Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • when mediation call they will ask the same 3 questions that are in their email you had to accept it going forward. simply state 'i do not have enough information from the claimant to make an informed decision upon mediation so i refuse. end of problem.  
    • Food prices, including a $40 chicken, has stoked fury and calls for big foreign supermarket chains to come to Canada.View the full article
    • Which Court have you received the claim from ? Civil National Business CEntre Name of the Claimant ? Lowell Portfolio i Ltd How many defendant's  joint or self ? Self   Date of issue –  15 Feb 2024 Particulars of Claim What is the claim for – the reason they have issued the claim?  The claim is for the sum of £922 due by the Defendant under and agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 for a Capital One account with an account reference of [number with 16 digits] The Defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a Default Notice was served under s.87(1) of the Consumer Credit ACt 1974 which has not been complied with. The debt was legally assigned to the claimant on 16-06-23, notice of which has been given to the defendant. The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of the issue of these proceedings in the sum of £49.15 The Claimant claims the sum of £972 What is the total value of the claim? £1112 Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? I dont know the details of the PAPDC to know if it was pursuant to paragraph 3, but I did receive a Letter of Claim with a questionaire/form to fill. Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No 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 ? no 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 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. Assigned/purchaser Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? I was aware, I'm not certain I received a 'Notice of Assignment' from Capital One but may have been informed the account had been sold without such a title on the letter? Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Yes Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Not since the debt purchase, and not from Capital One. Why did you cease payments? I can't remember - it was the tail end of the pandemic and I may not have had enough income to keep up payments - I am self-employed and work in the event industry - at that time. I also had a bank account that didn't allow direct debits and may have just forgotten payments and became annoyed at fines for late payments. What was the date of your last payment? Appears to be 20/4/2022 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 Here is my Defence: Defence - 1. The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and 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. I have in the past had an agreement with Capital One but do not recognise this specific account number or recollect any outstanding debt and have therefore requested clarification by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request.. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am unaware of having been served with a Default Notice pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law and Property Act 1925 Section 136(1) 5. The Defendant has sent a request by way of a section 78 pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, for a copy of the agreement, the Claimant has yet to comply and remains in default of said request. 6. A further request has been made via CPR 31.14 to the Claimants solicitor, requesting disclosure of documents on which the Claimant is basing their claim. The Claimant has not complied and to date nothing has been received. 7. It is therefore not accepted with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to: a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement and; b) show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed for and; c) show the nature of the breach and evidence by way of a Default Notice pursuant to sec 88 CCA1974 d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim 8. As per Civil Procedure 16.5 it is expected that the claimants prove the allegation that the money is owed 9. 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 10. 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. .................. Please note that I had to write a defence quite quickly as I hit the deadline. At the time of writing the defence, I hadn't been able to find correspondence from Capital One, but had since found default letter etc. I submitted CCA request and CPR 31.14. However, I didn't get any proof of postage or use registered post for the CPR (an oversight) but did with the CCA request. I received a pack which included a letter from Overdales, going over the defence I'd filed, as well as letters of Lowells and reprints of letters from Capital One. But I have no idea if this pack is in response to the CCA request or the CPR ! I would have expected two separate responses ... although I do know they are both the same company. Looking over the pack today, and looking through old emails .. I find some discrepancies in the Capital One default letters (notice of default and Claim of default). They are both dated *before* an email I have stating that a default can be avoided. The one single page of agreement sent (so not the full agreement) has a 16 digit number at the top in small print, next to 'Capital One' which corresponds to a number called 'PURN' printed at the top of each of the 10 pages of ins and outs of the account (they're not official statements, but a list of monthly goings) yet no mention anywhere on either of the account number. I cant really scan them at the moment - I can later tomorrow, but that will be after the mediation call I'm sure. I guess I may be on my own for this mediation ... I am not certain the CCA request has been satisfied .. or if the CPR has been . And then I appear to have evidence that the Default notices provided are fabricated ? Yet, I do have (elsewhere ... not at home) Default letters from Capital One I can check ..
    • Atsushi Katsuki tells the BBC the firm sees the sober generation as both a risk and an opportunity.View the full article
  • 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

Drink Driving


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3431 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

Some very interesting opinions circulating on this topic, and it's good to see nobody being attacked for having their own opinion.

 

I think the drink drive limit in the UK is very tolerant, as mentioned earlier, have a look at other EU Countries that set their limits very low, almost a zero tolerance approach if you will.

 

I agree with what a poster said here, the statistics obviously show that accidents involving drink driving are very small, however, remember that accidents involving drink driving are generally extremely serious in regards to the injuries caused.

 

I read that on average 3,000 people are killed or seriously injured each year in drink drive collisions, and nearly one in six of all deaths on the road involve drivers who are over the legal alcohol limit (drunk driving being one of the "fatal 5").

 

I think also people forget that the drink drive limit is somewhat arbitrary, as there remain so many different factors surrounding how alcohol affects each and every person differently.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also what are the figures historically for drink drive accidents.

 

You would need a history of drink driver accidents per 1000 drivers measured from before drink driving was made an offesnse all the way through to current day before you can justify that the laws are not worth having.

 

Yes accidents may be fewer now, but MORE people now find it socially unacceptable to drink and drive. Compare that with the attidues decades previously and you will prob find accidents were more frequent.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

95% of vehicle collisions in the UK are not drink related.

Only 5% of collisions are drink related.

The vast majority of the carnage is caused by motorists who haven't been

drinking at all.

I therefore wonder why motorists who don't drink but cause accidents don't receive an

automatic disqualification for incompetence. or driving without due care and attention.

Over the years I have known people who have lost their licence due to failing a random

breath test by a small margin without any detectable impairment of their driving standard.

These people were risking an accident but never had an accident.

I have also known people who have caused fairly serious accidents who don't drink and

were not disqualified.

I therefore conclude that according to the law, risking an accident is far more serious than actually

having an accident.

Now surely if the government wish to reduce injuries and deaths on the roads then motorists

who cause accidents should be treated equally as severely as motorists who are caught just

risking an accident.

 

Burden of proof.

 

It is easier to prove someone is over the drink drive limit than that their driving fell far below the standard of the careful & competent driver.

Link to post
Share on other sites

95% of vehicle collisions in the UK are not drink related.

Only 5% of collisions are drink related.

What weer the figures per 1000 population before laws were introduced. How do these figures change as the law changed? As mentioned above without this information those stats are meaningless

 

The vast majority of the carnage is caused by motorists who haven't been

drinking at all.

I therefore wonder why motorists who don't drink but cause accidents don't receive an

automatic disqualification for incompetence. or driving without due care and attention.

 

Burden of Proof. PLUS INTENT. Most collsions are not delibrate. By drinking you are deliberately adding RISK, Same with drugs Same with driving with a mobile phone.

 

Over the years I have known people who have lost their licence due to failing a random

breath test by a small margin without any detectable impairment of their driving standard.

 

Who assessed their driving standard?

 

These people were risking an accident but never had an accident.

 

Exactly, KNOWINGLY RISKING is different to accidental incidents.

 

I have also known people who have caused fairly serious accidents who don't drink and

were not disqualified.

 

Key word = Accident

 

I therefore conclude that according to the law, risking an accident is far more serious than actually

having an accident.

 

Driving a vehicle is a huge responsibility with potentially Fatal consequences. You have an obligation to protect yourself passengers and everyone around you by making sure you reduce the risk as far as reasonably practicable. Knowingly driving after having a drink increases risk, is foreseeable and entirely preventable. The law makes knowingly endangering other people more serious than accidental incidents. again. key word. KNOWINGLY or INTENT

 

Now surely if the government wish to reduce injuries and deaths on the roads then motorists

who cause accidents should be treated equally as severely as motorists who are caught just

risking an accident.

 

 

If people cause a major accident and are knowingly driving without due care or attention then they ARE genuinely prosecuted.

I also think that being caught driving whilst on a mobile phone should be an instant ban

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If people cause a major accident and are knowingly driving without due care or attention then they ARE genuinely prosecuted.

I also think that being caught driving whilst on a mobile phone should be an instant ban

 

Hence the move from "RTA" to "RTC"

 

Collisions rather than Accidents, as many are avoidable, and if avoidable, not strictly speaking "accidental"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed that driving while using a mobile phone should result in an immediate ban.

In my area this would solve the congestion by taking 50% of the drivers off the road.

It seems that in London is compulsory to use a mobile phone while driving.

They should have a dedicated team of police officers banning as many mobile phone users as possible, and smash their phone with a sledge hammer on the spot!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppoer this :D

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There seems to be something wrong with the laws regarding the use of mobile phones whilst driving.

Research found that driving whilst using a mobile phone was twice as risky as driving whilst just over

the legal alcohol limit. Despite this there is no automatic disqualification for driving whilst using a mobile phone.

Therefore punishments aren't based upon the level of known increased risk.

The driving whilst using a mobile phone laws don't make sense.

These laws only apply to radio devices who operate in either the 900MHz or 1800MHz frequency bands.

I am a fully qualified radio amateur licensed to use radio equipment that operates on frequencies other than

the mobile phone frequencies. Whilst driving it's legal for me to use my amateur radio equipment even

though it's far more difficult and distracting to operate compared to a mobile phone.

I can even legally use a Morse key whilst driving !!

I could be prosecuted for driving without due care and attention however that's difficult to prove unless

I was driving obviously badly.

I therefore conclude that the mobile phone laws were brought in to secure easy bookings and rubber stamp

convictions.

Automatic disqualification of mobile phone offenders would result in the treasury loosing enormous amounts

of tax revenue which implies that punishments are based upon money rather than road safety.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There seems to be something wrong with the laws regarding the use of mobile phones whilst driving.

Research found that driving whilst using a mobile phone was twice as risky as driving whilst just over

the legal alcohol limit. Despite this there is no automatic disqualification for driving whilst using a mobile phone.

Therefore punishments aren't based upon the level of known increased risk.

The driving whilst using a mobile phone laws don't make sense.

These laws only apply to radio devices who operate in either the 900MHz or 1800MHz frequency bands.

I am a fully qualified radio amateur licensed to use radio equipment that operates on frequencies other than

the mobile phone frequencies. Whilst driving it's legal for me to use my amateur radio equipment even

though it's far more difficult and distracting to operate compared to a mobile phone.

I can even legally use a Morse key whilst driving !!

I could be prosecuted for driving without due care and attention however that's difficult to prove unless

I was driving obviously badly.

I therefore conclude that the mobile phone laws were brought in to secure easy bookings and rubber stamp

convictions.

Automatic disqualification of mobile phone offenders would result in the treasury loosing enormous amounts

of tax revenue which implies that punishments are based upon money rather than road safety.

 

Not true. Footage, Video or camera is enough.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The stats on collisions are current figures based upon how things are now.

 

Motorists who drive with increased known risk don't do so to deliberately cause a collision.

 

People I have met who have been randomly breath tested and lost their licenses had their driving standard assessed by the Police.

 

 

An old college friend of mine was random breath tested back in 1985

and found to be slightly over the alcohol limit and lost his licence.

 

 

The Police officer told him that he couldn't fault his driving standard and said it was excellent.

 

During the court case the Police stated that his driving standard was impaired which is why they pulled him in.

The Police were telling lies to a Magistrate to secure a conviction. Naughty, naughty.

 

Car insurance companies still pay out if a driver has a collision whilst over the limit and are legally required to provide such cover.

Therefore such an incident is considered to be an accident.

 

I agree that people who cause a major accident and are knowingly driving without due care and attention

are genuinely prosecuted, however, in such cases there is no automatic disqualification.

 

I am therefore still convinced that according to the law, risking an accident is considered far more serious

than actually having an accident.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Im back...

 

I noticed that king12345 said to sorn the car or could lead to trouble?

 

I do not understand this (I didnt do it). The car is taxed, insured and parked off-road. Surely this is fine? You do not need a license to own, tax and insure a car do you ?!

 

 

I actually logged back in to ask another question and saw the above, so obviously wanted to check on that while I was here.

 

 

The other question I have, my car is insured full comp (I am the main and only driver).

 

 

Can my friend drive the car with his fully comp insurance which permits him to drive a vehicle not owned by him as long as its insured?

Or is there any kind of issues that my insurances policy is held by a banned driver?

 

Thanks, James

Link to post
Share on other sites

The other question I have, my car is insured full comp (I am the main and only driver). Can my friend drive the car with his fully comp insurance which permits him to drive a vehicle not owned by him as long as its insured? Or is there any kind of issues that my insurances policy is held by a banned driver?

 

The only way to know for certain, is to check, very carefully, the exact wording in your policy documents.

 

You may find that some motor vehicle insurance policies become void if the policy holder (not driver, my mistake) does not hold, or is disqualified from holding a driving licence.

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im back...

 

I noticed that king12345 said to sorn the car or could lead to trouble?

 

I do not understand this (I didnt do it). The car is taxed, insured and parked off-road. Surely this is fine? You do not need a license to own, tax and insure a car do you ?!

 

 

I actually logged back in to ask another question and saw the above, so obviously wanted to check on that while I was here.

 

 

The other question I have, my car is insured full comp (I am the main and only driver). Can my friend drive the car with his fully comp insurance which permits him to drive a vehicle not owned by him as long as its insured? Or is there any kind of issues that my insurances policy is held by a banned driver?

 

 

Thanks, James

 

You don't need a drivers licence to own, tax or insure a car.

Yes your friend can legally drive your car.

Edited by caro
Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't need a drivers licence to own, tax or insure a car.

Yes your friend can legally drive your car.

 

This is what the op said:

 

Thanks for everyones help.

 

I got a 15 month ban which will be reduced by 3 months after doing the drink driving programme and a £205 fine (I'll save that by just not paying car tax for 12 months!)

 

So relieved and lesson learnt

 

James

 

 

 

Note this sentence: (I'll save that by just not paying car tax for 12 months!)

 

This to me, a reasonable balanced person, sounds like he intends to not tax the car for 12 months.

That's why I suggested to sorn the car.

F.C.

Edited by caro
Link to post
Share on other sites

Im back...

 

I noticed that king12345 said to sorn the car or could lead to trouble?

 

I do not understand this (I didnt do it). The car is taxed, insured and parked off-road. Surely this is fine? You do not need a license to own, tax and insure a car do you ?!

 

 

I actually logged back in to ask another question and saw the above, so obviously wanted to check on that while I was here.

 

 

The other question I have, my car is insured full comp (I am the main and only driver). Can my friend drive the car with his fully comp insurance which permits him to drive a vehicle not owned by him as long as its insured? Or is there any kind of issues that my insurances policy is held by a banned driver?

 

 

Thanks, James

 

Something to bear in mind is that your friend will probably only be insured third party driving your car under his policy so if it's to be a regular thing it might be better to name him on your insurance.

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you told your insurance company that you've been banned? Your policy will nearly always stipulate that you have to tell them immediately. If so, did they cancel the policy or were they happy to keep it running?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Incidentally, please keep it civil folks. There's no need for rudeness or name calling. Some posts edited to remove offensive remarks.

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you told your insurance company that you've been banned? Your policy will nearly always stipulate that you have to tell them immediately. If so, did they cancel the policy or were they happy to keep it running?

 

I didnt tell them as saw no need as I wouldnt be driving ? If I was to drive I wouldnt be insured anyway...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didnt tell them as saw no need as I wouldnt be driving ? If I was to drive I wouldnt be insured anyway...

 

You should always advise of any change of circumstances or they might say your insurance is invalid if you have a claim.

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didnt tell them as saw no need as I wouldnt be driving ? If I was to drive I wouldnt be insured anyway...
Your policy's almost certainly invalid then. Not much point having it, as it won't pay out, even for something. like theft if you haven't told them about a pretty massive change of circumstances.

 

Why does the car actually need taxing and insuring if you can't drive it? You could save a fair bit of money by cancelling both and SORNing it. If you're worried about theft, you can get a fire and theft only policy (Google "laid up insurance") for a fraction of the price of a "regular" one which covers road accidents.note that laid up insurance doesn't count as insurance for the purposes of the Road Trafic Act as it doesn't cover third party risks, so the car still has to be kept off road and SORNed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your policy's almost certainly invalid then. Not much point having it, as it won't pay out, even for something. like theft if you haven't told them about a pretty massive change of circumstances.

 

Why does the car actually need taxing and insuring if you can't drive it? You could save a fair bit of money by cancelling both and SORNing it. If you're worried about theft, you can get a fire and theft only policy (Google "laid up insurance") for a fraction of the price of a "regular" one which covers road accidents.note that laid up insurance doesn't count as insurance for the purposes of the Road Trafic Act as it doesn't cover third party risks, so the car still has to be kept off road and SORNed.

 

I had it insured in case someone damages it or nicks it and I thought it had to be taxed for the insurance to be valid.

 

My insurance quotes this :-

 

 

You are not covered under your policy for any of the following;

 

Contracts

Any claim as a result of an agreement or contract unless it is one the insurer would have been liable for anyway.

 

Who Uses the Car

 

Any injury, loss or damage which takes place while the car is being

* Driven by or in the charge of any person not covered by your Certificate of Motor Insurance; or

* Used other than for the purposes allowed on your Certificate of Motor Insurance; or

* Driven by or in the charge of any person who does not hold or comply with the conditions of a valid license to drive such a vehicle in the country within which the incident occurred.

 

The exception does not apply if the car is;

* Being serviced or repaired by a member of the motor trade.

* Stolen or being taken away without your permission; or

* Being parked by an employee of a hotel or restaurant as part of a car-parking service

 

Sadly Im no lawyer... but I would take this to mean, that even though the guy in charge (me) doesnt have a valid license, this is irrelevant if it is stolen or taken away without my permission?

 

Welcome the view of you guys with more experience in contracts and law ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Generally speaking there'll also be a clause requiring you to inform them of changes to your circumstances, such as convictions, changes of address, changes of occupation. Some of those things you have to tell them about immediately, some of them only in time for your next renewal - but on every policy I've ever seen bans are something that have to be disclosed immediately. It's breaching that clause which potentially makes the whole policy invalid (a far bigger issue than having no tax - which wouldn't be a problem in the event of a claim).

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...