The grumpy thread

[wuvvum]

  On 26/03/2018 at 09:35, Talbot said:

Not at all. Parking on someone else's driveway, especially if it's bloody obviously a private driveway, takes the piss.

 

Unfortunately, the law is on the side of the car owner. You can't touch it, you can't block it in by parking on the road (as you are obstruting a dropped kerb, which is unlawful) and you can't put a bollard up to block it in as you are then "denying the use of the vehicle".

Sadly this is true.  It's an unintended (I hope) consequence of the ban on clamping cars on private land in England.  The law is different in Scotland I believe.

[beko1987]

All this 'can't insure a car more than once', is it true? A mate took out 3 days insurance on the gooner at the weekend (mainly to cover his arse if pulled over, as he doesn't have a policy of his own yet, and sods law etc) and it let him do it...

[Wack]

Some people really do deserve a kicking regardless of the consequences,

 

FF to 2:45 , you need the sound on to hear it

 

 

 

[madrat]

there used to be company's that specialised in short term policies on other peoples cars, so unless the law has changed ???

[dave21478]

  On 26/03/2018 at 19:48, BenHar said:

I'm pretty sure it's bollocks.

 

Never believe anything an insurance rep tells you.

 

Ben

 

Im pretty sure its not, and the folk in the links I posted earlier who are being rinsed by claims on policies they never cancelled would probably think not either.

 

Yes, insurers offer short term insurance and yes, dayinsure etc specifically state they offer cover for borrowed cars. Im no legal expert so fuck knows how it works, but the original question was whether it was a good idea to leave a policy going for potentially several months on a car no longer owned by the policy holder and the answer is no.

[beko1987]

  On 26/03/2018 at 20:01, dave21478 said:

Im pretty sure its not, and the folk in the links I posted earlier who are being rinsed by claims on policies they never cancelled would probably think not either.

 

Yes, insurers offer short term insurance and yes, dayinsure etc specifically state they offer cover for borrowed cars. Im no legal expert so fuck knows how it works, but the original question was whether it was a good idea to leave a policy going for potentially several months on a car no longer owned by the policy holder and the answer is no.

Ah I've gone way off topic then, sorry! No, I'd not insure a car that wasn't mine and being driven, I bet that's got hilarious concequences if said car is trashed into a Ferrari showroom window...

 

Isn't the time honored autoshite way to insure some half rotten car that's sitting in someone's field not likely to ever move again, just to keep the policy going

[Talbot]

It's not really to do with law, more the terms and conditions of the insurance. If an insurer will allow their insurance to be in force (and be able to accept a claim) even if the vehicle is insured elsewhere, then that's their risk. An insurer can put whatever terms and conditions in their policy they choose, hence some policies give driving other vehicles cover, some don't.

 

The "change the vehicle to something they don't / won't / can't cover" is a good one. I'd forgotten I'd done that in the past serveral times. Generally telling them it's a modified or a Kit car is a surefire way of killing the policy.

 

I also suspect the reason it's not legal to have two policies in force on one vehicle is because they will both say "this cover is no longer valid if the vehilce is insured elsewhere", hence there's no actual cover. If one of the insurers doesn't say that, so would absolutely pay out if there was a claim even with the other policy running elsewhere, then it's probably legal.

 

The law just says you have to have 3rd party cover. How you achieve that is up to you. After all, some large companies self-insure their vehicles as they can prove they have the required liability cash in the bank and could pay out if needed to. (or however it works.. point being they don't use a specific insurance company)

[dave21478]

It kindof is to do with law though. if a policy exists - ie the certificate has not been recalled by the insurer, then they are legally accountable for third party liabilities no matter what, who,where or when. If a car is stolen by Lord Lucan who swerves to avoid Shergar and crashes into a kitten show being held at a nunnery then they still have to pay up despite Lord Lucan not being a named driver. Insurers dont like this, but its one of the few actual laws they have to comply with and not just write their own Get Out Of Jail Free card over.

If two policies exist, both insurers are theoretically equally liable but good fucking luck trying to get anywhere in that sort of situation as the poor sod who sold a car six months ago. Loss of NCB and possibly the "wronged" insurer recovering losses in a civil claim are all possible and as the links I posted show, do actually happen.

[Bren]

We have been granted DLA for my youngest due to his Down's. Why angry? Well sad really - I disposed of my late mother in laws bed today - she died two years ago but I feel really shit for getting rid of it out of the garage when I know I should be happy really.

[Ghosty]

  On 26/03/2018 at 15:55, mercrocker said:

One of the Principles of Insurance, isn't it?    Utmost Good Faith.   Not telling porkies, like "I have this car" when I haven't.

 

If insurance is based on good faith why the fuck do I have to pay four figures to get on the road (quite possibly being watched by Big Brother, which I refuse to do) while there are people out there that shouldn't have licences paying a third as much, if not less?

[Kiltox]

  On 26/03/2018 at 19:12, Rusty Sills said:

Your mate can't insure your van as it is your van and not his. Actually, if he gives you anything at all in return, even if it's just to replace the fuel he's used, then it's hire for reward and things can get really messy.

Bollocks.

 

Plenty of short term insurance cover encourages borrowing a vehicle

[Snipes]

  On 26/03/2018 at 23:17, Kiltox said:

Bollocks.

 

Plenty of short term insurance cover encourages borrowing a vehicle

Not "bollocks", the company I worked always insisted the owner added the driver as a temporary addition to the existing policy, but I haven't worked in insurance in about 10-years so possibility out of date....

[sierraman]

Tonsillitis can fuck off. In absolute agony today with it. Any recommended ways of getting shut of it within a week?

[STUNO]

A payday loans company dropped a brochure into my letterbox today. I have heard of these before and was in UK when "wonga" was a big talking point. I looked at the details ,but nowhere was an interest rate mentioned. So a look at the website  quoted was in order. I dug around a bit and found the rate....ONLY 1% A DAY....and yes a wee bit more digging brought up a rate of 365% per annum. There were also substantial fees for "account establishment costs" and for "costs" if any payment is late.

Admittedly the max loan was $500 but if you are needing to borrow from somewhere like this there is huge potential for disaster.

Why are these bloodsuckers (other phrases appropriate) allowed to operate.  I was under the obviously mistaken impression that loan sharking was illegal.

 

Rant over

[Kiltox]

  On 27/03/2018 at 06:10, Rusty Sills said:

Not "bollocks", the company I worked always insisted the owner added the driver as a temporary addition to the existing policy, but I haven't worked in insurance in about 10-years so possibility out of date....

It is bollocks - countless insurers offer short term / day insurance, with continuous insurance enforcement you would find it difficult to not also have a permanent policy in place unless you were just using it when collecting a new car (tiny amount of the use it’ll get, mostly amongst shiters )

 

Nothing stopping two different people being insured separately to drive the same car.

[Pillock]

  On 26/03/2018 at 23:17, Kiltox said:

Bollocks.

 

Plenty of short term insurance cover encourages borrowing a vehicle

Exactly this.

And it's not double insurance since his insurance doesn't cover other drivers. If the borrower crashed it they'd claim on the short term insurance. If the owner crashed it, even whilst the short term was in force, they'd claim on their own.

 

You can insure someone else's car, I looked at doing this to keep my NCB going. As long as you're truthful about who owns the car, who is the registered keeper, where it's kept and most importantly who is the main driver, you can still insure it.

 

I found on a comparison site that a few places refused to quote if you weren't the owner, but some would.

[Kiltox]

  On 27/03/2018 at 08:39, STUNO said:

A payday loans company dropped a brochure into my letterbox today. I have heard of these before and was in UK when "wonga" was a big talking point. I looked at the details ,but nowhere was an interest rate mentioned. So a look at the website quoted was in order. I dug around a bit and found the rate....ONLY 1% A DAY....and yes a wee bit more digging brought up a rate of 365% per annum. There were also substantial fees for "account establishment costs" and for "costs" if any payment is late.

Admittedly the max loan was $500 but if you are needing to borrow from somewhere like this there is huge potential for disaster.

Why are these bloodsuckers (other phrases appropriate) allowed to operate. I was under the obviously mistaken impression that loan sharking was illegal.

 

Rant over

1000%+ is the norm!

[SiC]

  On 27/03/2018 at 08:39, STUNO said:

A payday loans company dropped a brochure into my letterbox today. I have heard of these before and was in UK when "wonga" was a big talking point. I looked at the details ,but nowhere was an interest rate mentioned. So a look at the website  quoted was in order. I dug around a bit and found the rate....ONLY 1% A DAY....and yes a wee bit more digging brought up a rate of 365% per annum. There were also substantial fees for "account establishment costs" and for "costs" if any payment is late.

Admittedly the max loan was $500 but if you are needing to borrow from somewhere like this there is huge potential for disaster.

Why are these bloodsuckers (other phrases appropriate) allowed to operate.  I was under the obviously mistaken impression that loan sharking was illegal.

 

Rant over

I keep seeing adverts on the TV for this one now:

https://sunny.co.uk/

 

Representative 1291% APR

[TataBobu]

  On 27/03/2018 at 08:39, STUNO said:

 I was under the obviously mistaken impression that loan sharking was illegal.

 

Rant over

 

Those bloodsuckers won't cut a finger if you're late, so probably that's why they are allowed to legally operate. 

[Parky]

  On 27/03/2018 at 09:21, SiC said:

I keep seeing adverts on the TV for this one now:https://sunny.co.uk/Representative 1291% APR

Ordinary people can participate in the colossal profits available!!

 

Many of these firms operate a scheme where you lend money to them, and they lend it out to others. You can get a better return than an ordinary bank account which is great. However they charge 1000% plus in interest, and you receive something like 7 or 8%.

 

So they screw the folk they lend money too, and the folk they get their funding from. The bastards should be regulated off the face of the planet as far as I am concerned

[BavarianRetro]

  On 27/03/2018 at 08:56, Kiltox said:

It is bollocks - countless insurers offer short term / day insurance, with continuous insurance enforcement you would find it difficult to not also have a permanent policy in place unless you were just using it when collecting a new car (tiny amount of the use it’ll get, mostly amongst shiters )

 

Nothing stopping two different people being insured separately to drive the same car.

You insure your use of the car.

 

We do not have a no fault liability tort or reparation system in the UK, so to purse a claim successfully you have to establish negligence on the part of the person you claim from.

 

You insure against your negligence. The owner will not normally be responsible for the negligent driving of another driver. If that other driver is named on the owners policy and is driving in accordance with the policy, the owner's insurance will cover the other driver for his negligence. It's nothing to do with the owner.

 

To take out any insurance policy, you must have an insurable interest. For example the owner of a car, a wife, a mortgage holder, a business partner, or *the driver of a car*.

 

There's absolutely nothing to stop someone taking out a policy to cover his use of a vehicle that is already insured by someone else.

 

He has an insurable interest and he wishes to insure his use of the vehicle.

 

In the interests of "uberrimae fide" - the utmost good faith - the insurers should probably be advised that the car is already insured at the time he starts the policy and they might well offer Road Traffic Act cover only.

[TataBobu]

Yesterday's grump: went to an exchange to get rid of the pounds I still have. 260 of them. Couldn't do it, as I have 26 of those out-of-style paper 10 quid notes. Bugger!

Today I've found out that my MIL has another 180 of them, also in 10 pounds paper notes.

[BorniteIdentity]

  On 27/03/2018 at 09:56, Parky said:

Ordinary people can participate in the colossal profits available!!

 

Many of these firms operate a scheme where you lend money to them, and they lend it out to others. You can get a better return than an ordinary bank account which is great. However they charge 1000% plus in interest, and you receive something like 7 or 8%.

 

So they screw the folk they lend money too, and the folk they get their funding from. The bastards should be regulated off the face of the planet as far as I am concerned

Mixed opinions here. Participation from either party isn’t mandatory.

 

However, both could cut out the middle man with a local credit union. I think they’re fantastic little things, although have minimal experience of them personally.

[John F]

  On 27/03/2018 at 10:49, TataBobu said:

Yesterday's grump: went to an exchange to get rid of the pounds I still have. 260 of them. Couldn't do it, as I have 26 of those out-of-style paper 10 quid notes. Bugger!

Today I've found out that my MIL has another 180 of them, also in 10 pounds paper notes.

 

You can still change them at a bank, building society or post office.

[somewhatfoolish]

  On 27/03/2018 at 10:52, BorniteIdentity said:

Mixed opinions here. Participation from either party isn’t mandatory.

 

However, both could cut out the middle man with a local credit union. I think they’re fantastic little things, although have minimal experience of them personally.

There aren't enough of them; I keep meaning to visit the local one and open a savings account but I always forget as I never go anywhere near the office and they don't/can't take deposits online.

[Kiltox]

  On 27/03/2018 at 09:56, Parky said:

Ordinary people can participate in the colossal profits available!!

 

Many of these firms operate a scheme where you lend money to them, and they lend it out to others. You can get a better return than an ordinary bank account which is great. However they charge 1000% plus in interest, and you receive something like 7 or 8%.

 

So they screw the folk they lend money too, and the folk they get their funding from. The bastards should be regulated off the face of the planet as far as I am concerned

The amount of bad debt is phenomenal though.

 

Plus conventional banks have been doing this since forever - I have an online savings account that pays about 0.05% yet I’m sure they lend it out at a lot more....

[Parky]

Credit Union, absolutely agree with those. Small loans at reasonable rates to folk having some short term issues is a perfectly reasonable model to follow. Deposit cash at 5% interest which is lent out at 10% - makes sense to me. Especially nowadays where credit unions can operate online and don't need the expense of a series of high street branches.

 

1000% interest is exploiting folks bad luck in my view and payday lenders are no better than loan sharks in a dodgy pub.

 

As you probably have gathered I have little time for payday lenders!

[fordperv]

  On 27/03/2018 at 09:32, TataBobu said:

Those bloodsuckers won't cut a finger if you're late, so probably that's why they are allowed to legally operate.

They would probably try to take someones 1st born for defecting on the loan though

[Conrad D. Conelrad]

I don't like doing stuff with wood - it's harder than working on car. But I had some offcuts and I thought I'd make something. 

 

One of the things I made was this rather ambitious (for me) frame, made of ten pieces glued together with wood glue, and then the joints smoothed with filler. I finished it a couple of days ago, and was actually quite proud of it. This morning I was going to paint it, but when I picked it up I caught it on the workmate handle and it just... well, disintegrated. It was as if it were held together with electromagnets and someone cut the power. It was so cartoonish.

 

Plus, as someone who pretty much only paints with car aerosols, I can't get my head around normal paint. A coat of primer which is overcoatable in 16-24 millennia, but first I have to clean the brush by running it under boiling hydrofluoric acid for a day while a seemingly infinite amount of paint comes out. Then find the brush has still gone rock hard the next day, while the paint itself is not even pretending to dry. 

 

Sod this! 

[TataBobu]

  On 27/03/2018 at 10:58, John F said:

You can still change them at a bank, building society or post office.

 

Thank you, I know, but this would include a flight to UK. That's at least 100 pounds return. Maybe I'll link it with something.