You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Hypothetical situation based on a real one (not involving me).
Two vehicles are involved in a collision. Vehicle A is 100% at fault, simply didn't see vehicle B, and admits it.
Vehicle B, however, was driving without insurance.
Who's at fault from a legal standpoint? Who's liable for paying for repairs, and to whom?
I'll explain why I'm asking in a little while, just interested to hear people's Armchair Lawyer interpretations.
A is legally to blame
B gets done for no insurance
Waits for an informed opinion to see if my guess is correct.
Vehicle A's insurer pays but can try to recover costs/etc from the uninsured driver or MIB? Driver B should NOT have even been on the road/in that situation so in my view B is a ****ing ****er.
Where did Will Smith enter the scenario?
Hmmmm, just guessing but A is responsible for the damage.
Whether B wants to pursue the damages is another question as I'd imagine then 'A' would get the Police involved.
I suspect the insurer of A will do all they can to avoid paying for B's repairs - good chance of being successful. Insurer will pay for A's repairs. Police should prosecute B but that will require someone to report him/her.
shirley B shouldn't have been on the road therefore accident would never occurred had B been sat at home or on the bus. Therefore B is at fault and A can own B with bombers with no reprisals!
B shouldn't have been on the road therefore accident would never occurred had B been sat at home or on the bus
A tad extreme but, if a child's in the motorway I'm cool to gun it? I mean, they shouldn't have been there so it's all good, right?
shirley B shouldn't have been on the road therefore accident would never occurred had B been sat at home or on the bus. Therefore B is at fault and A can own B with bombers with no reprisals!
+1
There is no comparison between a child on the motorway and a uninsure car driver. You would expect the driver of the uninsured car to be "legally competent" (no doubt a much better term is available)) and know they shouldn't be on the road, a child on the motorway is not in the same position.
I think its unrealistic to claim you can do as you please to an uninsured driver claiming its always their fault as they should not have been there.
The main problem is the HC still applies to your driving irrespective of their insurance status. Furthermore no one can tell by looking who is and who is not insured.
WhyTF are we even discussing this?
Junkyard got it first time and I'm rather concerned anyone who thinks otherwise would be allowed behind the wheel!
WhyTF are we even discussing this?
Because it's interesting. Quiet in the peanut gallery.
(I'll explain after lunch.)
I meant the I can do what I like to an uninsured driver [ and they will be to blame] argument and not the topic in general.
I reckon you are driver A.
LUNCH have you become a southerner or something and dinner time ended 40 minutes ago 😉
(not involving me).
Right, ok. I'm presenting details as explained, I have no means of verifying their veracity so for the purposes of the discussion please just take it at face value and don't shoot the messenger.
A mate of mine was the driver of vehicle B in the original scenario. He was unintentionally driving without insurance (the policy had been cancelled by his insurers the day before and he'd not yet received the notification letter) and got sideswiped by a truck drifting over from an adjacent lane in some narrowed-lane roadworks. The truck driver accepted full responsibility to the police.
I've had a think, and my reasoning is as follows:
We've got two separate incidents here, which confuses the situation.
Point the first, in a 100%-fault accident the at-fault driver's insurance would be liable for both vehicles (less any excess). Whether matey had insurance or not is academic for the purposes of a claim as there wouldn't be any liability on him or his insurer anyway.
The second offence is driving without insurance, a separate offence for which he should've been fined / endorsed accordingly.
But, this isn't what happened. The police said my mate was at fault because without insurance he shouldn't have been on the road to run in to in the first place, and the court later agreed and he was held liable for damage to the lorry (as well as the IN10 penalty). I'm not sure if he had to pay for his own repairs too, I forgot to ask.
This seems somewhat crazy to me; it implies it's basically carte blanche to mow down anything that 'shouldn't be there'. Which is why I thought I'd ask here, I don't actually know what the procedure would be in this case and wondered whether he'd had his pants pulled down or whether that's just the way it worked.
it implies it's basically carte blanche to mow down anything that 'shouldn't be there'.
Nowt wrong with that in my book, why should the ppl prepared to follow the laws of this country be responsible for those that don't? It's hardly like we know who is legal, and who isn't... so how is it carte blanche when you can't 'target them'?
Terrible situation for your m8, I'd have hoped the court would have taken into account that he hadn't been informed/wasn't aware he had no insurance.
Any chance of a link to a court report or similar? Having recently been "Driver A" I'd be very interested, as my insurance didn't take this view...
why should the ppl prepared to follow the laws of this country be responsible for those that don't?
If the "legal" person had followed the laws/rules they would not have hit them so both have broken the rules.
Interesting decision. I wonder what the official guidance is
Accidents are not the same as following the rules, accidents happen (inattention/distraction), ignoring a legal procedure to be on the road (insurance/tax/mot) is not. You can't have been distracted into not getting insurance.
you're not the only oneThis seems somewhat crazy to me;
pretty much. But as a cyclist it should come as no great surprise that courts will do pretty much anything to let off a driver who is insured, has a licence and isn't pissed, break one of those and you're on the naughty step, keep within those and yeah carte blanche pretty much covers it. If your mate had insurance obviously driver A would unfortunately have been held liable for the highly regrettable accidentit implies it's basically carte blanche to mow down anything that 'shouldn't be there'.
I'd have hoped the court would have taken into account that he hadn't been informed/wasn't aware he had no insurance.
Well, my experience is that they don't believe in "honest mistakes."
I had one years ago, got stopped on a random police check, transpired that it fell during a 20 minute gap between two insurance policies I believed were concurrent. "Not a court in the land would convict me!" I thought as a naive 25-year old. 90 quid and six points, that was.
as a cyclist it should come as no great surprise
Amusingly enough, that's where this conversation started.
I think this may be the mindset of jurors that allow so many not guilty verdicts after a driver mows down yet another innocent party. [i]just a bit of inattention innit? nowt serious.[/i]Accidents are not the same as following the rules, accidents happen (inattention/distraction), ignoring a legal procedure to be on the road (insurance/tax/mot) is not.
I agree with your general point about legalities but disagree with the subsequent "anything goes"
<edit>and no, in general, accidents don't "just happen"
Any chance of a link to a court report or similar?
I've no idea if such a thing is available, even. I could ask I guess.
I think this may be the mindset of jurors that allows so many not guilty verdicts after a driver mows down another innocent party. just a bit of innatention innit? nowt serious.
"... there but for the grace of god go I"
Curious and possibly confused . There has been a change in criminal law to causing death while uninsured which at one point followed the if you ain't insured you should not be there so its your fault regardless line of argument but the higher courts have rowed back from that point recently .
I'd have gone with driver a's careless act caused the accident driver a liable myself.
Sounds fair to me. If your car/you aren't legal on the road you shouldn't be there. Had your mate been drink driving the result is the same as having no insurance, he's in the wrong (maybe unbeknownst to him so hopefully a bit of leniency his way)
As a former claims manager for an insurance company, I would [i]really[/i] like to see the court report on that decision.
I can't see how civil liability for the accident bears any connection to the criminal IN10 offence and vice versa.
Your post implies that there was a court case for both the IN10 and the accident. That suggests to me that your mate got done for careless driving as well as the IN10? The civil (liability) and criminal cases would be separate courts, not combined.
Think there must be some information that has got lost at some point in the saga
but disagree with the "anything goes" follow on.
TBH, so do I which is why I posted
"I'd have hoped the court would have taken into account that he hadn't been informed/wasn't aware he had no insurance."
It's not we phone our insurance companies every day just to check everything's ok.
Did it ever go before a jury? You know, proper lawyers and that. I think your mate needs to check with a brief who's up to speed on roads stuff.
I'd have guessed at driver A's insurer paying for the damage to Driver A's car only and driver B having to pay out of his own pocket. Looks like I would be wrong.
Why was driver B's policy cancelled? Might be pertinent as to how sorry I feel for him. I can't envisage a situation where a company could cancel your policy without you having done something wrong.
hmm if you're over the legal limit stopped waiting at some lights and some nobber runs into the back of you due to distraction/inattention then I think in a sane world the correct procedure would be nobber pays up full insurance and possibly gets his collar felt for driving like a dick and you get banned for drink driving. Don't see why nobber "gets away" with causing a collision.Had your mate been drink driving the result is the same as having no insurance, he's in the wrong
accidents happen (inattention/distraction),
Driving without due care and attention is an offence and not an "accident".
You can have been distracted into not getting insurance.
Cougar gave an example of an honest mistake or "distraction".
You can argue they are different if you wish but i am not going to agree
Sounds fair to me. If your car/you aren't legal on the road you shouldn't be there
30 zone I do 100 mph into a uninsured car whilst on the wrong side of the road
Still there fault?
It makes no sense to decide the blame of the accident on a fact that had no direct bearing on the causes of the accident .
Bank or Ins Co cocked up a Direct Debit, for one.
(edit) [i]where a company could cancel your policy with you having done something wrong.[/i]
A few years back I inadvertently drove without insurance for several months, only finding out when I tried to renew the (cancelled) policy. My "insurers" at the time admitted they had made a mistake and claimed that they would therefore have covered me if I'd been involved in an accident. If Cougar's mate's story is true it sounds like I'd have been committing an offence whether they accepted a claim or not. Until now I'd have been with Cougar in the "not a court in the land" party but now I'm not so sure!
Hmmm this is your post that I was referring to.but disagree with the "anything goes" follow on.TBH, so do I which is why I posted...
it implies it's basically carte blanche to mow down anything that 'shouldn't be there'.Nowt wrong with that in my book
As johnners here, long time ago.
How come his insurance was cancelled?
Anyway, the court decision doesn't really make sense to me. The lorry caused the incident, had your mate not been there it would have been someone else and their insurance would have paid out.
This is a quote about the case I had in mind in my double posts above.
"Another controversial aspect of the offence is that it did not appear at first to require any fault on the part of the uninsured driver. Therefore, if an uninsured motorist for example, driving otherwise faultlessly and under the speed limit, happens to be crashed into by a second motorist, driving erratically on the wrong side of the road, under the influence of both heroin and alcohol and having worked a number of lengthy shifts at work, that first driver is guilty of the homicide offence regardless of the fact that the accident was clearly the fault of the second. Those were the facts of the case of Hughes where the Court of Appeal ruled that the first driver was guilty of the offence despite the blameless nature of their driving. The Supreme Court disagreed. It held that there had to be some element of fault in the driving; not necessarily enough to amount to careless driving but there did have to be some element of blameworthiness about it. That changed the law."
But this is criminal liability for a fatal incident not civil liability for damages arising.
Donk, Still agree with you (I think), but my point would be an accident with a illegally driven vehicle, blame should still be initially pointed at the illegal vehicle.. then other factor taken into account.
You can argue they are different if you wish but i am not going to agree
JY, I don't have to argue, this is why we have insurance, and don't end up in court every time we have an accident. Making up scenarios where your doing something illegal, and using the uninsured option as get out of jail card, is just sad. No one thinks that is what would happen or expects it to.
Think there must be some information that has got lost at some point in the saga
Almost certainly, TBH.
Why was driver B's policy cancelled? Might be pertinent as to how sorry I feel for him.
Some sort of mix-up over payment IIRC. How much of that was directly his fault or that of the bank I couldn't say.
@Cougar, very interesting and a bit strange which is why I imagine you posted it in the first place. I have to say if I where B I would be pretty hacked off to be paying for the lorry's damage and get nothing for my own damage. A fine/points yes but to pay for the lorry that's seems very bizzare ?
@Cougar, very interesting and a bit strange which is why I imagine you posted it in the first place.
Exactly. I wasn't looking for legal advice or sympathy, just that I'm generally pretty good with stuff like this and was surprised at the outcome.
How come his insurance was cancelled?
Just got more info on this.
[i]DD due 5th of month, money went in 4th. DD was presented 3rd. bounced, at 1138am, insurance cancelled. I was [away], tried to go home got plowed. police checked insurance, arrested me, sent him on way.[/i]
Your post implies that there was a court case for both the IN10 and the accident. That suggests to me that your mate got done for careless driving as well as the IN10? The civil (liability) and criminal cases would be separate courts, not combined.
[i]ok. Criminal IN10, I contested,explained the situation, judge said tough, your fault
...
straight on the back of that, truck insurance co sued me in civil court for repair costs, pointing out police hadn't even warned the driver of the truck, I contested, lost.
...
basically they were keeping tabs on the IN10 case and used it against me.
...
I tried to take on [insurance company], they denied it, bank were unelpful and ombudsman couldn't rule in my favour cos bank weren't helping with exact info.[/i]
That changed the law.
This incident was six years ago, I'm told.
z1ppy - MemberNowt wrong with that in my book, why should the ppl prepared to follow the laws of this country be responsible for those that don't?
Following the laws, like drifting across lanes on a motorway in a truck and causing an accident? Albeit with a schrodinger's car that may or may not have been there
The "shouldn't have been there" argument seems absurd, if not them, then someone else would probably have been hit instead.
Wow, so he actually didn't do a single thing wrong, apart from being insured with a company who presented their DD early and didn't tell him. For which he gets stuffed and the other driver gets away with being rubbish.
What have I missed?
The "shouldn't have been there" argument is quite clearly fallacious (to a layman like me), as the truck shouldn't have been there either.
is the judgement crankboy refers to in case anybody else is interested.
Not read that yet, though I note in this comment http://ukscblog.com/case-preview-r-v-hughes/ on the appeal court ruling (before the supreme court case) they say "even where his or her driving was faultless and the victim was, in civil law terms, entirely responsible for the accident" - which suggests that the writer of the blog doesn't consider the criminal liability covered in the case to have any bearing on civil liability.
DD due 5th of month, money went in 4th. DD was presented 3rd. bounced, at 1138am, insurance cancelled.
I've had DDs refused in the past for car insurance due to insufficient funds, but I've never had the insurance cancelled the day after it's been refused. I reckon there are details in your mate's story missing, like maybe 2 or 3 refused DDs. Seems fishy to have cancelled insurance so quickly.
The cancelled insurance due to early DD request scenario happened to me, luckily I found out when I went to tax the van online (rather than by getting pulled over by the police)
It was trade policy too, which covered me to drive clients vehicles up to £250k in value, and also incorporated my public liability insurance.
I now have an alarm set on my phone for the first of every month, to remind me to check the DD and make sure I'm still covered !
I now have an alarm set on my phone for the first of every month, to remind me to check the DD and make sure I'm still covered !
Bloody hell. 😯
Fairy nuff, I always thought they'd try again, but not cancel the insurance in the meantime.
I've had DDs refused in the past for car insurance due to insufficient funds, but I've never had the insurance cancelled the day after it's been refused.
[i]it was the first dd payment after the deposit and it was cancelled same day as the requested it.[/i]
Phew, made it to the bottom of the supreme court ruling, and right at the bottom is this gem:
The certified question in this case asks:
“Is an offence contrary to section 3ZB of the Road Traffic Act 1988,
as amended by section 21(1) of the Road Safety Act 2006,
committed by an unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured driver when
the circumstances are that the manner of his or her driving is
faultless and the deceased was (in terms of civil law) 100%
responsible for causing the fatal accident or collision?”
I think I'd be quoting that if involved in a civil case like Cougar's mate's. Clearly the judges aren't actually defining the civil law there (they go on to point out "enquiry into apportionment of liability in civil terms is not appropriate to a criminal trial"), but to them the separation of civil liability from any offence of driving without insurance is so obvious they don't need to explain it.
By the sounds of things the case was before this ruling, but since the ruling didn't change anything regarding civil liability that is irrelevant - the civil court got it totally wrong.
Yep, sounds fishy. 🙂
I ended up driving without insurance for months because my insurer at the time responded to a change of address notification, recalculated the premium and sent a request for the extra amount due to the new address. After a couple of reminders they'd received nothing back so they cancelled the policy.
I hadn't moved house or requested any change of address, and so didn't know about any of this until I called them up to renew. These days it would probably have come to light a lot sooner through ANPR but it looks like it would cost me at least some points and a fine when it did. I never got a satisfactory explanation from them about the change of address malarkey.
I've had DDs refused in the past for car insurance due to insufficient funds, but I've never had the insurance cancelled the day after it's been refused.
Mine admitted it "probably" shouldn't have been cancelled, and apologised.
The did however, as a parting shot say ...
"Look on the bright side, you've saved just over a grand by not paying your premiums for three months!"
They had a point. We bought a new bed. 🙂
I've had DDs refused in the past for car insurance due to insufficient funds, but I've never had the insurance cancelled the day after it's been refused. I reckon there are details in your mate's story missing, like maybe 2 or 3 refused DDs. Seems fishy to have cancelled insurance so quickly.
I've heard of it plenty of times, usually through the shitty companies younger drivers go with when they want to drive something other than a boggo basic Micra. Swift were quite notorious for it IIRC (or some mob based in NI with a similar name).
+ a bazillion. In cougar's uninsured for 20mins case if he's sat waiting at a red light* and gets hit by a dangerous driver during those 20minutes it's his fault, 5minutes either side of that window and the dangerous driver would be held 100% to blame. Proper ****ed up! Like I said deal with the pertinent physics/details of the accident then check the paperwork of those involved. OP case is some pretty messed up victim blaming.the civil court got it totally wrong.
What if a lorry ploughs into a line of cars? cars 1, 2 and 4 are innocent victims but if the insurance of car 3s driver had lapsed is the entire thing all his fault? Or do the lorry insurers just payout for everyone else but car 3?
*I'm picking cut and dried cases obviously, less obvious incidents where the behaviour of driver B may have an affect on the incident such as no license or unfit to drive in some way - these will need looking at. Still having difficulty seeing how not being insured has a bearing on the cause/outcome of an incident. By all means throw the book at uninsured drivers but don't pin the blame of collisions that weren't their fault on them.
Was there really nothing about giving him notice prior to the cancellation of the policy in his contract t&cs?
Bizarre contract if so, surprised that it would be enforceable to be able to withdraw a service and place an individual in a position where they are breaking the law with no warning. Unfair contract term?
Insurance companies are often weasels who will do anything to wriggle out of a claim, but if it's as he describes, he has nothing to lose by pursuing this through the complaints system to the financial ombudsman.
As above, it's an odd civil court ruling, that one.
An Insurer wouldn't just cancel insurance without trying to reach the keeper/customer first. Cancel, then send a letter doesn't wash. He'd have had a letter chasing funds with the caveat warning him first.
I wish I had Hora's confidence in the moral rectitude of the insurance industry. It was for me eroded away a long time ago.
Was there really nothing about giving him notice prior to the cancellation of the policy in his contract t&cs?
Dunno. Even if there was, realistically how many people would've read all the fine print? I expect it's a minority.
An Insurer wouldn't just cancel insurance without trying to reach the keeper/customer first. Cancel, then send a letter doesn't wash. He'd have had a letter chasing funds with the caveat warning him first.
Again, I don't know. I'm taking the story on faith, as I said earlier. Though even if for the sake of argument that's the case and he knew he was uninsured though, does that change anything? It's still, to my mind, a surprising ruling.
I wish I had Hora's confidence in the moral rectitude of the insurance industry. It was for me eroded away a long time ago.
Hey - I'm paying the same price that I did almost 10yrs ago for literally the same car (model) yet every single benefit has been weaselled down. No more fully comp on other insured drivers cars, higher replacement windscreen costs, lower payout on injuries etc etc.
One thing- if it was a first time DD fail they wouldn't automatically cancel your policy in practice. They would CALL you or write to you first even if the T&C's say they can. Its your call if you decide not to open or read your mail.
An Insurer wouldn't just cancel insurance without trying to reach the keeper/customer first. Cancel, then send a letter doesn't wash. He'd have had a letter chasing funds with the caveat warning him first.
My own personal experience tells me otherwise. (See above)
In my case, my insurance was actually cancelled two days BEFORE the direct debit payment was due.
No letters were sent or phone calls made.
Haven't read the other replys but in the eyes of the law the uninsured driver is at fault and no blame or liability will be with driver A.
It is a similar scenario if driver B was drink driving, even if they were not at fault and had god as their witness, the fact that they were drink driving would automatically place them at fault in the eyes of the law and driver A would not be liable for anything.
Due to money being tight in the past, I watch my DDs like a hawk every month to make sure they have gone out. This is the only way to be sure. Its the only way cougar's mate would have been sure. However if they presented a day early then this wouldn't have been picked up for at least a day or so. If they didn't inform him, how on earth was he supposed to resolve the issue, or even be aware of it in the first place?
If you substitute uninsured driver for cyclist, would they (the cyclist) have been made liable for the accident and costs? Of course not.
IMO cougar (and pretty much everyone else) has it right. There are two things at play, neither has any bearing on the actual turn of events.
Driver A should be liable for the accident, Driver B should have been done for no insurance ONLY.
Im thinking there is some information missing. i.e. Driver B was notified that his DD had failed or he got the dates wrong.
Here's my scenario from last year.
Car changes lanes and hits me. Driver scarpers. I get a picture of him and his reg number.
Car is SORN, and not insured. Plod go and see the driver and he says it wasn't him.
Police say my pics are not evidence enough and walk away. My insurance pay for damage to my car.
Uninsured drivers? Burn them, burn them all.
Car is SORN, and not insured. Plod go and see the driver and he says it wasn't him. Police say my pics are not evidence enough and walk away.
so the moral of this thread is drive like a * and brazen it out and you'll pretty much get away with anything. Get hit by a *, tough shit it's your problem.in the eyes of the law the uninsured driver is at fault and no blame or liability will be with driver A.
Haven't read the other replys
Obviously not, try my one up there with a quote from Supreme Court judges.
Police say my pics are not evidence enough and walk away. My insurance pay for damage to my car.
As should have been the case with Cougar's mate, what the police do or don't do has no direct effect on the civil case of who is liable for the damages. Though of course if the car isn't insured then you're into lots of hassle anyway.
As far as the DD bouncing is concerned....the Direct Debit Guarantee is either read out to the customer, or sent out, and it details the dates of payments. The insurance company cannot take payments early according to this guarantee - payments falling on a bank hol or weekend will be taken after the date, not before.
If the insurance company was at fault, driver B would have been entitled to a refund, blah blah.
Something else is going on in this case, or maybe driver B is insured with a really dodgy company. The company I work for would charge admin fees if your DD failed and would only cancel after a few attempts at payment had failed. Several attempts would be made to contact the customer. Not all companies would do this, I'd guess.
Btw, when the truck ploughed into driver B he wasn't doing something silly like undertaking?
Edit - sorry got my As and Bs the wrong way round!
The insurance company cannot take payments early according to this guarantee
Although at least two people on this thread so far have had insurance cancelled due to this happening.
nealglover - Member
The insurance company cannot take payments early according to this guarantee
Although at least two people on this thread so far have had insurance cancelled due to this happening
Yep, apparently. My wife got a dd refunded because the company (not insurance) tried taking it early.
I don't know how legally binding the Guarantee is, but it's read or sent out every time a dd is set up. If it was worthless why would any company waste their time?
If it was worthless why would any company waste their time?
Equally, if it was iron clad, how did my insurance get cancelled.
I don't know the answer to either question, and only have personal experience as a reference point.
But I check every month now to be sure it's been requested and taken.
Haven't read the other replys but in the eyes of the law the uninsured driver is at fault and no blame or liability will be with driver A.
As noted we have actual quotes from the jusges showing this to not be the case
It is a similar scenario if driver B was drink driving, even if they were not at fault and had god as their witness, the fact that they were drink driving would automatically place them at fault in the eyes of the law and driver A would not be liable for anything.
Imagine you are drunk and parked up with the engine running [ technically drunk driving iirc] and I ram you sober at 100 mph on the wrong side fo the road killing you
You really think its automatically their fault because they are pissed [ if you like they can moving legal on their side of the road]
I really dont understand how anyone can think this is remotely likely to be true.
This thread seems to have gone full circle?
I really dont understand how anyone can think this is remotely likely to be true.
Apparently you're confusing the law with common sense.
Thankfully the law now agrees with common sense after the supreme court judgement. If you are parked up drunk in the drivers seat, you get rammed onto the pavement killing a child you will only be found guilty of drink driving, not of killing the child (IIRC they used almost exactly that scenario in their arguments). The judges ruled that you had to have done something wrong (other than just drink driving) to be criminally liable in that case - though not necessarily wrong enough to be considered even careless driving (from my reading, I think being parked in an illegal manner - ie facing the wrong way at night - would be sufficient for that). sine qua non (google it) is not sufficient on its own.
The supreme court judges considered the issue of civil liability to be so obviously unaffected by the driver being uninsured that they didn't even explain it.