CrappoMan
-
Posts
438 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by CrappoMan
-
Grandfather had died but has debts what to do
CrappoMan replied to MikeyT's topic in General Debt Issues
If the card is unsecured, then on death any debit balance becomes a liability of the estate. You should write to the card company enclosing a copy of the death certificate, telling them there debt will be dealt with in due course by the executor when the estate accounts are finalized. Ask them to freeze any interest from the date of death.The card company may accept a letter from the executor stating that there are insufficient funds to repay this debt. They will most likely 'write off' the debt and you won't hear anything again. -
county court judgement set aside dismissed at hearing please help
CrappoMan replied to r1boy's topic in General Debt Issues
Was the vehicle allegedly involved in the crash registered at no.67 on the V5 ? If it is, that is probably why the letters and court summons were sent to that address. Are you aware that even tho the address doesn't have to be the address you live at, it has to be an address that YOU can receive post at. You can't use the excuse that it's not your address, if the V5 has that address. -
If you've had to pay to get your vehicles back, you go after the clampers/dvla to get your money back. The withdrawal of the charge implies they were in the wrong to lift your vehicles. They will no doubt argue that you were still guilty of the offences, but stick to your guns.
-
NO, the op said his insurer confirmed his policy WASN'T cancelled. How can the policy be cancelled, if he can continue using it as it is, or pay the extra £40. Now it's you not helping the OP. I've suggested what the OP do, but some people want to act as judge, jury & executioner and condemn the OP. I've just re-read S151, para 8. It is simply explained as: If you let your mate drive your car, and he causes a third party to claim, any payout will be recovered from you. I've highlighted the relevant bits for you:
-
Who said the policy was cancelled ? No, it does the opposite, it makes the insurer able to recover any payout from the insured, if the insurer is entitled to cancel the policy.
-
This is a common misconception. Your insurance isn't voided or cancelled by committing criminal acts, or doing something against the terms of the insurance. Drink drivers aren't charged with an IN10 'No Insurance' offence. Your insurer may be entitled to cancel or void your policy, but thanks to S151, any third party claims would still be allowed, so you are still covered against third party claims and hence S143 is satisfied. You may not be covered for theft or accidental damage, but third party claims are covered.
-
This will be my last comment as per unclebulgaria67's request. The word 'certificate' is only mentioned twice, in S151(1) and S151(2)(a). Only those 2 para's deal with the certificate. The word 'policy' is mentioned 20 (TWENTY) times, it is in every para. except (4) and (10). (4) deals with being carried in a stolen or TWOC'd car. (10) deals with Scotland. The whole of S151 never mentions 'expired' certificates. It does however mention 'cancelled' or 'voided'. It deals with policies that the insurer is entitled (not obliged) to cancel or void (e.g: when used for commuting!), saying that they can't use the breach of terms (commuting) to avoid paying out on the policy. They can however cancel the policy from the point of the breach forward (not retrospectively). If the policy is not cancelled (in the OP's case the insurer confirmed it wasn't cancelled), it is still in force and satisfies S143.
-
Now you're being ridiculous, if you cancel a policy after 1 month, ITS A CANCELLED POLICY! and S151 doesn't apply. If the policy has been cancelled, then you don't have a policy in force.
-
You obviously haven't read S151, or you would know that it doesn't apply to UNINSURED drivers, it applies to people who hold a motor vehicle insurance certificate that HASNT BEEN CANCELLED.
-
You still don't get it. He doesn't need to be insured for any particular journey. He had a policy to cover third party claims for that vehicle, which by virtue of the RTA1988.S151 (even though he was commuting), would have paid out had he had any accident or claim against him. If he had a policy which would pay out in the event of an accident or claim, he had satisfied the RTA1988.S143. In other words, HE WAS INSURED. The policy was still valid and in force, the extra £40 was to stop the insurer recovering any claim payout from him. This is confirmed by the insurer saying he can continue using the policy as it is, or pay the extra £40. They didn't say he HAD TO pay the extra £40, but the risk would have been his otherwise. The police should not be trying to interpret policy exclusions, they should only be concerned that the driver has a policy that hasn't been cancelled or voided. If he has a policy, there is no issue. The OP needs to find out exactly what the insurer told the police on the phone. It doesn't matter if the insurer told the police that he didn't have commuting cover, as we have already established that S151 makes the policy valid in ANY event. If a driver is stopped for drink driving, is his insurance cancelled ? Is he charged with an IN10 offence ? NO, because of S151. The insurer may recover their costs from the driver, but he was still insured. Again, you keep getting hung up on the 'commuting' aspect. It makes no difference. The policy was valid and because of S151, the insurer would have paid out. I don't know why you have trouble understanding this. Yes, like I said in post #15, get a letter and take it to court.
-
The Road Traffic Act 1988, section 151 covers this situation: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/151 Put simply it states that the insurer is liable to pay third party judgements if the policy hasn't been cancelled, even if the insurer is entitled to cancel or void the policy due to the actions of the driver. If the insurer is entitled to cancel or void the policy, they can recover their losses from the driver, but they MUST still pay out to the third party in the first place. This only covers third party claims, so the driver couldn't claim for his own car if he had a fully-comp policy. Para 9© has the key wording: So, the OP was covered because the policy hadn't been cancelled. He stated that when he contacted the insurer, they confirmed the policy hadn't been cancelled. They even said that he could carry on using the policy as it was, or pay £40 to add commuting cover. As the policy hadn't been cancelled, Section 143 of the RTA1988 was satisfied and the police had no business seizing his car.
-
As you are being summonsed for keeping a vehicle on the public highway, you need to ascertain that they were indeed being stored 'off road' (a place not maintained at public expense). The local council highways dept should be able to tell you the status of the place the vehicles were stored. If you have the evidence that backs up your claim, you can plead not guilty, and then go after someone for your towing and storage fees. Beware that the agents who lifted the cars will no doubt claim they were in a different place, which will probably not be classed as 'off road' so having a photo of the cars in the place they were being stored would be ideal evidence that they were in the place you say they were. If both vehicles were being stored 'off road', their insurance status is irrelevant.
-
Internet Fraud paid £6k being asked to pay £6k again.
CrappoMan replied to Wilderbird's topic in General Legal Issues
Have you checked the email headers for all the emails. That will tell you if the emails originated from the company or not. Does the account you sent the money to actually belong to the company ? If it belongs to the company, give them all the information you have (emails and receipts) and tell them to trace the payment. If it doesn't, give all the info to the police and action fraud. The main thing is not to worry about it too much. If it does end up in court, you have plenty of information to back you up. -
Were both vehicles insured ?
-
My council tax summons..
CrappoMan replied to Consumer dude's topic in Local Authority, Council Tax and Business Rates Issues
You know the notification is correct, as you were there. You won't succeed in disputing the costs, because they are laid down in legislation. You would need a heavyweight team of barristers and a judicial review, even then I think you would be wasting your money. As ims21 posted earlier, you are on a hiding (figuratively not literally) to nothing. -
My council tax summons..
CrappoMan replied to Consumer dude's topic in Local Authority, Council Tax and Business Rates Issues
Have you received a "council tax liability order notification" or a "council tax liability order".If it's the former, does the letter state where/how it can be obtained ?If it's the latter, you already have the order. -
That's what I meant. The police shouldn't use an exclusion clause in the policy to say he isn't insured, as the insurer is still liable for third party claims (if the policy is paid up to date and hasn't been cancelled). The insurer can then go after the driver to recover any losses
-
And that letter should satisfy the court that his Road Traffic Act insurance obligations were met. In other words, he was insured.It may be difficult to sell to a court, thats why he should act quickly to get his ducks in a row now.
-
I didn't say a letter showing he had SD&P, he could use his certificate to show that, I mean a letter stating he was insured against third party claims at the time he was with the police, bearing in mind that the insurer now has more information (he was commuting). If they provide a letter stating that, whilst having knowledge that he was commuting, then how can that be impeached ? Why does the letter need to say specifically that he was covered for commuting ? His Insurer knew he was commuting, he can prove that by the officers actions of telling his insurer, it may be noted in the officers contemporaneous notebook. It would probably go more like this:
-
Exactly, and in that case, he won't be able to get a letter from his insurers saying he was covered at the time of the incident. His insurers already know he was commuting, the police told them at the time. If he can get the letter, then he can demonstrate that his policy wasn't cancelled and he was covered. The CPS can try to demonstrate anything they want, if he has written confirmation from his insurers, he is golden.
-
As I said earlier, get it in writing from your insurance company that you were insured at the time you were stopped by the police. Make sure you take that letter to court. It will prove that you are not guilty of an IN10 offence. Then follow up with a complaint. Maybe the insurance company record their calls, if you or the IPCC can get a copy of that recording, that should answer a lot of questions.
-
My first thought is: is your daughter even liable for the tv licence for your address ? Is she the householder, is the tv hers, does she pay the mortgage/rent or council tax ? Or is she an adult dependent.
-
If you are talking about me, I was 'technically' uninsured, and the police knew I had had a policy in force, and they realised I wasn't 'trying it on' with them, so they were very accommodating. It wasn't to avoid prosecution, I was still summonsed to court over it. To make it stranger, they made me promise to make my policy good and left me at the roadside speaking to my insurer, before I had actually completed the call.
-
No, neither am i. To green_and_mean, the insurer stated to the OP that the insurance was never cancelled. You can't reconcile that with the police seizing his car. To the OP, get it in writing from your insurance company that you were insured for the period you were stopped by the police. Make sure you take that letter to court. Then follow up with the complaint, and you should get your towing and storage charges back.
-
Oh, and I do have some experience in this area. A few years ago, I was stopped for a technical breach of my insurance. The police phoned my insurance company, then put me on the phone, I paid some extra money over the phone, and my policy was made good. I was then insured and the police had no reason to seize my car.
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS