[Incoherent ramblings]

[wuvvum]

Why the fuck do I like cars so much?

 

Lying in bed last night I was going back over the last 15 years of my life, and almost all of the financial and legal problems, and the vast majority of the stress, that I've had over that time have been directly or indirectly caused by cars. I couldn't put an exact figure on how much better off I'd be now if I hadn't owned 400-odd vehicles over the years, but it's well into five figures, taking into account the losses I've made on reselling, cars going wrong, being nicked, forking out for dozens of tax discs and countless DVLA fines (OK, those last are partly due to me being an absent-minded twat, but they still wouldn't have happened were it not for the cars). I might even have enough for a deposit on a house by now.

 

And now I've got this whole insurance claim thing hanging over me, which could potentially clean me out if the claim is successful and my insurance company decides to recover from me, as it appears they're entitled to do under the Road Traffic Act. It's probably not going to be resolved for ages either, so I'm going to be in a constant state of stress for the next X months, and if I do end up having to sell everything I own to pay the claim it's going to turn me into even more of an antisocial misanthropic arsehole than I already am. Partly this is due to me believing what a mate had told me (which was probably not very clever but, let's face it, is something we've all done), but again, it wouldn't have ever arisen if I didn't have so many cars, and a trader's policy.

 

Thing is, I don't deal well with stress. I'll normally do pretty much anything for a quiet life, and this is becoming more and more true as I get older. I absolutely hate the entire process of selling cars. And yet deep down I've known all this for ages now, but I still keep on buying the fugging things. I must be some kind of mong.

 

I think Operation Sell My Shite is going to get rather more brutal. The Volvo, Innocenti and Renault 6 will all be staying (although they might have to be SORNed and parked up if I can't renew my trader's as a result of all this shit), the Carina E will also be staying as it's a family heirloom, and the Rover will be carrying on its daily driver duties, but everything else can go, including the BMW, Talbot and Transit. I don't really need any of them, and they'll only end up causing me more hassle if I keep them all. This is going to involve a whole load of the hated selling process, but there's nowt I can do about that. Then I can put the proceeds aside to put towards paying for my mate's accident. GR9.

[M'coli]

That's a bugger, Wuvvum. I don't know why we like cars, and why we like the old ones. What I think is much to your credit is that you still manage to call the uninsured party a mate, even if you are highly pissed off with him. Good luck, whatever happens.

[SambaS]

I'd just say that I did not consent to him using the car without insurance, depending on how good of a mate he was. You wouldn't be lieing would you. But he will be done for TWOC as well as driving without insurance.

 

I wouldn't have thought it was possible for someone to claim on your insurance, for an incident that happened when somebody else was driving. Regardless of what the Road Traffic act says. I've never heard of that before.

[nigel bickle]

Wuz -I feel for you.

 

Your'e an old car bloke. Its your ''hobby'' (gurl speak). Its better than Golf, or suchlike, and it partially covers its own costs- as transport. A new car would have driven you mad with the depreciation, service requirements, the utter utter shitness (it would need to be to be affordable) etc etc etc. Upgrading is a good idea- but it does bring a whole heap of differing issues.

 

Life can be a crock sometimes. Least no one died, your health is good etc etc etc.

 

If you do get sued (-and its still a big 'if') there are a myriad of avenues open -and the outcome is by no means a foregone conclusion. (If you want to chat that through- pm me)

 

With no major fixed assets, it might be pragmatic to re-register your ''keepers'' to your parents, or suchlike, and investigate DRO's, for nearer the time. its a soft, relatively painless option. I've used it for severla -and its hardly affected them at all. Additionally, please dont forget that if you do get sued- then you sue your mate.. with added costs.

 

Mates. Age teach's you that most are 'acquaintances/ fair weather friends, really. My 'real' friends (-those whom I consider would risk their own lives to potentially save mine)- can be counted on one hand. The rest -whilst good company are just that. its a lesson hard learnt -& i too still make similar mistakes.

 

In time -you'll look back with a wry grin. In the meantime, put it to the back of your mind whilst making preparatory moves- just in case.

[tonedepear]

If mate* told you he was insured and he wasn't, could you not sue him for losses or fraudulently obtaining a crap old car or something?

 

In preference to selling all your earthly wares, I mean.

 

*I realise this may have already been gone over to death and I'm being ignorant. If so, apologies!

[wuvvum]

Thanks for the replies. Nigel, I will probably be in contact by PM in the near future.

 

I don't think I'll ever upgrade to a new car - I'll still drive old heaps. I still love the Rover of Doom and will continue to run it as a daily for as long as it stays in one piece. Once it dies its duties will probably be taken over by the Toyota.

 

The TWOC thing was never really an option (not that I'd have wanted to go down that route really, although there have been times when I've wished I had) as I told plod that my mate had borrowed the car before they told me he'd been in an accident with it. Without wanting to tempt fate though, I don't think they are going to do me for causing or permitting - they seemed satisfied at the time that I thought my mate had insurance. The problem is that I don't think the clause in the Road Traffic Act which allows the insurance company to recover against a policyholder who has caused or permitted an uninsured driver to use the car is connected in any way with the criminal offence aspect as any recovery action would be under civil law, and I think the simple fact that I allowed my mate to use the car and that he didn't have insurance may be enough, whether or not I knew about his situation. There probably wouldn't be much point suing my mate either - he's skinter than I am...

[warren t claim]

I don't think it would be classed as a TWOC. UTMV maybe though.

[Mr_Bo11ox]

What if you had lent it to your mate thinking it would be covered 3rd party on his own insurance, which it subsequently turned out he didn’t have. Then the whole affair is nowt to do with your insurance company presumably.

[cort16]

Wuvvum you're a total shite hero and this thing we all have is like an addiction, chasing the hit of a new bit of metal like greasy junkies .

 

I must have put hundreds of hours into my Rover SD1 and I've wondered many times what fuck I'm doing especially when grot seems never ending and things constantly break. I call this the shite car blues. At these points I've found the best thing is not to do anything with to do with any cars other than the one you need to drive to work. Stay at home, boot the dog up the arse, play the xbox, get steaming or make bomb threats to the old folks home.

After a bit you'll start gravitating back towards them or you'll decided you've had a enough.

 

I think your shite clearance plans is a good idea as it's less to worry about. It seems from reading your posts that you're collection is scattered so maybe getting rid of the ones that aren't in your direct eyeline is a good idea as anything you need to do to these is extra hassle.

[Ross_K]

What if you had lent it to your mate thinking it would be covered 3rd party on his own insurance, which it subsequently turned out he didn’t have. Then the whole affair is nowt to do with your insurance company presumably.

 

This is the way it should be.

 

On a legal as opposed to an insurance point of view, didn't the law change to allow for a car's owner to be done for providing a car to an uninsured driver? 6-8 points and a fine...

 

The potential defence is that your "friend" showed you an insurance certificate which appeared to be valid. As with all things legal this depends on what way the wind is blowing, whether the judge got a blowjob that morning, etc.

[Cavcraft]

All of the above. Certainly has to be worth saying you saw an insurance cert but didn't look St it fully as you trusted him. Obv you might still get done for it but you'd like to think someone will be sensible about it.

 

Easy to say Wuv, but try not to beat yourself up about it just yet as you might get a result and worrying won't help the situation. Like I say easy to say that but you just never know.

The 'problem' with our hobby is that when issues arrive it can be a right nightmare, especially with so many vehicles, bit I suppose it's a rough with the smooth job. Fwiw I hope this irons out for you and doesn't cause major grief.

[wuvvum]

What if you had lent it to your mate thinking it would be covered 3rd party on his own insurance, which it subsequently turned out he didn’t have. Then the whole affair is nowt to do with your insurance company presumably.

 

This is the way it should be.

It is indeed. Unfortunately the reality is different. Section 151 of the Road Traffic Act obliges an insurer who issues a policy covering a vehicle to pay out for third party claims even if the driver at the time of the accident isn't covered under the policy. The only exception is if the third party in question is knowingly a passenger in a stolen vehicle. Section 151 also provides that in the above circumstances the insurer is entitled to recover the cost of the claim from the policyholder. Which seems unfair to me, but then since when has fairness ever been a feature of motoring law?

[Volksy]

My housemate borrowed my old Volvo when he broke his foot, he couldn't drive his truck and mine was an auto. He got pulled, by a random checkpoint they do in Leeds from time to time, and low and behold he had no insurance. He believed that his truck policy covered him on any car third party. It didn't, so my car got impounded only after being stickered up with massive (and exceedingly sticky) NO INSURANCE? NO CAR! posters and left at the side of the road for the rest of the day as an example.

It cost me about £350 to get it back, (I should have asked for discount for royalties on the advertising space), but I faced no charges from the plod. He was fined £150 and given 6 points for driving with no insurance. Granted he didn't have an accident, but is it really up to you to check that the other driver is insured before lending them your car?

[dollywobbler]

On the basis of this particular nightmare, I'd say yes - it IS up to the owner to check that the necessary insurance is in place. Ultimately, we've found where the buck stops - rightly or wrongly.

 

Really feel for you on this one Wuv. Not the only case of a 'friend' borrowing a car and f*cking it up on here either. Think that's a lesson to all of us.

[Volksy]

Also, was the car in question on your traders policy at the time? Surely if it wasn't there isn't a recourse to you from that vehicle, the police obviously have you down as a trader, but does that mean any car you own/are keeper of is automatically insured on your traders policy, they're happy enough to question it the other way if it's not on MID.

[Mr Lobster]

but is it really up to you to check that the other driver is insured before lending them your car?

 

Its certainly the case that you are responsible for ensuring they have a driving licence and you can be (and I know of one case where someone was) prosecuted for handing a car over to an unlicenced driver and it seems to be effectively the same for insurance - even if you don't get prosecuted it still causes a world of pain.

 

Sorry to hear about the situation Wuvvum, sounds a bloody nightmare tbh. As I understand it then your insurance company will have to pay out, its just what they do from there and whether they decide to pursue you for their loss. On a standard private policy I'd be inclined to think they wouldn't but with a traders policy they may consider it worthwhile. I think I'd be seeing about getting some proper legal advice (or at least speaking to Mr Bickle) about this.

[skoda_fan]

I really feel for your predicament, wuvvum, and the great thing about a forum like this is the support that is forthcoming from others. Take courage from the sense that has been spoken on here. I don't think you should blame all life's dilemma's on your love of cars. Life has a way of throwing crap at us whoever we are and whatever we're into. Yes no doubt you would be much better off now had you not bought and sold so many cars....but they're clearly your passion and have given you much fun and pleasure over the years despite the way you are understandably feeling at the moment. As someone else has said, you might well have spent the money on golf club membership, football season tickets, etc etc...all things which have no appeal to me and I suspect not to the majority on here...our passion is cars. How dull would life be if we never indulged our passions because we were watching the pennies.

 

I went through a phase of "rationalisation" last year, getting rid of four cars. I immediately regretted each one once it had gone. My total has already crept up by another three since the beginning of the year. I can neither afford nor justify any of these three, (nor most of the several others). But I love owning them just as an antique collector loves his furniture or whatever. So have a clear-out if that's what is necessary, but don't get rid of anything you may regret later.

 

Time IS the great healer, and you will come out the other side of this episode wiser, perhaps more cynical, but ready to move on with life (and indulging your hobby).

 

I wish you all the best

[wuvvum]

Also, was the car in question on your traders policy at the time?

Yes it was. As it was in my name and taxed, it had to be named on my trader's policy or I'd have got a fine for the new heinous crime of "keeping a vehicle without insurance".

 

Anyway, thanks for all the support gents. I honestly don't know what's going to happen and what action my insurance company will take - when I spoke to them this morning they didn't seem sure themselves. Time will tell I suppose. In the meantime I am still going to carry on with the fleet cull - even if & when my mood vis-à-vis motors improves, at my current count I still have too many to get full enjoyment from them all.

[Mr_Bo11ox]

Keep the faith Wuvington_Steele. When its all getting a bit much its healthy to get rid of a few motors so go for it, better to do that than have them lying about causing stress. Obv the process of selling them can be stressfull too, but only if you let it. Get shut of a few for a while, the numbers will no doubt creep back up when you feel like it.

 

 

PS it seems mental that person 2 can be held liable for problems caused by person 1 not having insurance, when both persons are adults!! why the responsibility cannot lie with the driver i dont know, that suggests that you need to read his insurance poilcy from cover to cover before letting anyone drive your car!!! if they had a clause in their policy saying 'insured on any car 3rd party up to 2000cc' or 'less than 15 years old' or whatever, theres no way you are going to know all the ins and outs of that... its not your job to know is it, its their job. So it seems to me anyway.

[Father Ted]

PS it seems mental that person 2 can be held liable for problems caused by person 1 not having insurance, when both persons are adults!! why the responsibility cannot lie with the driver i dont know,

Boll, that applies if some bastard nicks your car and crashes it as I found out to my cost.

A 3rd party claim made against my policy which because there was a claim meant I had to pay an excess even though I wasnt driving, it had been stolen.

I was pissed off to the max. I only had to pay the excess though. I did ask the police about it at the time and even they couldnt give me a straight answer as to why.

[Ross_K]

No good deed goes unpunished. That's twice now we've seen people getting fucked over by twats borrowing their cars.

 

Seems to me the solution for the problems that come with lending cars to so-called friends is as follows:

Stand over friend while he buys tempcover/dayinsure insurance online.

"Sell" the car to friend and give him a receipt for random amount. Have the dated + signed V5 in an envelope close at hand in case plod visits.

 

"Not my car any more, Mr Fuckturd bought it off me yesterday - look, here's the V5 he signed that I haven't got around to posting yet. Good night constable"

 

If shithead friend stacks the car into a bus stop you might not get any money back from him when it comes to insurance, but at least you won't be getting sued by an insurance company or getting 6-8 championship points...

 

If he brings the car back in one piece get a replacement V5 and it's happy days.

 

A 3rd party claim made against my policy which because there was a claim meant I had to pay an excess even though I wasnt driving, it had been stolen.

I was pissed off to the max. I only had to pay the excess though. I did ask the police about it at the time and even they couldnt give me a straight answer as to why.

 

What the fuck? That makes no sense, but doesn't surprise me at the same time.

 

How could they make you pay an excess if you weren't making a claim? I better go read my policy docs.

[garbaldy]

Sorry to hear that mr Wuv but i too learnt the hard way when loaning cars out to so called freinds got the scooters treatment one night when a pair of freinds decided to park one of my cars upside down on a back road twats

mr bickle i think it was hit the nail on the head with the handfull of true freinds. i can count only four that i would trust with my life hanging from a rope five if i count me bro

 

those four true freinds are also the only ones i would lend anything from tools to cars without a worry, guess you will just have to be more picky about who you trust in future

[Lankytim]

Hang on, if your insurers pay up for the accident even though your mate was driving, that means he was insured, does it not? I can't see an insurance company paying for anything if they don't have to.

[cobblers]

Hang on, if your insurers pay up for the accident even though your mate was driving, that means he was insured, does it not? I can't see an insurance company paying for anything if they don't have to.

 

+1 on this!

 

 

Either he was insured, or he wasn't. Your insurance doesn't cover him driving, so it's down to him. If your insurers are paying out then somethings gone properly wrong somewhere.

 

Bosh a question up on pepipoo.com or something. You deffo 1000%%%%% shouldn't be copping for this if your insurance policy doesn't cover your mates driving your cars.

 

 

There is a technicality of the plod trying to hang something on you for permitting someone to drive uninsured but you didn't know he wasn't insured at the time so there's no chance of owt sticking.

[Barry Cade]

Do you have "for demonstration purposes" on your traders policy- this may cover other drivers if they were taking the car for a road test. Might be a glimmer of a way out? I thought you had to be a passenger for someone else to be covered, but the word "usually" could be important here?

 

"Demonstration cover is an endorsement that allows someone who may wish to buy your car test drive the vehicle. You usually have to accompany the purchaser on the test drive by sitting next to them. Another precondition is that the purchaser has a full licence (avoid policies that stipulate an age limit as you never know what aged person would like to buy your car). Generally, the amount of convictions they have on their licence does not matter as long as they hold a valid licence that is not a provisional or has not been revoked."

[Mr Lobster]

Hang on, if your insurers pay up for the accident even though your mate was driving, that means he was insured, does it not? I can't see an insurance company paying for anything if they don't have to.

 

From what I recall (and its a couple of years since I had to do any of this so I might not be 100% correct but its about there), if a car is driven by an uninsured driver and crashes, even if that driver is not insured by the company that insures the car, the third party can still make a claim against the insurer of the car. Its then upto the insurance company to recover their costs against the driver or policyholder.

 

Have had this happen a couple of times when I had a proper job - 'A' hires a car, lends it to 'B' who the hire company know nothing about, B crashes (and is uninsured) but third party claims off hire companies insurer.

 

Similarly, years ago I had a hire car rear ended by a stolen car on the M62. Our insurer claimed from the insurer of the owner of the stolen car (as Father Teds example above). Chap from AON explained that this is the way it happens... Not ideal for the presumably innocent policyholder although better I suppose for the innocent third party.

[Ross_K]

From what I recall (and its a couple of years since I had to do any of this so I might not be 100% correct but its about there), if a car is driven by an uninsured driver and crashes, even if that driver is not insured by the company that insures the car, the third party can still make a claim against the insurer of the car. Its then upto the insurance company to recover their costs against the driver or policyholder.

 

Of course this makes a mockery of the fact that when you take out a policy you're insuring YOURSELF and specified drivers while driving a specified car, not the car itself (as is the case in the USA and other countries).

 

Logic goes out the window...

[scooters]

Bad luck wuvs.

 

Normally when I lend a car to someone I insist they buy a short term policy to cover them...usually about 10-20 per day.

 

My recent issues also made me think long and hard about shite...is it too much hassle? Nige runs his operation with military precision and could probably give up work and live on the proceeds of his dvla compensation for their regular cock ups..all this does take time however.

 

I think my approach in the future will be to keep all except one or two vehicles on sorn and rotate them.

 

Hang in there buddy...

 

Ps. Have any of you been watching the plethora of programs about hoarding, made me look at my parts cupboard in a different light!

[garbaldy]

From what I recall (and its a couple of years since I had to do any of this so I might not be 100% correct but its about there), if a car is driven by an uninsured driver and crashes, even if that driver is not insured by the company that insures the car, the third party can still make a claim against the insurer of the car. Its then upto the insurance company to recover their costs against the driver or policyholder.

 

Of course this makes a mockery of the fact that when you take out a policy you're insuring YOURSELF and specified drivers while driving a specified car, not the car itself (as is the case in the USA and other countries).

 

Logic goes out the window...

 

 

so infact we are all insureing our cars for any driver even a theif for third party cover i wonder if i just drove anyone elses car without insurance the police would let me off on the basis that the owners insurance will pay up.

[alf892]

Blimey...........this looks a bit shit!

 

So you lend some mate a car and you are responsible for what he does?

 

Anyway I thought victims of uninsured drivers just went to the MiB(!!) who actually maintain a fund to cover this...........they collect a levy from all the ins companies (=us)