attempts to talk to a human were fruitless... kept getting "we are experiencing an unusual amount of calls please try again later" no option to hold or a call back system.. probably 20 odd calls made over 4 days at various times... Very fing annoying... only good bit is that when i got home today and logged in to pay it, it appears the is no penalty owing and as i payed via direct debit it dosnt come out my bank till the 21st.. Result as i may need that doe to get rat arsed tonight
Well fook my old boots.......i cant believe they would leave themselves open to this without some sort of recourse on the previous owner.... RTA sec 151 2)Subsection (1) above applies to judgments relating to a liability with respect to any matter where liability with respect to that matter is required to be covered by a policy of insurance under section 145 of this Act and either— (a)it is a liability covered by the terms of the policy or security to which the certificate relates, and the judgment is obtained against any person who is insured by the policy or whose liability is covered by the security, as the case may be, or (b)it is a liability, other than an excluded liability, which would be so covered if the policy insured all persons or, as the case may be, the security covered the liability of all persons, and the judgment is obtained against any person other than one who is insured by the policy or, as the case may be, whose liability is covered by the security.
Probably because they were on the phone to me - I've rung and spoken to a human twice this week and about 6 times over the last month I'm finally sorted so you should be ok if you call then tomorrow morning
typical... one way or another a woman is always the source of my problems.. hope you had a good ole chin wag too :smile:
That makes absolutely no sense at all to the average GCSE-grade human in this country. I've read it 3 times, and I've got an A-level. You read that and your eyes just glaze over, no normal person is going to bother with it. Then you coppers have got them over a barrel, right..?
Get yer laughing gear around all of it then..... Road Traffic Act 1988 1988 c. 52 Part VI Compulsory insurance or security against third-party risks Section 151 Changes to legislation: There are outstanding changes not yet made by the legislation.gov.uk editorial team to Road Traffic Act 1988. Any changes that have already been made by the team appear in the content and are referenced with annotations. View outstanding changesstatus warnings 151Duty of insurers or persons giving security to satisfy judgment against persons insured or secured against third-party risks. (1)This section applies where, after a certificate of insurance or certificate of security has been delivered under section 147 of this Act to the person by whom a policy has been effected or to whom a security has been given, a judgment to which this subsection applies is obtained. (2)Subsection (1) above applies to judgments relating to a liability with respect to any matter where liability with respect to that matter is required to be covered by a policy of insurance under section 145 of this Act and either— (a)it is a liability covered by the terms of the policy or security to which the certificate relates, and the judgment is obtained against any person who is insured by the policy or whose liability is covered by the security, as the case may be, or (b)it is a liability, other than an excluded liability, which would be so covered if the policy insured all persons or, as the case may be, the security covered the liability of all persons, and the judgment is obtained against any person other than one who is insured by the policy or, as the case may be, whose liability is covered by the security. (3)In deciding for the purposes of subsection (2) above whether a liability is or would be covered by the terms of a policy or security, so much of the policy or security as purports to restrict, as the case may be, the insurance of the persons insured by the policy or the operation of the security by reference to the holding by the driver of the vehicle of a licence authorising him to drive it shall be treated as of no effect. (4)In subsection (2)(b) above “excluded liability” means a liability in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, or damage to the property of any person who, at the time of the use which gave rise to the liability, was allowing himself to be carried in or upon the vehicle and knew or had reason to believe that the vehicle had been stolen or unlawfully taken, not being a person who— (a)did not know and had no reason to believe that the vehicle had been stolen or unlawfully taken until after the commencement of his journey, and (b)could not reasonably have been expected to have alighted from the vehicle. In this subsection the reference to a person being carried in or upon a vehicle includes a reference to a person entering or getting on to, or alighting from, the vehicle. (5)Notwithstanding that the insurer may be entitled to avoid or cancel, or may have avoided or cancelled, the policy or security, he must, subject to the provisions of this section, pay to the persons entitled to the benefit of the judgment— (a)as regards liability in respect of death or bodily injury, any sum payable under the judgment in respect of the liability, together with any sum which, by virtue of any enactment relating to interest on judgments, is payable in respect of interest on that sum, (b)as regards liability in respect of damage to property, any sum required to be paid under subsection (6) below, and (c)any amount payable in respect of costs. (6)This subsection requires— F1£1,000,000] , the payment of any sum payable under the judgment in respect of the liability, together with any sum which, by virtue of any enactment relating to interest on judgments, is payable in respect of interest on that sum, F1£1,000,000] , the payment of either— F1£1,000,000] bears to that total, together with the same proportion of any sum which, by virtue of any enactment relating to interest on judgments, is payable in respect of interest on that sum, or F1£1,000,000] , together with such proportion of any sum which, by virtue of any enactment relating to interest on judgments, is payable in respect of interest on any sum payable under the judgment in respect of the liability as the difference bears to that sum, whichever is the less, unless not less than [F1£1,000,000] has already been paid under the policy or security in respect of such damage (in which case nothing is payable). (7)Where an insurer becomes liable under this section to pay an amount in respect of a liability of a person who is insured by a policy or whose liability is covered by a security, he is entitled to recover from that person— (a)that amount, in a case where he became liable to pay it by virtue only of subsection (3) above, or (b)in a case where that amount exceeds the amount for which he would, apart from the provisions of this section, be liable under the policy or security in respect of that liability, the excess. (8)Where an insurer becomes liable under this section to pay an amount in respect of a liability of a person who is not insured by a policy or whose liability is not covered by a security, he is entitled to recover the amount from that person or from any person who— (a)is insured by the policy, or whose liability is covered by the security, by the terms of which the liability would be covered if the policy insured all persons or, as the case may be, the security covered the liability of all persons, and (b)caused or permitted the use of the vehicle which gave rise to the liability. (9)In this section— (a)“insurer” includes a person giving a security, F2(b). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (c)“liability covered by the terms of the policy or security” means a liability which is covered by the policy or security or which would be so covered but for the fact that the insurer is entitled to avoid or cancel, or has avoided or cancelled, the policy or security. (10)In the application of this section to Scotland, the words “by virtue of any enactment relating to interest on judgments” in subsections (5) and (6) (in each place where they appear) shall be omitted.
Given that cops enforce laws surely they must have to be able to understand em.. with this in mind perhaps you could explain it all in layman's terms
There you go..... Ignorantia juris non excusat From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This article possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (February 2012) Ignorantia juris non excusat or ignorantia legis neminem excusat (Latin for "ignorance of the law does not excuse" or "ignorance of the law excuses no one") is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liabilityfor violating that law merely because he or she was unaware of its content. European-law countries with a tradition of Roman law may also use an expression from Aristotle translated into Latin: nemo censetur ignorare legem (nobody is thought to be ignorant of the law) or ignorantia iuris nocet (not knowing the law is harmful). Contents [hide] 1 Explanation 2 Translation 3 Into law 4 See also 5 References Explanation[edit] The rationale of the doctrine is that if ignorance were an excuse, a person charged with criminal offenses or a subject of a civil lawsuit would merely claim that he or she is unaware of the law in question to avoid liability, even if that person really does know what the law in question is. Thus, the law imputes knowledge of all laws to all persons within the jurisdiction no matter how transiently. Even though it would be impossible, even for someone with substantial legal training, to be aware of every law in operation in every aspect of a state's activities, this is the price paid to ensure that willful blindness cannot become the basis of exculpation. Thus, it is well settled that persons engaged in any undertakings outside what is common for a normal person, such as running a nuclear power plant, will make themselves aware of the laws necessary to engage in that undertaking. If they do not, they cannot complain if they incur liability. The doctrine assumes that the law in question has been properly published and distributed, for example, by being printed in a government gazette, made available over the internet, or printed in volumes available for sale to the public at affordable prices. In the criminal law, although ignorance may not clear a defendant of guilt, it can be a consideration in sentencing, particularly where the law is unclear or the defendant sought advice from law enforcement or regulatory officials. For example, in one Canadian case, a person was charged with being in possession of gambling devices after they had been advised by customs officials that it was legal to import such devices into Canada.[citation needed] Although the defendant was convicted, the sentence was an absolute discharge. In addition, there were, particularly in the days before satellite communication and cellular phones, persons who could genuinely be ignorant of the law due to distance or isolation. For example, in a case in British Columbia, a pair of hunters were acquitted of game offenses where the law was changed during the period they were in the wilderness hunting.[citation needed] In reaching this decision, the court refused to follow an early English law case in which a seaman on a clipper before the invention of radio was convicted even though the law had been changed while he was at sea (Bailey (1800) Russ & Ry 1). An alternate explanation of the origin of the maxim, though not particularly relevant to the modern context, can be found with the philosophy of the Greeks and Romans. These were cultures heavily influenced by customary legal systems. Within such a system, law is learned as a person participates in the culture and customs of the community. Thus it is unreasonable to believe a person could have avoided learning them. These rules and customs were also interwoven with ethical and religious dialog so that laws expressed what is right and good and deviation that which is not. We find that Cicero wrote the following in De re publica (On the Republic): "There is a true law, right reason, agreeable to nature, known to all men, constant and eternal, which calls to duty by its precepts, deters from evil by its prohibition. This law cannot be departed from without guilt. Nor is there one law at Rome and another at Athens, one thing now and another afterward; but the same law, unchanging and eternal, binds all races of man and all times." Plato wrote similarly in Minos: "What’s right is right and what’s wrong is wrong. And isn’t this believed by everyone ... even among the Persians, and always? ... What is fine, no doubt, is everywhere legislated as fine, and what is shameful as shameful; but not the shameful as fine or the fine as shameful." An unintended consequence of believing in the legal maxim gives everyone lawyer status by proxy whether or not they have any knowledge of law, hence the parody, "Everything about law I learned from one legal maxim".[citation needed]
big can of worms that... if only i had the energy (or thought i could change things) i could argue for days.. i'll settle for trying my best to abide by the the laws i know and understand and getting really pissed off about the ones that i dont and the stupid shit that makes no sense..
