Don't forget to cancel your insurance.

The basis of this seems to be to make sure that any victims can make a claim against someone, even if the person at fault has no insurance - http://www.whitedalton.co.uk/motorbi...-my-insurance/

[squirrel_hunter]

Originally Posted by TamSV

Quite a bit different though. This vehicle wasn't stolen - he handed over the keys.

I was just picking up from daddyjob's example, but isn't the point of insurance to cover for all events, be it you mistake or not (fully comp)?

Originally Posted by TamSV

The law demands a cascade of responsible Road Traffic Act insurers so, if the new owner wasn't insured, then the sellers policy is next in line if it hasn't been cancelled. His insurers are obliged by law to pay the third party damages. The MIB are behind them in the cascade order.

So, in this case, that's all fair and equitable for the Yaris driver and tough luck for the poor old insurer. Unfortunately the unintended consequence of the legislation is that the bike seller is now in breach of his contract with his insurers and, technically, they have a civil right of recovery against him.

That's very interesting.

And taken from Terah's link:

Under your policy of insurance you have permitted a non-insured driver to use the vehicle your insurers were still insuring so you are in breach of your policy, and yes they can come after you.

I can understand what is said here, the issue is permitting. But it comes to the question of what is permitting?

For example a mate comes over to borrow my bike. I ask if he has insurance and he tells me he doesn't. I let him ride the bike. Clearly I have permitted.

But same scenario my mate tells me he does. I let him ride the bike. Turns out he doesn't have insurance. Have I permitted, should I have checked more diligently? Possibly?

Again same scenario. This time I'm even shown an insurance document, but it turns out to be void a fact I only know after the event. Have I permitted? I would argue no, I did all I can.

So wouldn't the same principle remain here. I sold the bike to an adult responsible for their own actions on their own bike. I don't think I've permitted him to do anything?

[MisterTommyH]

Irrespective of whether you have permitted them to ride it or not...

The government has instigated the 'cascade' system that Tam mentioned to protect people from uninsured drivers and to ensure that the Insurance industry pays out (where there is still a live policy) before it has to go to the MIB.

Your insurer knows this and puts a clause in your policy that you have a responsibility to cancel the policy when you sell to protect them from having to pay out in this situation.

You / he / the seller doesn't - crash happens.

You aren't getting screwed because you permitted someone to drive un-insured. You're getting screwed because you breached your contact. i.e. didn't undertake an action required of you and written into your contract to protect them.

It's not that much different from the hypothetical circumstance where you leave your keys in the ignition while the windscreen de-frosts, someone steels the car and crashes it. You haven't fulfilled your part of the bargain to protect the insurer.

Hey tom, just realised I haven't paused my insurance, I can't do it until I get back Saturday, don't crash.

[MisterTommyH]

You're alright mate, I took out my own policy. Or did i.....?

[TamSV]

Originally Posted by squirrel_hunter

So wouldn't the same principle remain here. I sold the bike to an adult responsible for their own actions on their own bike. I don't think I've permitted him to do anything?

I agree that's the way most normal people would look at it and, in the absence of legislation, that's exactly what the situation would be. If you sold him your pushbike, horse or electric disability scooter then what you say above would be true.

Road Traffic legislation overturns some basic principles of insurance in order to protect victims of accidents involving motorised vehicles (other accidents presumably not being important enough to require the same treatment).

The issue then is that by continuing to insure the vehicle you have knowingly breached the contract with your insurer, and that breach has exposed them to costs that they wouldn't otherwise have faced, they have a right of recovery against you.

UK regulations on this are a mess.

[650]

Unregulated ********. **** all insurance companies right in the pussy.

[650]

Originally Posted by MisterTommyH

You aren't getting screwed because you permitted someone to drive un-insured. You're getting screwed because you breached your contact. i.e. didn't undertake an action required of you and written into your contract to protect them.

Seems like something that, really, should be stated verbally and requires acknowledgement from the customer upon taking out a policy.

Again, unregulated ********. The insurance world needs incinerating.

[Ruffy]

Originally Posted by TamSV

I agree that's the way most normal people would look at it and, in the absence of legislation, that's exactly what the situation would be. If you sold him your pushbike, horse or electric disability scooter then what you say above would be true.

Road Traffic legislation overturns some basic principles of insurance in order to protect victims of accidents involving motorised vehicles (other accidents presumably not being important enough to require the same treatment).

Where does contract law sit in this hierarchy, relative to road traffic law and insurance law? Could it be argued that the terms of the vehicle sale contract contained a clause (probably implied through custom & practice) that all liability as a result of usage of the vehicle from the time of sale will lie with the buyer or his/her insurer, and that they will indemnify the vendor should any claim arise?

Originally Posted by TamSV

The issue then is that by continuing to insure the vehicle you have knowingly breached the contract with your insurer, and that breach has exposed them to costs that they wouldn't otherwise have faced, they have a right of recovery against you.

Not sure I can agree with this, especially the "knowingly" bit.

I would counter-argue like this:
1. My certificate of insurance has me (& my wife) specifically stated as the only permitted drivers.
2. So, my contract is scope defined. Any cover for others is excluded as far as I understand and so the implication that any other driver is entitled to cover under the policy appears to require me to have a detailed understanding of road traffic, insurance or other statutory legislation.
3. Ignorance may be no defence but I suggest that, if 2 is not true, then this is an unreasonable contract condition (either real or implied) as I am not professionally qualified in law and cannot be considered "expert".
4. An obligation to cancel under stipulated conditions should not be interpreted as a contractual entitlement to cover for other parties.
5. Therefore, I refute the validity of the contractual obligation being relied upon.

Originally Posted by TamSV

UK regulations on this are a mess.

Quite clearly, and not just in this area. "The law is an ass" is not a recent quote!

(BTW, Tam, I'm not picking on you personally but you appear to be the legally knowledgeable one in the thread so far, offering a theoretical justification for the reported possible action claimed in the OP report.)

[MisterTommyH]

Originally Posted by 650

Seems like something that, really, should be stated verbally and requires acknowledgement from the customer upon taking out a policy.

Really? While I understand your viewpoint thats not really practical is it?

If a customer can't be bothered to read the small print of the policy document (not saying that I do) is it realistic to expect that an insurance company should read out every one of those T&Cs and get agreement over the phone? (It could be any one of the terms that catches you out... it's just in this case it happened to be this one).

We ALL enter into numerous contracts every day - from when we buy an insurance policy to when we park in a council parking bay. Not saying that it's right... just that it's the way it is. It's not just insurance.