Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Commercial Landlords are legally allowed to sue for early cancellation of the lease. You can only surrender your lease if your landlord agrees to your doing so. They are under no obligation even to consider your request and are entitled to refuse. You cannot use this as an excuse not to pay your rent. Your landlord is most likely to agree to your surrendering the lease if they want the property back in order to redevelop it, or if they wants to rent it to what they regards as a better tenant or at a higher rent. There are two types of surrender: Express surrender in writing. This is a written document which sets out the terms of the surrender. Implied surrender by conduct. (applies to your position) You can move out of the property you leased, simply hand your keys back and the lease will come to an end, but only if the landlord agrees to accept your surrender. Many tenants have thought they can simply post the keys through the landlord's letter box and the lease is ended. This is not true and without a document from the landlord, not only do you not know if the landlord has accepted the surrender, you also do not know on what basis they have accepted and could find they sue you for rent arrears, service charge arrears, damage to the property and compensation for your attempt to leave the property without the landlord's agreement. Unless you are absolutely certain that the landlord is agreeable to your departure, you should not attempt to imply a surrender by relying on your and the landlord's conduct.  
    • I had to deal with these last year worst DCA I have ever dealt with. Just wait for the constant threats of CCJ and how you'll lose in court and how they won't do medication and they want the judge to question you with a load of "BIG" words to boot with the letter. My case was struck out in the end, stupidity on their part as I admitted to owing the debt in the end going through the court process was just a formality as they wouldn't let it drop despite me admitting the debt regardless. They didn't send the last part of the court paper work in so it ended up being struck out
    • Well, that's it then. Clear proof of the rubbish cameras. Clear proof of double dipping. G24 won't be getting a penny. Belt & braces, I would write to the address LFI has found, include the evidence of double dipping, and ask Fraser Group to call their dogs off.
    • LOL. after sending Perch capital a CCA request with a stapled £1 PO attached (x2) Their lapdog Legal team TM Legal have sent me two letters today saying "due to a recent payment on the account, your account is open to legal/enforcement action" so i guess they have tried to apply that payment to the account to run the statue bar along. dirty tactics lol.
    • I have initiated the breathing space so ill wait. from re reading everything this what i understand BS gives me 60 days break from the creditors during these 60 days they may contact me and will most likely default I need to wait until after a default notice to see whether the OC will keep the debt or sell it off If kept by the OC then i should attempt a plan or pay some token payment? If sold to DCA then don't pay and after 6 years it will leave my credit report once the DN is registered with a date. DCA may start a CCJ but unlikely, if they do come back here. last question, do you know roughly how long this will all take? in terms of defaults/default notice, potential CCJ? Would you say I have 12 months plus from when the BS ends?
  • 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

Moped Crash - Insurance help - no CBT or MOT


Gooter
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4477 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

Hi,

 

I hope this is in the right section, but please move if need be.

 

My cousin had an accident on his moped and broke his leg. He claims he was blameless and the car driver accepts this (I think). His problem is that although he was insured, he had no CBT or MOT :roll:

 

Will that affect any compo he gets? He'll be out of work for a good three months and needs to provide for his family.

 

His insurance was only 3rd party Fire and Theft, so I assume that if he does get any compo, it'll be the other driver's insurance who pays (ie he'll still have his no claims?) as he was blameless in the accident?

 

His wife is a bit frantic atm, so I'd appreciate any comments

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hoe there will be no compensation and treat it as a lesson learnt the hard way.

to enjoy the privilege of the road you should be legal as it is not a right. There will now be a fine by police for no MOT

If i have helped in any way hit my star.

any advice given is based on experience and learnt from this site :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

He could put in a claim for enough to pay of his court fine for having no cbt, no insurance, no Mot.

Or he could leave it alone and hope the other person decides not to do anything about it otherwise your cousin is going to be in trouble. The least of his worrys will be if he can claim for something that shouldn't have happened if he'd not been there as he was not legal to be on the bike in the first place.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

His problem is that although he was insured

 

He was not insured as he has no CBT or MOT.

 

When the other party finds that out, and they will, they will shift blame to your cousin and go after him for all their costs.

 

This is going to be a very expensive experience but he only has himself to blame.

 

Oh and the police will prosecute too which will result in a fine and possible a ban.

 

To be honest I would keep my head down and hope it goes away. Claiming anything is going to open a whole load of trouble.

Link to post
Share on other sites

His insurance is technically invalid as it contains conditions around the licence and the condition of the vehicle and so he can forget any help from his insurer. This is however a "non fault" claim from his viewpoint and therefore he may be able to go to a no win no fee solicitor.

 

The problem is, regardless of blame, the other party are going to make things difficult and therefore, no win no fee solicitors may not be interested as they only like to take on cases they can generally win easily.

 

If he choses to pay for a lawyer, he may get some compensation if it can be proved it was not his fault but this could be expensive and potentially long winded. It is likely at best the other side are going to argue contributory negligence (ie it is partly your fault)

 

For the cost of CBT and MOT all this could have been a lot simpler!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its his fault and thats the end of it. no cbt means he should not be on the road as he has not had the training he should have. If it went to court your friend would end up in a lot more trouble than he is now and the other person could then claim against him for causing the accident and claim damages against him as he couldnt not claim against his insurance as it was void due to no cbt and no mot.

Tell your cousin to dig a hole and hide in it for now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As there was injuries involved then no doubt the police were. What action (if any) have they taken? This could also have a bearing on how things will pan out. I also agree that had the OP's cousin should not of been riding in the first place. What would of happened had of collided with a child?

 

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 face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

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

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, what about the Children!

 

No, wait, what if he'd run over a Kitten.........................

 

H

  • Confused 1

44 years at the pointy end of the motor trade. :eek:

GARUDALINUX.ORG

Garuda Linux comes with a variety of desktop environments like KDE, GNOME, Cinnamon, XFCE, LXQt-kwin, Wayfire, Qtile, i3wm and Sway to choose from.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Defendant will raise a defence of Ex turpi causa non oritur actio which is the old legal maxim for not being able to benefit from an illegal act. However, such a defence is not a strict defence and the cases of Gray v Thames Trains Ltd [2008] and Smyly v Agheampong v Allied Manufacturing (London) Ltd [2008] show that some heads of damage are recoverable even when an illegal act has been undertaken.

The test will be as to whether the illegal act materially contributed to or caused the accident i.e. bike faulty which would have been picked up on MOT and if no fault then the accident would not have happened. If the illegal act is related then it is likely that the Claimant will not recover any damages.

In any event, I agree with the above that the Claimant will have a torrid time if he makes a claim. Personally, if I was on the defence for this claim I would be reporting the Claimant to the police, DVLA etc and bringing up all sorts of arguments in relation to fraud, Ex turpi and have the Claimant under surveillance if they made a claim for personal injury and then if I could prove any fraud I would try for a prosecution against them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, what about the Children!

 

No, wait, what if he'd run over a Kitten.........................

 

H

 

:noidea:

 

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 face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

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

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing to prevent him making a claim against the third party (I deal with personal injury daily and have had many cases like this) and it will be dealt with in exactly the same way as any other claim would be handled.

 

No MOT has absolutely no bearing unless it can be shown that is directly contributed to the cause of the crash, and no CBT will not have a direct bearing, but the other side will try and apportion a degree of contrib, but they can only do this if the evidence is a bot flimsy, but then they would have to show that your lack of a DL196 directly contributed to the cause of the crash.

 

Your solicitor will under the pre action protocols write a letter of claim to the third party, and there is no need to use your insurance under a conditional fee agreement (no win no fee) anyway, and in any case, unlless your insurers have made it a specific point in the terms and conditions, having no MOT and DL196 is not sufficient to cancel your policy, but they would still have to cover you third party anyway.

 

If you want some help, you are free to message me and I will be happy to help, but don't panic, any claim you make is still valid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How can he have insurance with no valid licence or MOT?

 

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 face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

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

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

How can he have insurance with no valid licence or MOT?

 

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 face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

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

 

 

If he is simply missing his DL196, that does not mean that his licence is invalid, and likewise, no MOT does not and cannot invalidate his insurance per se unless it is specific to the terms and conditions in his policy

 

But in any case it does not preclude anyone from making a claim because the claim is not made by the OP's insurers, and he is not precluded from making a claim if someone has or is proven to be negligent.

 

It is no different to a pedestrian making a claim against a car driver, the OP does not need to be insured to make a claim, and even if he had no licence at all, it still would not preclude him from making a claim against the third party.

 

If he had not been wearing a crash helmet, that does not invalidate a claim, it just means that he would have to accept a 25% reduction for contrib, or if he had been in a car and not wearing a seat belt, then the same degree of contrib applies. It does not invalidate the right to claim for injuries sustained or invalidate the insurance.

 

Civil procedure rules work completely differently to road traffic laws as far as liability is concerned,

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing to prevent him making a claim (I deal with personal injury daily and have had many cases like this)

Really?

Its you're lot that keep texting me about the non existent accident.

What you are saying is I can drive on the roads with no licence and still have insurance?

The terms and conditions of any insurance is that you have a licence otherwise it is the same as driving with no insurance if IE if you have a provisional licence and get caught driving without supervision it is NO insurance.

Having no MOT normally will only cover you third party

NO licence No argument should not be on the road=NO INSURANCE

I am sure given all this no payout will or should happen a lesson learnt the hard way

If i have helped in any way hit my star.

any advice given is based on experience and learnt from this site :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing to prevent him making a claim (I deal with personal injury daily and have had many cases like this)

Really?

Its you're lot that keep texting me about the non existent accident.

What you are saying is I can drive on the roads with no licence and still have insurance?

The terms and conditions of any insurance is that you have a licence otherwise it is the same as driving with no insurance if IE if you have a provisional licence and get caught driving without supervision it is NO insurance.

Having no MOT normally will only cover you third party

NO licence No argument should not be on the road=NO INSURANCE

I am sure given all this no payout will or should happen a lesson learnt the hard way

 

Firstly, the texts you get are from claims management firms who then sell the cases on, not from solicitors. The majority of these text messages originate from a call centre in Basingstoke.

 

Secondly, before you start questioning whether the OP can make a claim or not, may I suggest that you go away and actually learn how the system works. It is bar room lawyers like you who cause many of the problems we have these days in the legal system.

 

He has a licence FFS :roll: It is simply not validated by a DL196 CBT certificate, or it may have expired, either way if look at your insurance policy it will say something along the lines of "Holds or has held a driving licence!" and whilst it may not provide full cover, the insurance company is still obliged to maintain third party cover unless it is specified in the policy.

 

Having no MOT may reduce the cover to third party, but that still does not preclude the OP from making a claim for the injuries sustained.

 

What you perceive to be law and what actually applies can be two different things, but either way, it still does not preclude the OP from making a claim for his injuries regardless of what your biggoted self beliefs might be :evil:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...