My prat of a 'friend' (legal issue)

My prat of a friend has been more of a prat than usual...

He's 19, was riding his 33bhp Sv650s when he was involved in an accident where a lady drove into the rear of him. Simple enough...
His insurance company gave him a loan bike via a third party company whilst his was being repaired.
He then decided it would be a very good idea to overtake a car on said loan bike...while they were indicating to turn right... as i'm sure you can imagine this ended in a large crunch! The third party he had the loan bike collision with has started an insurance claim.
this is where things get fun... My friend didnt tell the loan bike company that he had a 33bhp restriction on his licence, he said he had a "full licence" , and as such they supplied him with a full power CBF1000...
i'd like some advice as to the legal implications he can expect when the third party requests to see his licence, i'm thinking riding without a license and without insurance ( as they're sure to void it as he didnt declare the restriction)? ban? fine? etc?

cheers all,
adam

(Edit: i put the word friend in brackets because i'm not sure i should be considering somone that dim as a friend, not because its me!... it made perfect sence last night after a few beers lol!)

Riding without a licence & insurance I would say. I wouldn't be supprised if they threw in driving without due care & attention, since you said he overtook a car whilst they were indicating.

Personally, I hope they throw the book at him. The more people like him off the roads the better. Not only for riding a machine when he has no legal right to do so, but also for his riding style on said machine.

He'll be looking at points & a fine at least. IIRC, driving without insurance carries a minimum of 6 points. So if he's passed his test within the last 2 years, say byebye to his licence & he can start again, if he's lucky enough to not have a ban.

Also, there are implications for the loan company on this, as they have a responsibility to supply machines that people can ride. They should of demanded to see his licence & not just take his word for it.

Originally Posted by Baph

Also, there are implications for the loan company on this, as they have a responsibility to supply machines that people can ride. They should of demanded to see his licence & not just take his word for it.

Thats complete rubbish. Why do people need to be absolved even further of their responsibilities? I'm not interested in paying extra for red tape that'll get in my way should I ever need a loan bike.

I guess there is a large excess on the loan bike for a start. My brother had one recently and it was £500.

I think if anyone tries their luck, succeeds and then breaks one of the biking basics deserves a good slap on the wrists.
This does go one stage further, basically being unqualified and uninsured etc... and it being someone elses bike.
Maybe pleading that the company was told about the licence and still sent a proper bike out would work. Depends if any forms were signed and how deep your friend wants to get in.

Even after a couple of years on some full power SVs I am unsure of my ability to be restrained on anything more powerful.

Originally Posted by adamfool

My prat of a friend has been more of a prat than usual...

He's 19, was riding his 33bhp Sv650s when he was involved in an accident where a lady drove into the rear of him. Simple enough...
His insurance company gave him a loan bike via a third party company whilst his was being repaired.
He then decided it would be a very good idea to overtake a car on said loan bike...while they were indicating to turn right... as i'm sure you can imagine this ended in a large crunch! The third party he had the loan bike collision with has started an insurance claim.
this is where things get fun... My friend didnt tell the loan bike company that he had a 33bhp restriction on his licence, he said he had a "full licence" , and as such they supplied him with a full power CBF1000...
i'd like some advice as to the legal implications he can expect when the third party requests to see his licence, i'm thinking riding without a license and without insurance ( as they're sure to void it as he didnt declare the restriction)? ban? fine? etc?

cheers all,
adam

Well i guess this invalidates his insurance, and his lisence, as he is not legal to ride such a powerfull machine. The insurance company should have checked, especially since a 19 year old arouses suspisions on what type of license they should have. But really, its his faults for (1) overtaking in the first place and not being observant and (2) making the whole situation worse by not declaring what he is legal to ride - eyes bigger than his belly!

I'm with baph on this one; he should have his lisence revoked. Surely he;s on the new riders act (6 points and you have to retest)?

Sorry to not be supportive, but im on a 33 bhp and would never dream of doing such a thing if I where offered a courtesy bike (to take one more powerful than I am legally entitled to).

Matt

[the_lone_wolf]

might well be worth noting that if he's not had his license for 2 years or more he will lose it if he gets 6 points

edit... what he said ^^^

tbh if anyone is willing to drive or ride without a license or insurance then they don't deserve the right to use the roads, make it safer for the majority...

[timwilky]

My son was recently supplied a hire van by the 3rd party insurers liable for the damage to his own vehicle. The first thing the hire company did was demand to see his license and then drove away as they would not hire to anyone under 25. We then had 2 days without a vehicle whilst we found a hire company that would provide him a van and was acceptable to the 3rd party insurers who were picking up the bill and would hold the contract for the hire. (Plus £200/day loss of earnings whilst no vehicle).

So firstly who was providing the hire bike. The 3rd party insurers, his own or had he simply hired it himself and would recover his costs against the 3rd party. I am no expert. but there is firstly an issue of who was the contract with with regard to liabilty for the damage.

Secondly, you are right, your friend is a prat. He knew he had no license. That the insurance on the hire bike would be void etc. Stupid acts like that add to the cost and complexity for the law abidding to be supplied with replacements should we be in need

the best thing he can do IMO is to act dull (which sounds as if it wont be hard)
say he did not relise, as they did not ask him about his license,?

Originally Posted by Flamin_Squirrel

Thats complete rubbish. Why do people need to be absolved even further of their responsibilities? I'm not interested in paying extra for red tape that'll get in my way should I ever need a loan bike.

Originally Posted by timwilky

My son was recently supplied a hire van by the 3rd party insurers liable for the damage to his own vehicle. The first thing the hire company did was demand to see his license and then drove away as they would not hire to anyone under 25.

F_S, pretty much as timwilky; EVERY time I've hired a car or van, they have demanded to see my licence before handing over the keys. Why should bikes be different?

Also, should you ever need a loan bike during an insurance issue for any reason, I highly doubt you'd be paying.

The main responsability is that of the rider, I was just saying that the loan company will probably take some of the wrap for it as well, since they handed the keys over to an unlicenced and therefore uninsured rider.

It does make me wonder though if they were provided licence details by the insurance company, and took these as gospel. Has the insurance company got the licence details wrong? Now that could start a whole new world of trouble for our young intrepid adventurer.

Sounds like he is screwed and tbh, he deserves it.

Aside from the license issue, or lack there of, surely he is going to end up havng to pay for the CBF and the damage to the car himself, as nada insurance.

Basically he has pulled down his boxers and bent over infront of Elton John.....what a tw@