Pete you are either are confusing the issue or failing to comprehend the point about MCE chasing the previous owner of the bike for the money If you think that that is fair and equitable by all means carry on with that logic in your argument because you have completely failed to convince me that that is a fair or a reasonable position.
Pete I never advocated giving the insurance companies more get outs. What I advocated was if a policy is no longer valid then the policy is at an end. However the real point is the insurance company chasing the previous owner to recover what it paid out. You however appear to advocate that the insurance company chasing the previous owner is a fair and reasonable thing to do and on that point I will never agree.
i have to agree, it's bollox. it does pose the question tho what if you lend your bike to a mate he crashes it, do you say he bought it?
The point you made is 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." That is what you have said you are advocating, in pretty clear terms. I have pointed out, as clearly as I can, that your proposal if implemented would be unfair and unreasonable. It would let insurance companies escape from their obligations, and leave injured people uncompensated in certain cases. The question of MCE chasing the previous owner of a bike for the money is a different matter entirely - I have said nothing whatever about it.
Pete that is another argument Since you have introduced that argument then yes the injured party should go after the owner of the bike or the party that caused the accident. This party was uninsured so that party should be personally liable. If the insurance for what ever reason has to pay up then the insurance should be recovering the money from the party that caused the accident. That is my point If you disagree with this and have a lengthly word intensive rationale as to why this viewpoint is not rational then I am happy to and will enjoy reading it.
do insurance company's not always ask are you the registered keeper? when does the vehicle stop being yours?
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't there a scheme that you can claim off if you are hit by an uninsured driver Maybe I dreamt it!
The insurance company entered into a contract to insure a specific motorcycle being ridden by a specific rider. It did not enter into a contract to insure that motorcycle being ridden by somebody else.
Thanks Pete It only covers if the vehicle has no insurance, I see. "This scheme deals with compensation claims arising out of accidents caused or contributed to by an uninsured driver. Where it is shown that no policy of insurance exists covering the responsible party’s vehicle, the MIB will consider dealing with a claim for compensation from the “victim”. "
I've always understood that the Registered Keeper does not have to be the legal owner, although it usually will be. The vehicle stops being yours when you take the money, hand over the keys, and exchange receipts I think. The registered keeper presumably changes at the time that DVLA actually process the paperwork. What baffles me about this insurance case if that even though old "Road Traffic Act" legislation does create situations (recently discussed) where an insurance company had to pay out 3rd party, but can then come after the policy holder to get the money back (as case in point would be, depending on the policy, your crashing when over the legal alcohol limit), how in a case like this could it apply? When I insure a cehicle it is always for specific named drivers, and I have always assumed that cover would not apply if I were to let someone else drive, who is not a listed driver. I know that in other countries one may "insure the vehicle for anyone to drive" but that is not what I think I am buying when I take out a policy. Of course there is the other side of a policy, which is where another person can drive your vehicle on the basis that their own policy (on another vehicle) gives them the necessary 3rd party cover, if they have your permission to drive. But that's not relevant in this case (although I'll bet the purchaser said to the seller that he was insured in some way, when he bought the bike, unless he took it on a trailer). Perhaps we should all look more closely at the small print on our policies - maybe they do say something to the effect of "anyone, even someone who is not a named driver, will be covered by the policy you hold on this bike, if you give them permission to drive, but the cover may be limited to 3rd party claims, and even though we will pay out, we will hold the policyholder liable if we have to pay out for someone who was not a named driver..." ? In this unfortunate case under discussion, it does appear that the policy was still in effect for that bike, for the original owner at least (i.e. not cancelled) and that the rider had implicitly been "given permission".
What on earth could you mean by that? The case we are discussing is where an insurance policy is still valid and in force: that is, it has not been cancelled, nor transferred to another vehicle, and the vehicle in question is not covered by any other policy. What you have advocated is such a valid policy being automatically cancelled in some way, presumably by a legal provision. This would indeed give the insurance company a get-out they do not currently have, and that is what you are advocating. If you are now saying otherwise, then what exactly are you now advocating please?
yes he is a very clever wordsmith arguing technical points instead of the topic at hand bottom line is MCE has taken a totally unreasonable position and if that is how the law is then the law is a complete nonsense and needs changing because it is neither fair nor reasonable in this instance
If the policy is still valid as you advocate, please explain what equitable interest does the policy holder have in a vehicle that they no longer own? And if they no longer have an equitable interest then how can they have a valid insurance contract as there is no insurable interest.
