Charles Morgan
MB Enthusiast
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2010
- Messages
- 8,206
- Car
- Mercedes 250CE W114, Alfa Romeo GT Coupe 3.2 V6
Keep up the good work Tyler!
Scratched by an uninsured driver.
- Thread starter Honey Bear
- Start date
Sadly, wouldn't he have been just as paralyzed if the driver who hit him had insurance?
Stratman
MB Enthusiast
Indeed he would, but an insured driver would pay, via his insurance, for home helps, house modifications and suchlike to make the victim's life a little more comfortable. The same cannot be said of an uninsured driver unless they're extremely rich.
A court can award whatever amount it likes but if the defendant hasn't the money it's all window dressing.
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 13,821
- Location
- North Oxfordshire
- Car
- His - Denim Blue A220 AMG Line Premium / Hers - Obsidian Black R172 SLK55
A bit off topic I know, but...
There would be even more support for this if it were (a) never abused, and (b) there was reasonable statutory redress when it is found that the Police had made an error. Unfortunately, that is not the case.I love the legislation that not allows for uninsured drivers to have their car taken from them. £200 fine, 6 points approx £120 for the tow and approx £30 per day. If its not collected within 7 days with proof of ownership and a valid insurance cert, the car is crushed regardlessawesome.
Tyler , thanks for the info .
The Toyota Starlet was uplifted straight to the scrapyard , so no need to seize that one , as the pic below shows it was going nowhere . I won't bore you with all the pics I have published before .
I presume the BMW was not seized as the car itself was insured , just not for the daughter to drive it ? The father came up later that night , replaced the wheel punctured when it mounted the kerb in front of our house and drove it away .
Since this event took place exactly one week after the other one , I had set up a video camera recording the traffic coming round the bend where there had been so many crashes and , lo and behold , captured the following
This was the damage she did to Jan's Primera
and some of the damage to daddy's car
The girl initially told us she was insured with Tesco but , when we phoned them , Tesco told us that vehicle was not insured with them . On phoning the police station we obtained the correct insurer , but on writing to them , were informed that they 'had no interest in the claim' as the driver was not insured to drive the vehicle . I replied that either the car was stolen , in which case the girl would have to be charged - OR - she was driving uninsured but with father's knowledge and consent , in which case they were liable . That must have put dad in a pretty much impossible position because he came up and paid for Jan's car out of his own pocket .
At least I was dealing with people who had money , unlike the woman who hit my own car and for which there was no point pursuing anything . I could have claimed on my own insurance but this would have affected my NCD and it turned out the car was worth more to me to break than I would have got .
The Toyota Starlet was uplifted straight to the scrapyard , so no need to seize that one , as the pic below shows it was going nowhere . I won't bore you with all the pics I have published before .
I presume the BMW was not seized as the car itself was insured , just not for the daughter to drive it ? The father came up later that night , replaced the wheel punctured when it mounted the kerb in front of our house and drove it away .
Since this event took place exactly one week after the other one , I had set up a video camera recording the traffic coming round the bend where there had been so many crashes and , lo and behold , captured the following
This was the damage she did to Jan's Primera
and some of the damage to daddy's car
The girl initially told us she was insured with Tesco but , when we phoned them , Tesco told us that vehicle was not insured with them . On phoning the police station we obtained the correct insurer , but on writing to them , were informed that they 'had no interest in the claim' as the driver was not insured to drive the vehicle . I replied that either the car was stolen , in which case the girl would have to be charged - OR - she was driving uninsured but with father's knowledge and consent , in which case they were liable . That must have put dad in a pretty much impossible position because he came up and paid for Jan's car out of his own pocket .
At least I was dealing with people who had money , unlike the woman who hit my own car and for which there was no point pursuing anything . I could have claimed on my own insurance but this would have affected my NCD and it turned out the car was worth more to me to break than I would have got .
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2008
- Messages
- 49,040
- Location
- London
- Car
- 2022 Hyundai IONIQ 5 RWD / 2016 Suzuki Vitara AWD
A lady working in my office had her car broken into, side window smashed and some personal belongings stolen. Surprisingly Police did catch the perpetrator who was charged, trialled, convicted, and sentenced (among other things) to pay £350 in compensation to the lady.
She never saw the money... she said it was just un-collectable, in spite of court ruling. The guy claimed poverty and changed addresses, and the police showed no interest in tracking him down. So you can imagine how un-collectable would it be when dealing with an un-insured driver....
She never saw the money... she said it was just un-collectable, in spite of court ruling. The guy claimed poverty and changed addresses, and the police showed no interest in tracking him down. So you can imagine how un-collectable would it be when dealing with an un-insured driver....
Baldylocks
New Member
They are not just liable, it is an offence to cause or permit use of a motor vehicle without insurance, so Dad's choice would be daughter summonsed for TWOC or him for permitting use of the vehicle.
Baldylocks
New Member
It's actually Court Enforcement Officers who pursue unpaid fines/compensation and they generally end up with a warrant for the arrest of the non-payer. When they eventually find said person (and they do find quite a few) they are arrested and put before the next sitting of the Magistrates Court. Unfortunately if the non-payer pleads poverty/hardship and can prove it often all that happens is a small amount is deducted from their benefits. If they end up in prison for it, the fine may be written off but the compensation element still remains payable.
Charles Morgan
MB Enthusiast
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2010
- Messages
- 8,206
- Car
- Mercedes 250CE W114, Alfa Romeo GT Coupe 3.2 V6
The system sort of works in my experience - I was assaulted by a drunken vagrant 6 years ago who was aggressive towards a young lady as I walked home from the tube, and he hit me when I called the police (rather comically I had a shopping bag in one hand with a pot of yoghurt which exploded so I ended up covered in yoghurt with a bleeding eye and broken glasses). I was awarded £100 in compensation, and got £10 within a month. Then nothing for five years, and finally I am getting cheques of £10 - 20 a month at present. Evidently they have either caught up with him, or he has now cleared a backlog.
Incidentally, the Police were extremely rapid in their response, a car and a van arrived within 3 minutes, and had no problem nicking him (he was very drunk) and while I did not enjoy spending 4 hours in a police station on a Sunday night, nor being called at 5 am when they discovered a pack of bacon from my shopping in the van, it was an object lesson in efficiency.
Incidentally, the Police were extremely rapid in their response, a car and a van arrived within 3 minutes, and had no problem nicking him (he was very drunk) and while I did not enjoy spending 4 hours in a police station on a Sunday night, nor being called at 5 am when they discovered a pack of bacon from my shopping in the van, it was an object lesson in efficiency.
OP
OP
Honey Bear
Active Member
Looks like they saved your bacon there.
The police are always speedy. Unfortunately what holds police ificers back and hinders their work flow is the stupid quantaties of paperwork needed for one incident. Al though I am astonished at some of the stories I've just read. Those pictures are horrifying.
I still think people should serve a longer penalty for driving without insurance. Either a community order or being tagged. Unless in exceptional circumstances (yet to be defined). Any rational, compasionate, human understands the risks of no insurance, and so the penalties should be of harsher consequences should there be illegal implications.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The police are always speedy. Unfortunately what holds police ificers back and hinders their work flow is the stupid quantaties of paperwork needed for one incident. Al though I am astonished at some of the stories I've just read. Those pictures are horrifying.
I still think people should serve a longer penalty for driving without insurance. Either a community order or being tagged. Unless in exceptional circumstances (yet to be defined). Any rational, compasionate, human understands the risks of no insurance, and so the penalties should be of harsher consequences should there be illegal implications.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Tyler Durden
Member
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2010
- Messages
- 59
Yes he would but like someone else pointed out that through insurance his whole family would at least get some sort of help for this poor man, instead he is now going to get the absolute minimum which will not even come close to seeing straight for even a year.
Uninsured drivers are much more prone to buggering off after an accident, commit more motoring offences etc than over an insured driver. Its not just about initial injuries, its also about aftercare, which insurance WOULD have provided.
Another question for those in the know -
suppose my car is stolen and crashes causing damage/injury to some innocent third party . Does MY insurance have to pay out to the third party , even though it wouldn't have been in any way my fault ?
suppose my car is stolen and crashes causing damage/injury to some innocent third party . Does MY insurance have to pay out to the third party , even though it wouldn't have been in any way my fault ?
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2008
- Messages
- 49,040
- Location
- London
- Car
- 2022 Hyundai IONIQ 5 RWD / 2016 Suzuki Vitara AWD
As the thief is clearly not insured to drive your car, the Insurer is not liable.
The third party will have to claim the damage as it would from uninsured driver.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2008
- Messages
- 49,040
- Location
- London
- Car
- 2022 Hyundai IONIQ 5 RWD / 2016 Suzuki Vitara AWD
This is correct... friend of my had similar problem with his Credit Card. His 13-years old son used it without his knowledge to make on-line purchases. He phoned the Credit Card company to complain, and they said that they will refund the amount if he claims the card was used without his consent, but at the same time it will be reported to the Police and his son could potentially end-up with a criminal record. So he decided to incur the cost himself....
In this case it could be a tough one for the dad. If he claims his daughter took the car without his permissions, then he will be fine but the daughter will get booked for joy riding. If he says he agreed to his daughter's use of his car, then she gets booked for the lesser offence of driving without insurance, but he gets booked for allowing an uninsured driver to drive his vehicle... tricky.
Not only that , but I'd imagine that if he did not have her charged then the insurers would , rightly , refuse to pay for the considerable damage to his own car , although they would have then had to pay for our car , which being only worth £1K or so , was written off . Since he chose to pay us out of his own pocket ( or as it happened , reimbursed our insurer who had by then paid out ) , I suspect he had daughter charged and was then able to claim agaist his own insurance for the BMW which may well have been also a write off as damage was to front bumper , rear bumper and every panel along the nearside plus at least one burst tyre and possibly alloy wheel/suspension damage .
This all took place back in 2006 and we never heard any more about it .
This all took place back in 2006 and we never heard any more about it .
Uninsured Drivers.
This has allways been a big problem in South Africa, uninsured drivers, during the aparthied era, very few of the indiginous population could even afford insurance, so because it had become epidemic no insurance the Government of the day and i beleive still today put a few cents on a liter of petrol, those extra few cents meant that every car that had petrol also had automatic third party insurance, it didnt matter if the driver had a license or no, unsurance or not, you could make a claim for damage on your car perpetrated by any other driver. To make it proof against unfair claim's you had to remain at the site of the accident, report it to the police and take the number (not allways real) and description of the car that hit you, plus witnesses if available. You had to claim on your own insurance to get the car fixed and it was then upto the insurance company to get the money for the Gov. I think they should do this here. Don't you. On the continent, many of the countries have a system of gurantee funds, if you can prove by witness that it wasn't your fault you could get payment from the funds, took a while but it was effective.
This has allways been a big problem in South Africa, uninsured drivers, during the aparthied era, very few of the indiginous population could even afford insurance, so because it had become epidemic no insurance the Government of the day and i beleive still today put a few cents on a liter of petrol, those extra few cents meant that every car that had petrol also had automatic third party insurance, it didnt matter if the driver had a license or no, unsurance or not, you could make a claim for damage on your car perpetrated by any other driver. To make it proof against unfair claim's you had to remain at the site of the accident, report it to the police and take the number (not allways real) and description of the car that hit you, plus witnesses if available. You had to claim on your own insurance to get the car fixed and it was then upto the insurance company to get the money for the Gov. I think they should do this here. Don't you. On the continent, many of the countries have a system of gurantee funds, if you can prove by witness that it wasn't your fault you could get payment from the funds, took a while but it was effective.
