RTA with no valid insurance

[jrkitching]

Liquid Knight, yours is a sobering, cautionary tale and I admire your openness in sharing it with the community.

If the worst happens, the financial consequences of driving without insurance can be utterly ruinous.

I once met someone who had been living on crumbs for the last eighteen years, all as a result of failing to disclose his previous driving history when hiring a car for just one day. Sadly he was involved in a fatal accident and, after settling the claim, the hire company's insurers pursued him mercilessly to the ends of the earth.

After reading your story, I felt an uncontrollable urge to check the insurance status of all the vehicles I drive - fortunately all are showing as being insured.

The only consolation I can offer the OP is to be grateful they are not also facing a serious personal injury claim.

I would also echo the other comments about making a full disclosure to your current insurers - if you were to have another accident and the claim was refused, the police would throw the book at you.

 

[Liquid Knight]

If the worst happens, the financial consequences of driving without insurance can be utterly ruinous.

On the flip side someone who used to live near me was drunk when he hit three parked cars whilst driving without insurance. He only had to come up with £11,000 and declared himself bankrupt so the M.I.B left him alone.

Sometimes honesty isn't its own reward.

 

[dave]

so the M.I.B left him alone.

how would he know

 

[pooroldcodger]

I had a similar incident nine years ago.

I took out my insurance policy on a 1981 MG Midget later swapped it over to a 1979 MGB GT because the GT owner wanted my Midget to give to his wife for Valentines Day. I swapped over insurance and it was only £60 more and carried on as usual.
Six months later I was driving my fathers car when I was hit head on by a tool trying to overtake on a blind bend.
The Police showed up took our details. I explained I was covered to drive other vehicles third party as I was fully comp' on my MG and got a lift home with the recovery people.
I called my insurers to tell them what had happened and try to arrange to dad a courtesy car. They then informed me that because my MGB was two years older than the Midget it qualified for a "Classic" policy that did not cover me to drive other vehicles.

I was therefore driving without insurance.

Because I was driving without insurance, the collision was my fault as I occupied a space in time unlawfully. Even though the driver of the other car admitted fault I could not make any kind of claim as I should not have been on the road. If I wasn't there the collision would not have happened.
I took out a bank loan to replace my fathers car and paid retail for the other drivers car even though it wasn't in retail condition prior to the collision.

He then went to the Motor Insurance Bureau and claimed another £10,000 for whiplash. The M.I.B sent an investigator round and said there was no way he'd get the full amount as the doctor he went to specialized in compensation claims and knew exactly what to say. He got £7,500 that I have been paying back to the M.I.B ever since.

All of this happened before my day in court.

I was prosicuted for driving without insurance, IN10 and careless driving, CD10 even though the Magistrates all agreed the collision was no physical fault of mine it was still my fault by default.
Under mitigation I explained my finances how much the collision had cost me at that point and how much the M.I.B were pursuing me for.

IN10 no points and no fine.
CD10 no points and no fine; but I received an eight week disqualification from driving and had to pay the court full costs of £375

When I went to renew my insurance policy for my MGB I was told by my insurer that because I was a convicted driver they would no longer be able to offer cover. After shopping around I had to sell my MGB GT and buy something more modern as it was going to cost nearly six times my previous policy to keep the classic on the road.

It took five years for my insurance to come down to the level it was before the collision.

Recovery costs £466

£10,000 bank loan at 7.6% over nine years with payment protection total £18,465

£7,500 to M.I.B

Court costs £375

Five years of ridiculous insurance £4,800 (more than it would have been).

Total £31,606

All because I didn't check the small print on my policy when I changed vehicle.



You were driving without insurance deliberately because you were "shopping around" and caused the collision by not driving to the conditions.

Good luck.

There is something very troubling about this (to me) anyway.
If the bloke who hit you head- on admitted as such, was he prosecuted?
If not why not, and could you have brought a private prosecution against him?
According to the insurer's logic then you were responsible just because you were there on the road at the time, in a car you weren't insured to drive, but the other party has admitted he caused the collision, so there were two people responsible for the same incident?
Did you have any legal representation?

 

[Most Easterly Pandas]

Because I was driving without insurance, the collision was my fault as I occupied a space in time unlawfully. Even though the driver of the other car admitted fault I could not make any kind of claim as I should not have been on the road.

Nope, this just isn't how it works, under extended 3rd party liability his insurers would still have been liable for your damage if he was to blame (in part or full).

The other driver therefore either wasn't deemed liable, or there is something else not adding up here!

 

[dave]

or there is something else not adding up here!

nothing new there then

who is to blame if there is a head on down the middle line and 1 driver is not insured and other is insured but drunk

 

[Eklipze3k]

DVLA for giving them licenses ...

 

[Most Easterly Pandas]

nothing new there then

who is to blame if there is a head on down the middle line and 1 driver is not insured and other is insured but drunk

Both as insurance and booze aside they're both driving down the middle of the road.

 

[dave]

Both as insurance and booze aside they're both driving down the middle of the road.

suppose they were both avoiding cyclists who has just come off pavement into road :idea:

 

[portland_bill]

Both, because they are supposed to see the cyclists and anticipate what might happen and be ready to change speed or position, having taken all other road users into consideration.

 

[Liquid Knight]

There is something very troubling about this (to me) anyway.
If the bloke who hit you head- on admitted as such, was he prosecuted?
If not why not, and could you have brought a private prosecution against him?
According to the insurer's logic then you were responsible just because you were there on the road at the time, in a car you weren't insured to drive, but the other party has admitted he caused the collision, so there were two people responsible for the same incident?
Did you have any legal representation?

No. He wasn't interviewed until it was apparent I was uninsured. I gave a statement at the scene even though I was concussed and to this day can not remember giving any statement whatsoever. The car he was trying to overtake didn't stop. I provided a make model and colour but the other driver said there was no third car. In court it was his word; a driver with over thirty years experience: against mine; a relatively new driver who had been riding bikes for ten years.

As I had paid for both cars this was taken as an admission of guilt on my part even though I only pleaded guilty to driving without insurance I was done for both.

As I said before it could have been a lot worse.