Member Since: 15 Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 3428
Let's get this clear once and for all: if your insurance is invalid, you don't have insurance, so there is no cover at all....nothing, zilch, you are uninsured.
29th Mar 2009 5:55 pm
Winger Site Moderator
Member Since: 15 Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 3428
To ellucidate further:
Users of motor vehicles to be insured or secured against third-party risks.
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act— .
(a) a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act
So - the onus is on the insured to have a valid policy in place in the first instance. That is the law.
29th Mar 2009 6:01 pm
London Lad
Member Since: 27 May 2008
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 505
An insurer in the UK cannot, by law, invalidate the road traffic act cover of your policy for any other reason than you being unlicensed to drive the vehicle.
The road traffic act cover is the element of your cover that is required by the road traffic act (pretty much the same as 3rd party but not exactly the same)
He can invalidate the fully comp part of your cover.
Winger I am not saying you don't need to be insured and I never have..
.
.
.
You should never argue with idiots because they will just drag you down to their level....then beat you with experience !
Last edited by London Lad on 29th Mar 2009 6:04 pm. Edited 1 time in total
29th Mar 2009 6:01 pm
MARKW
Member Since: 29 Aug 2008
Location: SW
Posts: 2390
In the same vein I expect that everyone who has used an updated version of satnav disk, fitted xenons, fitted front fog, front/ rear PDC have all notified their insurance company. Why should you?? Because you have modified your car from how it left the factory. There should be no need because you are using a feature designed and built in at the factory.
If you fitted HID headlights then yes inform your insurer as these are not to LR spec. Otherwise it's pointless. People here are doing the age old thing of Not understanding something so dissmiss it. If they don't get the answer they want or think they should get then they say negative things about it.
I for 1 don't fully understand the Faultmate but I am knowledgable enough to realise that it will be a very valuable tool to all D3 owners as and when they need to tinker/update their D3.
If you don't like/want a Faultmate then don't read the thrad and post anything that isn't of benefit to the masses. Iain had a story to tell and was justified in airing his opinion as he was a first hand user. But if he hasn't tried the newer updated version then his opinion is not of the current all singing all dancing item. If the rest of you haven't tried/used/seen a demo of it then you should stay quiet and let the play unfold.
If it's a rubbish piece of kit, the forum members who invest in it will be very quick to air their views and ask for answers or a refund.
Sorry Rant mode offHONI SOIT QUI MAL Y PENSE
They shall not grow old as those of us left grow old. Age shall not weary them, nor the years condem. At the going down of the sun, and in the morning WE WILL REMEMBER THEM
29th Mar 2009 6:01 pm
Winger Site Moderator
Member Since: 15 Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 3428
London Lad wrote:
An insurer in the UK cannot, by law, invalidate the road traffic act cover of your policy for any other reason than you being unlicensed to drive the vehicle.
The road traffic act cover is the element of your cover that is required by the road traffic act (pretty much the same as 3rd party but not exactly the same)
He can invalidate the fully comp part of your cover.
Winger I am not saying you don't need to be insured and I never have.
I suggest you read clauses 151 and 152 to the Act with extreme care, then.
29th Mar 2009 6:30 pm
DSL Keeper of the wheelie bin
Member Since: 11 May 2006
Location: Off again! :-)
Posts: 73132
Winger wrote:
It is a brave man who ignores the devious nature of a loss adjustor.
Tell me about it, Mrs DSL was one for several years before I earned enough to keep her in the manner etc.!!!
29th Mar 2009 6:42 pm
London Lad
Member Since: 27 May 2008
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 505
Winger wrote:
London Lad wrote:
An insurer in the UK cannot, by law, invalidate the road traffic act cover of your policy for any other reason than you being unlicensed to drive the vehicle.
The road traffic act cover is the element of your cover that is required by the road traffic act (pretty much the same as 3rd party but not exactly the same)
He can invalidate the fully comp part of your cover.
Winger I am not saying you don't need to be insured and I never have.
I suggest you read clauses 151 and 152 to the Act with extreme care, then.
And you should do the same with Sec 148 .
.
.
.
You should never argue with idiots because they will just drag you down to their level....then beat you with experience !
29th Mar 2009 6:55 pm
Winger Site Moderator
Member Since: 15 Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 3428
Trust me, I've read the whole thing.
29th Mar 2009 7:07 pm
London Lad
Member Since: 27 May 2008
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 505
LOL, I know how you feel ........
.
.
.
You should never argue with idiots because they will just drag you down to their level....then beat you with experience !
29th Mar 2009 7:24 pm
DG Site Moderator
Member Since: 12 Dec 2005
Location: The Gaff
Posts: 50979
Member Since: 16 Sep 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 6019
A friend had a bike stolen while it was on his drive and he was waiting for some new brake pads to get through the MOT, but as it had no MOT they would not pay anything.
Fortunately a couple of months later the police recovered the bike and it had new brake pads fitted plus some other parts.
29th Mar 2009 7:45 pm
simon
Member Since: 11 Jan 2005
Location: Shropshire
Posts: 18296
So even the most innocent modification could result in a refusal in a claim.
Amazing how they wriggle out of their responsibility.
29th Mar 2009 7:47 pm
London Lad
Member Since: 27 May 2008
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 505
Slightly different.
She didn't declare the mods when she took the policy out rather than after she had got it.
It looks like they only reneged on her fully comp claim, i.e. the damage to her own car.
I must stress that I am only saying they can not invalidate your RTA insurance cover. They can still mess you about and try not to pay.
Here is the law, or some of it. It's not easy reading:-
148 Avoidance of certain exceptions to policies or securities
(1) Where a certificate of insurance or certificate of security has been delivered under section 147 of this Act to the person by whom a policy has been effected or to whom a security has been given, so much of the policy or security as purports to restrict—
(a) the insurance of the persons insured by the policy, or
(b) the operation of the security,
(as the case may be) by reference to any of the matters mentioned in subsection (2) below shall, as respects such liabilities as are required to be covered by a policy under section 145 of this Act, be of no effect.
(2) Those matters are—
(a) the age or physical or mental condition of persons driving the vehicle,
(b) the condition of the vehicle,
(c) the number of persons that the vehicle carries,
(d) the weight or physical characteristics of the goods that the vehicle carries,
(e) the time at which or the areas within which the vehicle is used,
(f) the horsepower or cylinder capacity or value of the vehicle,
(g) the carrying on the vehicle of any particular apparatus, or
(h) the carrying on the vehicle of any particular means of identification other than any means of identification required to be carried by or under the [1971 c. 10.] Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971.
(3) Nothing in subsection (1) above requires an insurer or the giver of a security to pay any sum in respect of the liability of any person otherwise than in or towards the discharge of that liability.
(4) Any sum paid by an insurer or the giver of a security in or towards the discharge of any liability of any person which is covered by the policy or security by virtue only of subsection (1) above is recoverable by the insurer or giver of the security from that person.
(5) A condition in a policy or security issued or given for the purposes of this Part of this Act providing—
(a) that no liability shall arise under the policy or security, or
(b) that any liability so arising shall cease,
in the event of some specified thing being done or omitted to be done after the happening of the event giving rise to a claim under the policy or security, shall be of no effect in connection with such liabilities as are required to be covered by a policy under section 145 of this Act.
(6) Nothing in subsection (5) above shall be taken to render void any provision in a policy or security requiring the person insured or secured to pay to the insurer or the giver of the security any sums which the latter may have become liable to pay under the policy or security and which have been applied to the satisfaction of the claims of third parties.
(7) Notwithstanding anything in any enactment, a person issuing a policy of insurance under section 145 of this Act shall be liable to indemnify the persons or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover in the case of those persons or classes of persons..
.
.
.
You should never argue with idiots because they will just drag you down to their level....then beat you with experience !
29th Mar 2009 7:52 pm
DSL Keeper of the wheelie bin
Member Since: 11 May 2006
Location: Off again! :-)
Posts: 73132
Also mods are treated differently by different insurer. Tried to get different (prev model & worthless) wheels mid for the Jazz for winter tyres but would have had to pay £25 every time I changed (Privelege Ins). LR Ins don't worry at all as long as the wheels and tyres are rated correctly. I can chop and change to my heart's content. Also uplift for TorqTune was only £70 so not too expensive.
29th Mar 2009 7:57 pm
blue meanie D3 Decade
Member Since: 04 Aug 2005
Location: Newbury
Posts: 6861
is it not the case though LL that even if the third party is covered and paid out to in an unfortunate event that may have come about via someone 'mucking about with TV on the move' or some similar non factory config'd mod, then the insurance company is free to reclaim this and all costs associated with it personally from the insured driver if it can be proved the vehicle was not as described on the policy?and theeeeennn......???
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
