From Honset John / Telegraph Motoring, 11th June 2011.

[markjay]

Sand and deliver

My nephew had his car damaged by a Middle Eastern Gentleman driving a McClaren Mercedes. The incident happened on a Saturday afternoon outside Harrods in Knightsbridge. The MIG reversed into my nephew’s Audi, clipping the wing as my nephew drove past. My nephew stopped, and the MIG left the car and walked into Harrods. The MIG’s flunky was left to deal with my nephew. When my nephew asked for insurance details he was told the MIG does not have car insurance, but he has his own insurance. My nephew was given the address of Coutts Bank and a man’s name to send the car repair bill to. My nephew reported the matter to the police and was told by a senior police officer, that the MIG had in fact posted a bond with Lloyd's of London and was not required to hold conventional motor insurance. The police officer said it was common for very rich foreigners to do this. Have you ever heard of such a thing before? My nephew send a estimate to the bank, as instructed, and the next day a motor cycle courier delivered a package containing the money quoted in the estimate, to my nephew’s home in Surrey.
BA, Ockley


Interesting story, with a happy ending. He got paid, and didn't have to involve insurance and therefore won't see his premium rise next year (insurance now rises for any claim regardless of blame). Apparently the cars of footballers of a certain team are owned by overseas companies and somehow insured by an overseas company for the footballers use in the UK. Any camera violation or any when they are not actually stopped (and how do the police stop a 190mph car?) goes to the overseas company and the footballer gets no points.

 

[Mercsys]

So it is one rule for us and one for the wealthy!!!
And I thought this was England.

 

[Deleted member 37751]

So it is one rule for us and one for the wealthy!!!
And I thought this was England.

It is England.

Hence the 'one rule for us & another rule for them'

 

[Charles Morgan]

Lloyds of London last time I looked was a major underwriter of car insurance. Coutts is a registered insurance broker.

As I discovered recently getting car insurance from normal companies for foreign drivers is extremely difficult. So the driver is insured through Lloyds of London (like numerous others) and pays up when a claim is made. By what thought process can that be considered not possessing motor insurance?

 

[Peter DLM]

If you can demonstrate holdings of £25m (figure may have changed in the last 10 years, pending on Gov's minimum Insurance liability) then you can insure yourself by way of a Surety Bond.

 

[MOCAŠ]

It is England.

Hence the 'one rule for us & another rule for them'

No, the rules are the same for all: you either take out an insurance policy or post a surety of £500,000. AFAIK, this has been the case since the introduction of mandatory motor insurance, and it is only quite recently that the value of the required surety was increased from (I think) £15,000.

 

[grober]

Sand and deliver

My nephew had his car damaged by a Middle Eastern Gentleman driving a McClaren Mercedes. The incident happened on a Saturday afternoon outside Harrods in Knightsbridge. The MIG reversed into my nephew’s Audi, clipping the wing as my nephew drove past. My nephew stopped, and the MIG left the car and walked into Harrods. The MIG’s flunky was left to deal with my nephew. When my nephew asked for insurance details he was told the MIG does not have car insurance, but he has his own insurance. My nephew was given the address of Coutts Bank and a man’s name to send the car repair bill to. My nephew reported the matter to the police and was told by a senior police officer, that the MIG had in fact posted a bond with Lloyd's of London and was not required to hold conventional motor insurance. The police officer said it was common for very rich foreigners to do this. Have you ever heard of such a thing before? My nephew send a estimate to the bank, as instructed, and the next day a motor cycle courier delivered a package containing the money quoted in the estimate, to my nephew’s home in Surrey.
BA, Ockley


Interesting story, with a happy ending. He got paid, and didn't have to involve insurance and therefore won't see his premium rise next year (insurance now rises for any claim regardless of blame). Apparently the cars of footballers of a certain team are owned by overseas companies and somehow insured by an overseas company for the footballers use in the UK. Any camera violation or any when they are not actually stopped (and how do the police stop a 190mph car?) goes to the overseas company and the footballer gets no points.

While I can believe the insurance arrangement bit I cannot see how that would exempt any driver from prosecution for an offence under the road traffic act. [ exception to this might be diplomatic immunity ] . Because the cars are foreign owned there might be difficulty in identifying the actual driver if the company refused to co-operate. I could also imagine that occasional speeding infringements might be "given the nod" because of this, but one would hope any serious incident involving personal injury to a third party would be pursued with a degree of vigour.

 

[Peter DLM]

No, the rules are the same for all: you either take out an insurance policy or post a surety of £500,000. AFAIK, this has been the case since the introduction of mandatory motor insurance, and it is only quite recently that the value of the required surety was increased from (I think) £15,000.

Only 500k? Ok, I was miles out then, not sure where I got the impression it was so much more

 

[MOCAŠ]

Only 500k? Ok, I was miles out then, not sure where I got the impression it was so much more

Posted from memory - trying to find corroboration.

EDIT:

This was the amendment that raised it from £15,000 to £500,000 in the 1991 Road Traffic Act:

In subsection (1) (which removes the requirement for third-party insurance or security where £15,000 is kept deposited with the Accountant General of the Supreme Court) for “£15,000” there shall be substituted “ £500,000 ”.

It has not increased since.

 

[Deleted member 37751]

No, the rules are the same for all: you either take out an insurance policy or post a surety of £500,000. AFAIK, this has been the case since the introduction of mandatory motor insurance, and it is only quite recently that the value of the required surety was increased from (I think) £15,000.

That's what I mean ^
They are posting a surety of xyz pounds so they don't need to have car insurance.
Hence one rule for them & another for us....

Not that I disagree entirely with the practice, Mocas. On paper, it's a good idea.

 

[trapperjohn]

So how does ANPR deal with this. It must be logged as "insured" I guess.

 

[MOCAŠ]

That's what I mean ^
They are posting a surety of xyz pounds so they don't need to have car insurance.
Hence one rule for them & another for us....

Not that I disagree entirely with the practice, Mocas. On paper, it's a good idea.

As Charles Morgan has pointed out, they do need to have car insurance. It's just that they are able to provision it by other means, under the terms of the Road Traffic Act.

To describe that as there being one law for the rich and one for the poor a bit like complaining that poor people are prevented from buying expensive houses, just because they haven't got enough money...

 

[Deadhead]

A long time ago when I worked for BT, that company used to carry its own insurance for its large fleet of vans and other vehicles. It used to simply pay any claims directly. But that was at the time when large companies did everything in house - training, catering, property maintenance and so on and on. Not the case now of course when functions like training, HR and even core activities are contracted out

 

[Deleted member 6183]

Self insure.

I thought it was quite common either with bus companies or local authorities.

I don't see it as 'one rule for them and one for us' really. I'd far rather leave the risk to an insurance company for a (relatively) small annual fee than bankrupt myself in an accident involving substantial personal injury.

 

[Deleted member 37751]

As Charles Morgan has pointed out, they do need to have car insurance. It's just that they are able to provision it by other means, under the terms of the Road Traffic Act.

Sorry, I took it as though they put up a £500k bond as surety instead of 'proper insurance' and if they are at fault in an incident, the cost comes out of the £500k.

Slighty OT, but in America isn't it the person that is insured and not the car?

 

[IanA2]

It is many many years since I was in Lloyds, but then most large motor organisations eg LT Buses, carried their own insurance insofar as they had to demonstrate to the DoT that they had sufficient funds for TP claims. I don't recall the amount and I don't recall that the amount had to be physically lodged with anyone.

I imagine Lloyds was mentioned to reassure the chap in the Audi, and more than likely the other chap was a Member of Lloyds, not that that has anything whatsoever to do with anything.

 

[renault12ts]

That's what I mean ^
They are posting a surety of xyz pounds so they don't need to have car insurance.
Hence one rule for them & another for us....

Not that I disagree entirely with the practice, Mocas. On paper, it's a good idea.

If you have £500,000 you can do it too. What's the problem? Would you rather post the £500,000 or pay your normal premium. The interest lost on the deposit would be greater than the premium..

 

[219]

The ability to self insure has always existed - most councils , fire brigades , police forces etc do it .

 

[Deleted member 37751]

If you have £500,000 you can do it too. What's the problem? Would you rather post the £500,000 or pay your normal premium. The interest lost on the deposit would be greater than the premium..

My problem is this, is it not the law to have car insurance? As in the kind of insurance that I know?


I'm not necessarily knocking this practice, on the contrary, I find it intriguing...

 

[Charles Morgan]

It is the law, and a surety is necessary. Most people get their surety from their insurer (note the terms are very closely related) and a few, for whatever reason, post the surety directly, as the law allows.