Family to lose home for not having car insured

[ECCOnoob 1,053]

The victim of the accident is making a civil (private) claim against the negligent driver. They are getting compensation for their injuries, remuneration for their losses and the lawyers for the victim are getting their legal costs paid.

 

People having insurance to cover for such things. Its nothing to do with criminal sentencing.

 

Its why we all have car insurance, businesses and self employed persons have liabilitiy insurance and many of us have home adn contents insurance.

 

The moron driver (and his family) knowingly cheated the system, voided their own policy and therefore would have to pay out the victim directly.

 

OR

 

The insurers have already paid the victim out, have now found out they cheated the system and are recouping their monies back.

 

There is nothing unfair about it. Mother and Son knew what was happening. Mother and Son chose to cheat the system.

 

They deserve what they get.

[Penny Quirk 10]

I was reading the comments on the start news article. One comment stated about being able to drive another vehicle with 3rd party cover if you have your own comprehensive insurance.

 

This is often not the case and before driving someone else's car, thinking you are insured for 3rd party, check it carefully because the chances are that you won't be covered.

 

Fronting is almost endemic, particularly with younger drivers/parents. It is insurance fraud, sadly, most insurance companies will not prosecute as such as it is too expensive to do so and would put up the cost of premiums even further.

[Cyclone 10]

"Chances are you won't be covered"... Why would you say that.

 

Most comprehensive policies for main drivers over 25 DO provide such 3rd party cover.

[truman 10]

I don't think it right anyone should be punished for a 'crime commited by another, family or not. He should be punished the same as if he'd done the damage with his fists. £50 fine and a suspended sentence?

 

If the parents agreed to the method of obtaining insurance for the lad then they are implicit in the fraud..

[Cyclone 10]

I don't think it right anyone should be punished for a 'crime commited by another, family or not. He should be punished the same as if he'd done the damage with his fists. £50 fine and a suspended sentence?

 

If he'd done the damage with his fists and was sued privately then the compensation could be on the same order of magnitude.

But it's the joint fraud involving his mother that has put her house in the frame.

 

Edit - just echoing and expanding on what truman said.

[Penny Quirk 10]

"Chances are you won't be covered"... Why would you say that.

 

Most comprehensive policies for main drivers over 25 DO provide such 3rd party cover.[/QUOT

 

Perhaps I should have said "you may not be covered"?

 

Because various comprehensive insurance policies, from different companies, do not have that in it now, that's why I said it. I have interviewed more than 10 drivers in the last 12 months who have not been insured thinking that they were insured, and it is gut wrenching when they realise they are not insured. Also, the vehicle policyholder feels as bad because they genuinely believed that the driver was insured to drive their vehicle on a 3rd party basis, when it comes to the indemnity checks there is a significant issue.

 

It always helps to read the insurance contract before allowing anyone else to drive, that's all I wanted to say, just trying to help.

Edited May 31, 2016 by Penny Quirk
added first line of response for clarity

[Cyclone 10]

People need to understand their policy and whether they are covered or not, absolutely.

[Owethemnowt 10]

you cannot be serious the onus lies with the son and not his parents

 

I agree.

 

The son is a rissole.