Jump to content


Stopped cheque


aztecmusic
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4353 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

OK well that explains why he so readily wrote you a cheque even though technically you were more at fault than he was, he didn't want this coming to light.

 

Sadly lack of insurance has no bearing on liability, ie if you hit someone who has no insurance you still have to pay for their repairs, unfair I know but that's how it is, but you then get your own back by reporting them to the Police.

 

He was driving a Company vehicle without insurance??????? Usually all employees are covered on a blanket policy so that seems odd, but it also explains why the cheque was possibly stopped, if he shouldn't have been driving the vehicle the Company will have stopped the cheque for that reason (which is wrong as previously discussed).

 

Or was it not a Company car?????????? If so I cannot fathom why he used a Company cheque to pay you when it has nothing to do with his Company.

 

This is going to be an interesting outcome, please let us know what ultimately happens

 

Mossy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, thanks for your reply/interest.

Here is where it becomes interesting. The car he was driving belonged to another employee - insured only for him and his wife (so clearly not a company car)

"OK well that explains why he so readily wrote you a cheque even though technically you were more at fault than he was, he didn't want this coming to light" Yes - our thoughts entirely - but- the man who signed the cheque was the owner of the car and we believeto be an authrsd sgntry - and the guy who was driving was not an authorised signatory for the company. However - it deepens - the man i had accident with admitted to 4 witnesses he was on company business whereas the car he was driving was covered for sdp only - confusing isnt it? The driver is now stating he was on personal business!

However - The crux of the matter is - the accident is irrelevant, the point is I have emails from the other drivier admitting liability and 'offering' to pay direct and not thru insurance (for now obvious apparent reasons) and my leverage is now the 'dishonoured cheque'. Which as far as I know is not in question!!!! They have to pay. ?????

Will keep you guys posted

And ............ thank you.

Aztec xxx

Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider this:

 

A bangs into the back of B. A admits liablilty for the damage. A's great-aunt, C, writes out a cheque and sends it to B. She then talks to A who says that perhaps he was not responsible after all. C puts a stop on the cheque. If B sues C she has no counterclaim because there is no connection between B and C.

 

The company is in the same position as the great aunt.

 

 

 

 

A did not admit liability. B did

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, not informative enough.

 

I am A, B admitted liability.

 

A = Me

B = driver (and employee of company)

C = Owner of car(and employee of company & signatory on cheque)

D = Boss stops cheque!

 

Isn't it confusing! You can see wherein my dilemma lays!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Or was it not a Company car?????????? If so I cannot fathom why he used a Company cheque to pay you when it has nothing to do with his Company.

 

 

 

He said he was on company business and hadn't "done this kind of driving for a long time - but nobody else was available to do the drop so they asked me". But, the car he was driving belonged to another employee ( the signatory on the cheque) and then the boss stopped the cheque (D)

Edited by aztecmusic
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Driving whilst un-insured is a criminal offence, or so I believe.

 

My argument would be that if a person wants to take that kind of risk, then they cannot rely on the law to recompense them when things go wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
  • 8 months later...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...