Indeed. The chap in question sold a bike but failed to notify his insurance company of that fact. Nor did he transfer the insurance to another vehicle, nor did he cancel it. So the insurance continued in force. The new buyer did not obtain any valid insurance on the bike, so the old insurance was the only policy in force on that bike. Then there was a serious accident resulting in a major claim. The insurance company was legally obliged to meet the claim, which it therefore did. It turned out the chap who had sold the bike had violated terms of his insurance, so the insurance company was entitled to seek reimbursement from him. The result was that the chap was left owing a large sum of money (which could have been even larger). It's a bit misleading to call this a 'legal loophole'. The moral is: if you fail to keep your insurance in good order and promptly, it is at your peril.
All of this raises a question. If you fail to inform the insurer of a material fact that affects the terms of your insurance, such as having fitted an after-market exhaust, they might be able to wriggle out of having to pay out in respect of a claim. However, if you fail to tell the insurer a mere tiny detail - say, that you have sold on the bike, and no longer ride or even own it - the insurer may still be liable. So, on to the question: Wha-a-a-ah-t?
would it be fair to say, it's one thing knowing the law to the letter but following or indeed enforcing the law to the letter.?
Whats so fooking difficult to understand that the Law is not written by the Police..they are nearly the political tool that try to convey the message...
A bit muddled here. Let's try to comb out some of the strands. First, theft. The part of your insurance policy which covers your bike against theft is purely a contract between you and the insurer. If the bike gets stolen and you claim its value from the insurer, it pays out. Unless it is discovered that you lied about or failed to disclose some fact relevant to the risk of theft, in which case the insurer may refuse to pay out. You could still sue the insurer, in which case ultimately a court will decide whether the insurer must pay or not. If you really have lied seriously, the answer will be no. Second, third-party claims. This part of your policy covers claims by other people against you for damage to property or personal injuries which were (allegedly) your fault or partly your fault. If there is an insurance policy in force on your vehicle at the time, the insurance company is legally obliged to pay out valid claim; it does not have the option of refusing to pay, even if (for example) you have lied to it. However, after it has been forced to pay out to the third-party claimant, it may still be able to claim the money back from you. If you have lied about or failed to disclose some fact relevant to the risk of collision, the insurer may ask you for reimbursement of their pay-out, even if it is a large sum. If you don't agree or don't pay, it could sue you and again ultimately a court would decide whether you have to pay. If you have failed to inform the insurer about some trivial matter, wholly irrelevant to the risk the insurer is assuming, that would not justify it repudiating a claim. Although it might try it on, and there is scope for argument about how trivial is trivial.
Useful clarification there, Peter. However, there was nothing muddled but my post, it was merely incomplete and begging to to be expanded upon, which you have kindly done. Nevertheless, you mustn't confuse the ongoing muddle in your mind with a more general, objective muddlement - the two things exist quite independently of each other, I can assure you.
Now, if andyb had explained his post in a similar way I'd actually know what the hell you were all on about...
Andy is good at explaining stuff. He'll say something like, "You're nicked, son" and you'll ask, "What's the charge?" and he'll reply, "On the charge of being nicked". Crystal!
This may be true in certain circumstances, but not all, or perhaps the rules have changed. In correcting my oversight, outlined in the first post, I SORNed the bike in question (MS1100). I then thought I'd better SORN a Guzzi I bought last year, (also in the garage, being worked on for Spa action in July) that I had neither taxed, nor SORNed. In filling out the online form, I was notified that the Guzzi hadn't been road taxed since 1997 but was now duly SORNed, the SORN confirmation arrived by email a few minutes later. Regardless of the above, I concur there is no need to SORN vehicles that have not been taxed since 31 Jan '98 - with hindsight, I'd check the last tax event, prior to SORNing
Dread to think what'll happen if i ever try to tax my track bike. I've never taxed it, it's been track only for over 10 years and never had a letter about it.
