I was simply interested on the basis that you were/are making a statement of fact and it appears that you are making these comments based on your professional legal knowledge and experience. So thank you for answering

Are you a solicitor or legally qualified? You work in personal injury law do you?

By your own admittance you were caught in 2 different Police areas. You committed 2 seperate offences in 2 different areas so as BazzaS has stated, you have committed 2 seperate offences so what guidelines have the Police service breached? The onus and responsibility is on yoy to comply with the limits and for minor offences Police forces and prosecution departments are not going to be phoning each other asking if any of their staff have booked so and so. I once reported the same driver 3 times in the same day for excess speed. Now those 3 offences were amalgamated to convict once, but the driver received a few less points (7 instead of 9) but clobbered on fines, but they were still 3 seperate offences but committed n the same Police area. If you had been caught in the same Police area, then the chances are that your name would have popped up on the database and someone may have put 2 and 2 together. But then it would have exempted you from attending the speed awareness course or a fixed penalty and you would have been looking at a court appearance instead with the risk of a heavier penalty You can complain, but being 2 seperate Police areas, I can virtually guarantee it will do you no good.

Actually it is probably the worst £28 you might spend. If it falls out of the portal, it simply reverts to multi track but even portal cases are funded under a CFA, you don't need LEI to get funding. I have covered this subject before (maybe worth looking for) but the bottom line is legal expenses insurance is a rip off. If you are involved in a crash that is not your fault, you can choose a solicitor of your choosing, and getting your case funded on a no win no fee (conditional fee agreement) means that they will fight your corner on th basis that if they don't win they don't get paid, whereas legal exenses appointed solicitors will do the minimum work for maximum fees, they will often undervalue your case for a quick settlement to get you off their books and you probably will not deal with the same fee earner twice. If you have a crash, you have to have a minimum of third party insurance in place to cover any damage or injury you cause to property or people in the event that the crash is your fault.. So the issue does not arise. However, if the crash is not your fault, then you can get funding under a CFA (no win no fee) even for damage only crashes, and you choose who you want to represent you, not one of the waste of space claims management firms with a dodgy solicitor on their pocket or one that is owned by the insurance company. LEI is just a way that insurers make more money out of you, and then get you to use their panel in the event of a claim usually resulting in an under valuation and the case being rushed as I have already mentioned. Under a CFA, if the solicitors don't do their job and win their case, they don't get paid (remember their costs are paid by the third party when you win and is on top of your compensation). On top of that, you probably already have several LEI policies, House contents, buildings etc, but the bottom line is it may be worth retaining one policy for things like employment issues, but for motoring? Get rid of it.

I work in personal injury. If you are being made an offer 3 weeks after the crash, then they are trying to entice you with an offer to get you off their books and it means that your claim has been undervalued. Although you may feel that you have made a full recovery, if in 6, 9 or 12 months time you develop ongoing issues as a direct result of ths crash and you have signed a full and final settlement, you cannot then go back and demand more money unless you sue for professional negligence. You claim is being handled under the portal system on fixed costs (this is the protocol for claims up to £25K in value) which in itself is not the issue, it is the fact that you are being fobbed off. Are you using a claims management or your insurerance firm to represent you? If so, that explains a lot. Each injury has a value. They are classified as Minor, moderate and catastrophic and each category has a lower and upper level. Only a Doctor can determine what category you fall into. Your claim also has 2 elements General damages as I have explained above but which also covers a payment for pain and suffering and loss of amenity. Special damages which covers all your out of pocket expenses such as damaged property, loss of earnings, travel expenses, prescription costs and so on, in fact any expense incurred as a result of the defendants negligence. Only your legal representative can give you a figure that is considered reasonable for the injuries you sustained, so go back to them, but as a guide, genuine whiplash cases usually settle for around the £3,000 - £5,000 mark. Hope that is of some help?

OK, I stand corrected, Thanks But the OP's husband would still claim back any excess against the driver of vehicle 2 as part of his claim for uninsured losses and it does not change the situation as far as the OP is concerned in that the claim is still against the driver of vehicle 2 who in turn will be the one who makes the claim against the MIB

There has always been an excess for the damage part of the claim through the MIB ever since the facility to make damage claims was introduced about 10 years or so ago. But this would apply to the 2nd driver, not the OP's husband whose claim is against driver 2 anyway.

The way the system works (and this should have been explained to you, is that, your husband claims from the driver of vehicle 2 (the driver that was pushed into the rear of him) and then the driver of vehicle 2 then claims for both his damage and the damage and injury to your husband from the driver of vehicle 3 under the rules of what is called strict liability. The fact that the driver of vehicle 3 is uninsured is of no consequence to your husband as he is claiming off the vehicle that hit him, and drivers 2's insurance have not been honest in what your husband has been told. Driver 2's insurers on finding out that driver 3 is uninsured would then submit an MIB claim (there is a £300 excess on the damage part of the claim) and the claim proceeds in the normal way, it just takes a little longer when dealing with the MIB for the matter to be resolved. Given that your husband has been fobbed off, he really needs to speak to the Insurance Ombudsman, because it is a very straight forward claim even though driver 3 has no insurance, and driver 2's insurers cannot get out of settling your husbands claim (although the personal injury side will take longer) I would be unable to assist you directly as the value of your husbands claim is in the Fast Track (under £25,000 value) scheme, but if you need further advice, you are welcome to send me a PM and I will be happy to advise.

Once you have reported the crash/claim to your insurers, the MIB will act as the agent for the foreign vehicle and it will be processed in exactly the same way as it it were a UK insured vehicle. Most people think that the MIB only deal with uninsured or untraced claims, but they are the appointed UK agent for overseas registered and insured vehicles, so don't worry too much, submit your claim to your insurers and let them do the rest.

Firstly, before you start slagging off no win no fee law firms, be very careful about referring to Ambulance chasers, that usually applies to claims management firms, and a Conditional Fee Agreement (Proper name for no win no fee) is the best way for someone to get proper legal representation after a crash in which they have been injured (A CFA is not available for damage on;y claims). In damage only claims, a solicitor can only represent someone if the value of the claim is worth over £5,000 because under this amount law firms cannot claim back their costs and therefore the client becomes liable for their fees which could be quite substantial and more than the value of the claim. That said, if the OP was not injured, then contact someone like Bikers Legal Defence and they will be able to assist you. A letter of claim needs to be sent to the third party who should then in turn pass it onto their insurance companies. Someone like BLD have their own legal department and have ways in being able to provide legal representation without it costing you anything, and they will be able to provide a replacement bike which is not on a hire credit agreement and so the risk to you is minimal (but they can explain all this to you, and No, I do not work for them). If you did suffer injuries, then depending on the type of injuries, you should be able to find a local personal injury law firm who will take on your case for you. If your injuries are valued at less than £25,000 then you would go onto what is called the fast track portal scheme where solicitors are paid a fixed fee to handle the claim, but if the injuries are more substantial and therefore worth more than £25,000 then you would go onto what is called the multi track scheme where fees are uncapped. The claim is then divided into 2 categories. General damages which covers your actual injuries along with a payment for pain and suffering. Special damages which covers all your damage, out of pocket expenses, loss of earnings and so on. The highest value award is only around £275,000 (I think it has gone up a few thousand since I last looked at the figures) for a serious brain injury or paraplegia, and at the opposite end of the scale, about £600 for a broken tooth. Each injury is assessed on its severity with a lower, moderate and severe category and valued accordingly, and then both general damages and special damages are added together to provide the value of the overall award. But the first thing is to get some legal representation in place, get off the letter of claim and see what the response by the third party is.

I see this on a daily basis with motorcycle hire after a crash. It has become increasingly common for the defendant insurers to argue about hire vehicle costs, and in many cases the courts have found in favour of the defendants. The other issue is that quite a few claims management firms also forget to pass on the invoice to the claimant solicitors so that it can be included in the schedule of special damages. In this case, the issue will revolve around whether or not you signed a personal credit agreement. What this means is when you were provided with the loan vehicle, did you sign any paperwork where you accepted responsibility for any costs incurred that were not claimed for as part of your claim. If you signed a personal credit agreement, you may not have much of a leg to stand on, which is why you need to check the paperwork and see what and if you signed for.

Does not work that way. If someone is injured as a result of someone elses negligence, then regardless of whether that individual was insured or did not have an MOT, it does not preclude them from making a personal injury claim, regardless of any prosecution that may occur at a later date which is a seperate issue. What the third party may do is try and claim contributory negligence on the basis that if there was no MOT then it was in a non roadworthy condition, but the third party then has to prove that the lack of MOT and therefore the condition of the bike contributed to the cause of the crash. So, it should not affect the value to the personal injury claim, what it will affect is the valuation they place on the bike as it will be substantially lower than a bike with a current MOT.

Thank you for that it is appreciated. Now done.

Fine, think as you wish, but for someone who is supposed to be as qualified and as experienced as you claim, then you should take a good look at yourself, because it is people like you that do more damage than those less fortunate to have gone through the training that you claim you have done, and should know better. Pot calling the kettle black springs to mind, but in any case I am not going to enter into a slagging match on a public forum with someone like you, as it is clearly you that is being childish with your lame comments and observations. Just a shame I cannot block people like you.

I am fully aware of the requirements of the Police advanced standard, I qualified as an instructor during my service, and I have been an advanced examiner for over 30 years. But now that you have taught me to suck eggs and revealed your background, it is shameful that in one sentence you undo a lot of work done by many others in trying to educate the motoring public in Motorway driving by returning to phrases and descriptions that have never existed. You of all people should know better, and yes call it pedantic if you wish, but when it comes to driver education, there is no half measures, and you of all people should know better. And in respect of the tutor who taught the test candidate, yes, he was reported to his group, and again given your background you of all people should know that there is no such thing as an advanced licence!!!!

So you are a driver that still refers to slow lane, middle lane and fast lane? There is no such thing. We have a left hand driving lane and 2 overtaking lanes, and that is all they are "Overtaking lanes"! Lane 1 (The left hand driving lane) is 99% of the time the safer option as you have the hard shoulder as your escape route, but by using the middle lane leaves you with very few options. Anyone remember the big pile up on the M4 in 1991 when 25 burnt to death? I was first on scene and watched all of them burn alive (not a pretty sight) because our fire extinguishers were no match for the blaze. The majority of those who died were in the middle lane simply because they treated it as a cruising lane. Had they used lane 1 which was empty, many of them would still be alive today. So sorry, I have to refute your argument. I conducted an advanced test the other day. Driver got most upset when I failed him because we travelled for over 4 miles in the middle lane when the inside lane was empty. True he was given bad instruction as well, but as an experienced driver he was actually quite embarrassed, but given the views expressed by many on this particular subject, it goes to prove that there is a serious lack of understanding and knowledge in respect of Motorway driving. Spend 24 hours working the Motorway and opinions would soon change, but some drivers really do need some serious re-education!

What new laws? I repeat my earlier thread, it is not the legislation that has changed (the offences have always been there) it is simply the way it will be enforced!

The clue to the first part of your post as to when it was removed? 1972 Road Traffic Act? In respect of retesting, it was seriously considered a few years ago, and I remember it clearly because I was one of a number of advanced examiners who were approached and asked if we would be interested in becoming re-test examiners as the logistics would place too much strain on the existing system as the DSA examiners would not be able to cope with the extra work load. Then someone in Government pointed out that making drivers sit a re-test every 5 or 10 years would be a guaranteed vote loser, and so it was quickly and quietly dropped.

The Highway Code is not law, except where the rule is supported by an act and section, traffic order or regulation. As far as lane hogging is concerned, you ate right it is covered under section 3 of the Road Traffic Act as I have already mentioned but as undertaking is concerned, as someone else has rightly pointed out, undertaking is not illegal, in fact the specific offence was removed from the 1972 Road Traffic Act and it became a requirement that to prosecute that the standard of driving fell well below that expected of a reasonably safe and competent driver. The simple act of undertaking is insufficient on its own, but if it was at excessive speed or weaving from lane to lane, then that might well justify a prosecution. But there is a statutory duty of care on the part of the drivers in the outside lane to ensure that it is safe to return to the nearside lane (There is no such thing as a fast lane on a Motorway btw) Even the civil courts are starting to accept this now as I have had a couple of crash cases where the motorcyclist has been undertaking and a vehicle returning to the nearside lane without having first checked that it was safe to do so but had been witnessed as having spent an unreasonable period of time in the centre lane when not overtaking, has been held liable for causation

As I have mentioned already, details of the speedo calibration have to be included as part of the prosecution evidence and whether it was checked against a certified stop watch over the measured mile or against another calibrated speedo. The speed o is checked at 30 and 60 MPH, and should take 2 minutes at 30 and 1 minute at 60 and this has to be included and recorded in the vehicles log book.

The problem you have there is that the Highway Code is not law, but simply a set of rules and guidelines (except of course where the rule is backed up by a traffic order or regulation), apart from which not all aspects of the Highway Code are factually correct or enforceable. But back to the original point is the fact that it is not the rules that have changed, it is the way these rules are enforced. Centre Lane hogging has always been an offence, in particular under a sub section of section 3 or the road traffic act, driving without reasonable consideration for other road users, and i was booking people for this offence back in the 70's and 80's. A recent survey (I think by the IAM) has revealed that 1 in 10 drivers believes that lane 1 is for HGV's only. That goes to show how lazy and uneducated the motoring public are by and large. I was the guest speaker a few weeks ago and the subject was raised and I was asked for my opinion. I threw it back and asked them what they thought the Highway Code said, and the number that responded that it said Slow, fast and overtaking was astounding. 99% did not realise that lane 1 is the driving lane and lanes 2 and 3 were simply overtaking lanes, and then I pulled out a few pictures of Motorway crashes I have dealt with over the years which have occurred as a result of drivers hogging lane 2 and it made a few people take notice and a few cringe. The same with hand held mobiles. The number of people I see with a phone glued to their ear, which is not only a giveaway, but also causes a physical reduction in the control of their vehicle, and yet for 5 or 6 quid they could get a Bluetooth, but they are quite happy to put themselves and others at risk by continuing to use a hand held, not to mention that it is usually these morons who are the first to moan when they get caught and fined! Sorry, I will get off my soap box now, rant over

My apologies, you are correct. I had very little to do with Specials during my service being on a specialist department and was therefore not aware the regs had changed. So again, apologies and thank you for the correction.

I mentioned nothing about lane separation, I simply mentioned that to be a dual carriageway there is no requirement for there to be a central barrier, but reading it again, then maybe I did select the wrong choice of words to describe a DC. A dual carriageway is a road which has a central reservation to separate the carriageways. This can be a barrier, a central concrete island or even a grass strip, so long as there is clear separation. 99% (not all) of dual carriageways comply with this requirement, if it is a multi lane carriageway without the central division, then of course the national speed limit of 60 applies unless posted otherwise.

Thames Valley (which includes Bucks) Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire now pool their finances in respect of purchasing their vehicles, however, I have spoken to some former colleagues and they have no knowledge of any of these forces using Corsa's, the smallest vehicle they use is the Astra. Dark clothing is the norm for most Police, but the question is, were they identifiable as being Police officers without the need to stick a warrant card under your nose. In your initial post you said they were in plain clothes, and then you have said that they were dressed like you in dark clothes. You need to be more specific. Many traffic cops now wear polo shirts and combat style trousers as their normal uniform, and so if this was the case, then whilst they may have appeared to have been in plain clothes, they may actually have been in issue uniform. But the question still remains about the vehicle they were using. If the road is a multi lane road displaying the national speed limit sign, then the speed limit is 70 mph unless otherwise posted, regardless of whether there is a centre barrier or not. County Police could cover Hertfordshire, but they would not cover all three. At the moment, the only forces who cover each others areas are Thames Valley and Hampshire whose Traffic divisions have amalgamated and operate jointly even though they are two different forces. That is why I have said, you need to seek the advice of a properly qualified traffic offence solicitor because there are so many anomalies, especially if summonses have been issued, you need to sort this out as soon as possible.

Yes, they can still carry out stop and they can still report for offences. Do not confuse special Constables with PCSO's who have very limited authority even though they are employed full time. Special Constables do not specialise, they are there to support the regular front line guys. The only thing that has changed from my day is that they are now allowed to drive marked vehicles, but not in an emergency or pursuit situation.