Davectr Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Has anyone seen this? Bit of an eye opener, and worth bearing in mind if you sell a vehicle in the future! http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scots-biker-insurance-hell-after-4141840 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tatooandy67 Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Wtf, In this instance I think it's fair to say the law is an ass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AliveBoy Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 If someone told me this without proof I'd have said that they were lying. Absolutely stunned! Poor bloke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyndzzz Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 That's shocking, feel for the poor bloke! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
350zedd Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Always write the time of day on the receipt when you sell your car, and get the other party to sign it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabbitstew Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 That is mental and very strange! Surely its up to the registered keeper (i.e. guy who crashed the bike) to ensure its insured and the buck stops with him. If he doesnt have insurance then the courts persue him and penalise him accordingly. Its absolutely nothing to do with previous owners. I doubt anyone cancels their insurance once they sell a bike or car, as very often you sell one, then shop about and buy another, then let your insurance company know so they can change over the reg number/vehicle details. The only time ive ever cancelled my insurance after selling the vehicle, I ended up getting penalised by the insurance company to the tune of about twice what the actual insurance cost me in the first place due to "early cancellation" penalties etc.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KyleR Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Wait, so this means that the vehicle is insured and not the policy holder and named drivers, so that makes adding named drivers such as your friends or children to your policy pointless, because according to this insurance company, they'll be covered anyway The stupid thing is, other than what I have already said, is that if the guy just crashed and didn't die, but caused some damage, the insurance company would deny that the vehicle was insured because the pilot isn't on the policy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrian@TORQEN Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 WTF!?!?! I got two bus lane tickets after selling my 350z and took months to redirect them to the new owner, also a member here but the insurance situation in this case is unheard of Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetSet Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 I got two bus lane tickets after selling my 350z and took months to redirect them to the new owner, also a member here Some years ago I traded my Escort XR3i for a Capri 2.8i at Stormont in Liverpool. A few months later a couple of policemen came to my door and asked me why one of Liverpool's best known drug dealers was driving around in my Escort . Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tatooandy67 Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 I once got sent a fine for a parking ticket for an old banger I'd scrapped some months earlier from an area I've never visited, shocking that the authorities could trace me the previous owner but had no knowledge of the scrap man who'd taken the vehicle away until I produced the paperwork to prove it wasn't mine at the time of the parking offence Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mondo 300 Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 This is appalling! The guy SOLD the bike, not lent it to him for a few days. And don't most insurance policies now state that the policyholder must be the registered keeper of the vehicle? If he sold the bike and has a receipt to show that, there should be no liability whatsoever for the previous owner (I accept that DVLA records wouldn't have been updated in such a short time - the receipt should serve as sufficient proof though). He was an uninsured rider. That should be the absolute end of the matter, surely...? Even "driving any vehicle with owner's permission" cover shouldn't apply here as it explicitly states that it doesn't cover a vehicle you own yourself, which, if he'd bought the bike, makes that section obsolete. Outrageous!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianphampton Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Bad news - feel REALLY gutted for the poor guy who sold his bike Good news - the average level of the gene pool has gone up as we lose the lowlife who killed himself whilst banned 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dynamic Turtle Posted September 2, 2014 Share Posted September 2, 2014 Do they have different insurance laws in Scotland?! Seems bizarre and monumentally stupid regardless - the vehicle insurance market is so very broken and this is yet more proof of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 You're all reading this the wrong way. This is no different than if you lend your car to someone else, which is effectively what happened here. Forget the fact the new owner paid for the bike, technically it was still insured under the original policy and as such that will always remain the policy in force, if there is no other one available. As such, that insurer is responsible for paying out in an accident to all third parties involved, and since the policy holder broke the terms of the policy then they are completely right to come after him for the money. Is it a harsh lesson? No doubt. Is it the right thing to do? I'm not sure. Are they justified in doing do? Absolutely. Why did he not cancel the policy? Why did he not check the other guy had insurance? Why did he not ask to see his licence? This could've been so easily avoided. One guy here was a criminal, but the other was a fool. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock_Steady Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 (edited) I suppose because it's generally unheard of, you wouldn't think of it. People rely on the good nature of others. Perhaps that's naïve, but it happens or at least, it did to that poor guy. Talk about kick a man when he's down. Where's the humanity? Such a shame. Edited September 3, 2014 by Rock_Steady Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KyleR Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 (edited) You're all reading this the wrong way. This is no different than if you lend your car to someone else, which is effectively what happened here. Forget the fact the new owner paid for the bike, technically it was still insured under the original policy and as such that will always remain the policy in force, if there is no other one available. As such, that insurer is responsible for paying out in an accident to all third parties involved, and since the policy holder broke the terms of the policy then they are completely right to come after him for the money. Is it a harsh lesson? No doubt. Is it the right thing to do? I'm not sure. Are they justified in doing do? Absolutely. Why did he not cancel the policy? Why did he not check the other guy had insurance? Why did he not ask to see his licence? This could've been so easily avoided. One guy here was a criminal, but the other was a fool. But why? If I don't declare my Alloys the insurance can deny liability in the event of a claim, why can't they do the same when no one named on the policy was riding it? I think he didn't cancel the policy for the same reason the rest of us hadn't. He probably only had a couple of months left to run on the policy which he'd already paid for and didn't want to lose the NCB. Edited September 3, 2014 by KyleR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AliveBoy Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 You're all reading this the wrong way. This is no different than if you lend your car to someone else, which is effectively what happened here. Forget the fact the new owner paid for the bike, technically it was still insured under the original policy and as such that will always remain the policy in force, if there is no other one available. As such, that insurer is responsible for paying out in an accident to all third parties involved, and since the policy holder broke the terms of the policy then they are completely right to come after him for the money. Is it a harsh lesson? No doubt. Is it the right thing to do? I'm not sure. Are they justified in doing do? Absolutely. Why did he not cancel the policy? Why did he not check the other guy had insurance? Why did he not ask to see his licence? This could've been so easily avoided. One guy here was a criminal, but the other was a fool. But why? If I don't declare my Alloys the insurance can deny liability in the event of a claim, why can't they do the same when no one named on the policy was riding it? I think he didn't cancel the policy for the same reason the rest of us hadn't. He probably only had a couple of months left to run on the policy which he'd already paid for and didn't want to lose the NCB. Or he was going to buy another bike and change the bike on the policy once he had it. I've changed the vehicle on a policy a couple of times. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilogikal1 Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 But why? If I don't declare my Alloys the insurance can deny liability in the event of a claim, why can't they do the same when no one named on the policy was riding it? That's effectively what they're doing. If you don't declare your alloys the insurance company will pay out to the third party and then will chase you to recoup any costs they've incurred in the event of a claim. This is what they're doing here, pay out to the third party, chase the policy holder for the costs having breached the terms of the agreement by allowing someone else permission to ride the insured bike. Regardless of why he didn't, he should have cancelled the insurance when he sold the bike - or at the very least informed the insurance company that the bike was sold and placed the policy on hold temporarily until he changed it to a new vehicle. As Ekona said; Is it a harsh lesson? No doubt. Is it the right thing to do? I'm not sure. Are they justified in doing do? Absolutely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spursmaddave Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 He didn't cancel his insurance so he was still insuring the bike whoever was riding it unless he could prove it was taken without consent I guess. Only thing I would have thought went in his favour was that the guy that died was banned and couldn't get insurance, but at the end of the day the bike was insured by the policy holder and he is ultimately responsible, daft as it sounds a lesson learnt the hardest possible way! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.