Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • Monika the first four pages of the Private parking section have at least 12 of our members who have also been caught out on this scam site. That's around one quarter of all our current complaints. Usually we might expect two current complaints for the same park within 4 pages.  So you are in good company and have done well in appealing to McDonalds in an effort to resolve the matter without having  paid such a bunch of rogues. Most people blindly pay up. Met . Starbucks and McDonalds  are well aware of the situation and seem unwilling to make it easier for motorists to avoid getting caught. For instance, instead of photographing you, if they were honest and wanted you  to continue using their services again, they would have said "Excuse me but if you are going to go to Mc donalds from here, it will cost you £100." But no they kett quiet and are now pursuing you for probably a lot more than £100 now. They also know thst  they cannot charge anything over the amount stated on the car park signs. Their claims for £160 or £170 are unlawful yet so many pay that to avoid going to Court. When the truth is that Met are unlikely to take them to Court since they know they will lose. The PCNs are issued on airport land which is covered by Byelaws so only the driver can be pursued, not the keeper. But they keep writing to you as they do not know who was driving unless you gave it away when you appealed. Even if they know you were driving they should still lose in Court for several reasons. The reason we ask you to fill out our questionnaire is to help you if MET do decide to take you to Court in the end. Each member who visited the park may well have different experiences while there which can help when filling out a Witness statement [we will help you with that if it comes to it.] if you have thrown away the original PCN  and other paperwork you obviously haven't got a jerbil or a guinea pig as their paper makes great litter boxes for them.🙂 You can send an SAR to them to get all the information Met have on you to date. Though if you have been to several sites already, you may have done that by now. In the meantime, you will be being bombarded by illiterate debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors all threatening you with ever increasing amounts as well as being hung drawn and quartered. Their letters can all be safely ignored. On the odd chance that you may get a Letter of Claim from them just come back to us and we will get you to send a snotty letter back to them so that they know you are not happy, don't care a fig for their threats and will see them off in Court if they finally have the guts to carry on. If you do have the original PCN could you please post it up, carefully removing your name. address and car registration number but including dates and times. If not just click on the SAR to take you to the form to send to Met.
    • In order for us to help you we require the following information:- [if there are more than one defendant listed - tell us] 1 defendant   Which Court have you received the claim from ? County Court Business Centre, Northampton   Name of the Claimant ? LC Asset 2 S.A R.L   Date of issue – . 28/04/23   Particulars of Claim   What is the claim for –    (1) The Claimant ('C') claims the whole of the outstanding balance due and payable under an agreement referenced xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and opened effective from xx/xx/2017. The agreement is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ('CCA'), was signed by the Defendant ('D') and from which credit was extended to D.   (2) D failed to comply with a Default Notice served pursuant to s87 (1) CCA and by xx/xx/2022 a default was recorded.   (3) As at xx/xx/2022 the Defendant owed MBNA LTD the sum of 12,xxx.xx. By an agreement in writing the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to C effective xx/xx/2022 and made regular upon C serving a Notice of Assignment upon D shortly thereafter.   (4) And C claims- 1. 12,xxx.xx 2. Interest pursuant to Section 69 County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from xx/01/2023 to xx/04/2023 of 2xx.xx and thereafter at a daily rate of 2.52 to date of judgement or sooner payment. Date xx/xx/2023   What is the total value of the claim? 12k   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? Yes   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? N/A Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes, but amount differs slightly   Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. DP issued claim   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Not that I recall...   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Not that I recall...   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Yes   Why did you cease payments? Loss of employment main cause   What was the date of your last payment? Early 2021   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No   -----------------------------------
    • Hello CAG Team, I'm adding the contents of the claim to this thread, but wanted to open the thread with an urgent question: Do I have to supply a WS for a claim with a court date that states " at the hearing the court will consider allocation and, time permitting, give an early neutral evaluation of the case" ? letter is an N24 General Form of Judgement or Order, if so, then I've messed up again. Court date 25 May 2024 The letter from court does not state (like the other claims I have) that I must provide WS within 28 days.. BUT I have recently received a WS from Link for it! making me think I do need to!??
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Speeding - Notice of intention to prosecute


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4968 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

I received a letter from a police camera enforcement unit notifying me of their intention to prosecute me as the hirer of a vehicle at the time of an alleged speeding offence.

I have 28 days to either accept that I was the driver of the vehicle and provide my licence details or provide the name and address of the person driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence.

But I wasn't the driver and not sure who was driving the vehicle at the time - it could be one of three persons.

I wrote to the police to ask for a copy of the photograph that they have, to enable me identify the driver. But they wrote back saying they cannot provide such information to me at this stage. They will only provide such information after a summons has been issued. They want me rather to provide the names of all those that could have been driving the vehicle AS WELL AS the insurance document allowing them to drive the vehicle. Am I really responsible for other driver's insurance?

 

Anyway, any ideas people? Anyone had a similar experience?

 

cheers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying you hired a vehicle but let other people drive it? What were the conditions of the hiring? Normally vehicles are hired to individuals and the company take copies of driving licences and credit card details. However I am sure they also rent out to companies and place conditions on who can drive it did you do it on behalf of a company?

 

If it was a personal hiring and you allowed someone not authorised by the owner to drive it then you might technically comitted an offence of Allowing the Vehicle to be Driven Without the consent of the Owner. S 12 Theft Act 1968. That charge normally is accompanied by a No Insurance charge even if you have insurance it would be invalidated. So the short answer is that you probably are responsible for the insurance, but we need to know more about the details of the hiring.

 

Sorry if this is a shock to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there and welcome.

 

So you hired a car and let other people drive it?

 

S.172(2)b says that:

 

any other person [other than the keeper] shall if required as stated above give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver.

 

If you fail to give this information, you are guilty of an offence.

 

If the hire agreement did not allow the use of the vehicle by the other people than you may be in further bother - potentially.

 

As for insurance, it is an offence to permit a person to use a vehicle if they are not covered by a policy of insurance. So if you allowed these other people to use the car without insurance than that's another offence.

 

So the question is: Did the hire agreement allow the other people to drive the car?

Edited by mightymouse_69
misread OP's post and made a series of c*ck ups
Link to post
Share on other sites

papasmurf1cx, thanks for that. No it isn't a shock. I am looking for honest opinions and yours is certainly one.

I use the vehicle for my business so it is on a long-term hire agreement. I have let others drive the car cos their own insurance cover them to drive other cars. It isn't hired on behalf of a company, it is a personal hire agreement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You must provide the Police with the possible names. It is an offence not to.

 

You will need to check the other drivers insurance certificates, ensure there is no limitation on the drive other vehicles clause. You will also have to send copies of to the police with the names - as per their request.

 

As for the taking without consent, its probably worth worrying about that when the time comes - if it does. But it may be worth checking the hire agreement at any rate to see what it says about other people using the car.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If, having checked all the possible drivers and the insurance they were driving under, if you find any possible "oversights" in this, then apart from never letting them drive your car again, you may find it prudent to think back to the offence day, and realise it was you driving the car at the time and tell the police that in your reply.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you may find it prudent to think back to the offence day, and realise it was you driving the car at the time and tell the police that in your reply.

 

I don't think making up a story to fit is wise. If it is a bad situation which one can't get out of legally, I don't think Perverting the Course of Justice will make it any better!!!!!!!! Tell the truth and take the medicine if it is relevant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

papasmurf1cx, thanks for that. No it isn't a shock. I am looking for honest opinions and yours is certainly one.

I use the vehicle for my business so it is on a long-term hire agreement. I have let others drive the car cos their own insurance cover them to drive other cars. It isn't hired on behalf of a company, it is a personal hire agreement.

 

I take it the car was hired on your own insurance. If not, then the other drivers will not be covered in any event as their licences would of been need to be recorded/ok'd by the hire co as it would of been under their policy. The other driver's policies would no doubt cover then to drive another car not owned by them on a third party basis only but I doubt the hire co would agree to allowing that. If you don't tread carefully here, you could be opening a tin of worms for yourself.

 

Please Note

 

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

I would always urge to seek professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I take it the car was hired on your own insurance. If not, then the other drivers will not be covered in any event as their licences would of been need to be recorded/ok'd by the hire co as it would of been under their policy. The other driver's policies would no doubt cover then to drive another car not owned by them on a third party basis only but I doubt the hire co would agree to allowing that. If you don't tread carefully here, you could be opening a tin of worms for yourself.

 

Please Note

 

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

I would always urge to seek professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

 

Good point about the 3rd party cover! Even if the lease company are happy with it as cover if one of the 'friends' wrote off the car you would be liable to replace it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point about the 3rd party cover! Even if the lease company are happy with it as cover if one of the 'friends' wrote off the car you would be liable to replace it.

 

Doub't it very much. Most (the ones I worked for) insist on fully comp cover as we are no doubt talking new car. Only way round it as I see it is if the OP had the car covered on his own insurance and his policy would need to be for any driver. Unless this is the case, my advice is to pay the ticket without any fuss! The OP runs the risk of finding that the driver may not have been insured. As you point out, it could of been a lot worse!

 

Please Note

 

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

I would always urge to seek professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

Please click my reputation button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Caddy-dave:

 

In your correspondence with the police, did you :

 

1) State that you were not the driver?

2) State that you allowed three friends to drive the car?

 

If not, then the suggestion to pay up immediately has merit. However, the fact that you have written already asking for the photo for identification purposes may well arouse some suspicion.

 

I have a feeling that the police, being aware that this is a hire car, may already be suspecting that something is up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, it would seem likely that the OP made the understandable error of asking the police to provide him with their photographic "evidence" rather than asking for them to provide copies of any photographs that might assist in his duty to identify the driver at the time of the alleged offence. This might seem like a ridiculously subtle difference but the SCP will have latched onto the word evidence and slammed the shutters down because no one is entitled to evidence (in such cases) until such time as they have entered a "not guilty" plea at court.

 

There is long-standing ACPO guidance recommending to SCP's and police forces that in the face of a genuine request to divulge photographs to assist drivers in fulfilling their legal duty (s.172 RTA 1988) that such photographs should be provided.

 

If there is sufficient time left of the 28-days, I suggest that the OP replies to the SCP and renews his request for a copy of photographs and emphasises that it is solely to assist him in fulfilling his legal duty. He should not elaborate upon that request at this stage and make the request as polite as possible. This renewed request should be sent by Special Delivery and a copy of the letter kept - in common with copies of all correspondence.

 

The production of insurance details should be regarded as a side issue at this stage and has no relevance as yet. In any event unless the requirement for it came directly from a police officer then it is a dead duck and cannot be enforced. It is likely that it is just a frightener.

 

In the interim the OP should start checking through and collating such records as are available - mobile phones; bank cards; credit card statements; diaries; receipts etc etc and those of his colleagues. This checking may provide the answer he seeks but will also go to proving (if needs be) the degree of "reasonable diligence" he has carried out, as required by s.172, to ascertain the driver's identity.

 

Whilst in normal circumstances a defendant is only required to reach the level of proof "on the balance of probabilities" in terms of his defence, such is the dislike of courts for the offence of 'failing to furnish' (failing to comply with a s.172 requirement) that many additional hoops are often created. The OP would do well to bear this in mind should he ultimately remain unable to name the driver and is summonsed. He will need to show that he exercised reasonable diligence at the time of the requirement not at the point of receiving the summons - a mistake some drivers often make.

 

Should the OP be minded to come up with a "cooked book" together with some or all of the putative drivers - whether this relates to whomever is named as the driver or in relation to the insurance issue - then he may well stray into the territory of conspiring to pervert the course of justice. If discovered the police will prosecute and anyone convicted would almost certainly be imprisoned.

 

However, if any reply was made carelessly or recklessly then no such conspiracy can by definition have taken place.

 

A conviction for "failing to furnish" carries a hefty fine (anything between £350 and the maximum - salary dependant), will probably include an order for costs, the Victim Support Levy and a mandatory 6 points. The licence endorsement code - MS90 - is not popular with insurers and those who "collect" one could expect a substantial hike in premiums for some years and may even see their insurance revoked.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the interim the OP should start checking through and collating such records as are available - mobile phones; bank cards; credit card statements; diaries; receipts etc etc and those of his colleagues. This checking may provide the answer he seeks but will also go to proving (if needs be) the degree of "reasonable diligence" he has carried out, as required by s.172, to ascertain the driver's identity.

 

There is no degree of reasonable diligence where the person is not the keeper of the vehicle (s.172(4)). The OP is merely required to provide "any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver."

 

In my opinion, the OP is in a rather awkward situation - He must provide an accurate list of all drivers. Doing so, however, could in turn lead him into more trouble...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, it would seem likely that the OP made the understandable error of asking the police to provide him with their photographic "evidence" rather than asking for them to provide copies of any photographs that might assist in his duty to identify the driver at the time of the alleged offence. This might seem like a ridiculously subtle difference but the SCP will have latched onto the word evidence and slammed the shutters down because no one is entitled to evidence (in such cases) until such time as they have entered a "not guilty" plea at court.

 

I was careful about that actually. I did not ask for a photographic evidence but rather a copy of the photograph to enable me identify the driver.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Caddy, can you answer the other points which have been raised; A) was the hire car on your own insurance (under a cover note bearing the car's details- VRM/make/model ect) and is your cover 'any driver'? B) If not, does the hire agreement show whether any driver other than yourself can drive?

 

Please Note

 

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Caddy, can you answer the other points which have been raised; A) was the hire car on your own insurance (under a cover note bearing the car's details- VRM/make/model ect) and is your cover 'any driver'? B) If not, does the hire agreement show whether any driver other than yourself can drive?

 

 

I will check the terms of the hire agreement when I get home at the weekend. I have insurance that allows me to drive 'any car' so the vehicle details dont appear on my insurance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Police and Courts take a dim view of 'not remembering' in my experience. Most people can remember what they were doing on a certain day be it work, shopping or a social trip. If all 3 of your friends have amnesia it is you that is going to pay the price at the end of the day.

 

 

It is not a case of not remembering but rather not knowing who was driving the car on the day. Strictly speaking, I did not give my consent on that occasion which is the reason behind the denials. I suspect that I may have to carry the can at the end of the day but having learned a lesson.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will check the terms of the hire agreement when I get home at the weekend. I have insurance that allows me to drive 'any car' so the vehicle details dont appear on my insurance.

 

I'm not being funny but I would of thought you would know whether the hire car was covered on your insurance or not. The point being, if it is covered on your insurance (which means you would of had to provide to the hire co a cover note bearing their vehicle details on it) and your policy is for 'any driver', then there is nothing to worry about. However, if the car is covered by the hire co's insurance then the drivers MUST be named on the hire agreement and they would of been needed to be present when the agreement was opened other wise they would not be legally entitled to drive the car and you would not have the authority to give consent. I'm sorry, but you appear to be holding back on this very important issue which suggests to me that the car is on the hire co's insurance. Now, with a little luck (and has allready been pointed out by

Old Snowy), this issue may not be relevant to the speeding ticket unless it is indeed a driver who was driving who is not on the agreement. Having said that, the police MAY not pick up the fact that the driver (whoever he/she was), was not entitled to drive the car as they would not have been insured to do so. BUT my concern is that when you name the driver, he/she will have to accept the FPN and submit their licence for endorsement. If they choose to contest it in someway, then there is a signifitant chance that the fact that they may not have been covered by insurance, may come to light and then this will fall back on you because the car was your responsibility as far as the RTA is concernerd. So my advice to you is that you (assuming that the car wasn't covered by your insurance), is that you pay the ticket and submit your licence as required. You mentioned in an earlier post that the other driver's insurance would cover the car which is quite possibly correct if it was hired to them with the owners consent, but according to your info so far that was not the case.

 

Please Note

 

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

I would always urge to seek professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Caddy-dave:

 

In your correspondence with the police, did you :

 

1) State that you were not the driver?

2) State that you allowed three friends to drive the car?

 

If not, then the suggestion to pay up immediately has merit. However, the fact that you have written already asking for the photo for identification purposes may well arouse some suspicion.

 

I have a feeling that the police, being aware that this is a hire car, may already be suspecting that something is up.

 

 

Yes, I stated that I was not the driver.

I didn't say that I allowed 3 friends drive the car. I said that it could have been any one of three persons.

So I will now furnish them with the 3 names and wait to hear from them if need be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not being funny but I would of thought you would know whether the hire car was covered on your insurance or not.

 

I did say that it is covered on my insurance which allows me to drive 'any car'. But the details of the hire agreement relating to other people driving the car is what I will confirm over the weekend.

Link to post
Share on other sites

papasmurf1cx, thanks for that. No it isn't a shock. I am looking for honest opinions and yours is certainly one.

I use the vehicle for my business so it is on a long-term hire agreement. I have let others drive the car cos their own insurance cover them to drive other cars. It isn't hired on behalf of a company, it is a personal hire agreement.

 

Sorry but i'm getting the impression you are giving contridicting info here. As I have worked in the car rental industry, I know how it works. Your'e either covered by the rental co's insurance or your own. If the latter, you would need to inform your insurers of the car's details and the rental co would need a cover note which would almost certainly need to be fully comp. You say your policy covers you to drive any car (as does mine and most others) but I would bet it is only on a third party basis. I suspect that you are taking it for granted that the other 'drivers' were covered by there own respective insurance which is very risky because their policies no doubt will stipulate that the car is (again) coverd third party providing it is being driven with the owners consent. I don't know of any car rental co (certainly none of the nationals) which would accept a hirers insurance cover that was for third party risks only. Your info suggests that the rental is in your name only thus meaning that only you have the owners consent to drive. I am also concerned to note that you are now saying that you havn't given your consent for the other 3 drivers to drive the car although in your earlier post (above) you indicate you did. Not sure if I speak for anyone else on this thread, but I will only give my time to assist people who give accurate and honest info.

 

So (in the theme of Dragon's Den), for those reasons, i'm not going to 'invest' in this thread anymore so 'i'm out'.

 

Please Note

 

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

I would always urge to seek professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...