Yes TP liability is created in common law against damage or injury to third parties, however, policy is not valid and therefore he is not insured, further, no insurable interest in the subject matter of insurance, in this case the theft of the vehicle, it is not the fathers car. Did father have some NCD by the way?? would like to know cost of policy in son's name. An interesting point, had the car been written off in an accident and caused tp damages, insurers would have to settle as rta insurers but would then look to recover from responsible party, as when recovering from a thief...

The father does not have any insurable interest in the car (the subject matter of insurance), the only loss the father may suffer is for being done for no insurance - completeing separate legal issue. An individual has an insurable interest when he or she will obtain some type of financial benefit from the preservation of the subject matter, or will sustain pecuniary loss from its destruction or impairment when the risk insured against occurs. In insurers eyes it's the ultimately the sons car, albeit on finance, who would have received the claims settlement cheque obviously. It simply should have been insured in sons name. Clear case of fronting, this very large material fact should have been disclosed, there is the question however, over whether M&S asked and would check transcript. Statement of fact/proposal form should have been checked to confirm all details correct though, generally not in particularly 'small print' either by the way....

Thanks all, will have to have a good read of contract, seems every place is different. D :-|

I would normally have got paid in full for bank hol, my sick note did essentially cover the bank hol, but does this give them the right to reduce my entitlement??? Again, everyone else has got paid in full for bank hol... cheers

yes, 2 private owners

Will have to try and explain to them that they are essentially docking my holidays, ie not getting paid as everyone else has done for bank holiday entitlement.. it can only be the days I am scheduled to work that are subject to SSP - If i had booked some time off and I was ill, just bad luck they fell at same time innit? try and explain the nice tan whilst claiming back as illness eh!? make sense ?? - my brain hurts! again!!! D

I was sent home on the weds morning and they just said keep us informed and let us know when you are coming back, don't have to call everyday. Thanks

Up to 3 days is normal pay, this is classed as the waiting? period, then after that is SSP - the question being, that should I get normal pay like evryone else for that day or can it be reduced to SSP...? Surely, it is nothing to do with the employer what the situation was on bank hol, I was entitled to be off...? Couldn't have worked if I had wanted to!...? Cheers for quick replies D

I normally work mon - fri and I believe my contract says i am entitled to 3 days full pay before Statutory Sick Pay. I left work ill on the weds and was off the thurs and fri before the bank holiday on the monday. I returned to work on the friday after still being ill bank holiday monday, tues, wed & thurs. My employer says that I should only be paid SSP for the bank holiday as I was ill, but surely I am entitled to normal pay, as everyone else will have received!? I do not work bank holidays and they are in addition to my normal 20 days holiday. Has anyone any advice or refer me to any websites please, cannot find an answer to this scenario anywhere on gov. websites etc.. Many thanks D