 |
|
 |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Rogerborg |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Rogerborg
nimbA
Joined: 26 Oct 2010
Karma :  
|
|
| Back to top |
  |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| Commuter_Tim |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Commuter_Tim
World Chat Champion
Joined: 09 May 2013
Karma : 
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Keir |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Keir
World Chat Champion
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Karma : 
|
 Posted: 21:56 - 25 Jun 2017  Post subject: |
 |
|
| Teflon-Mike wrote: |
Once issued an insurance cert CANNOT be revoked... as long as its in circulation it is in force and they are liable.... it oly ceases to be in force whe the date expires or it is retured to the Is-Co and they shred it; which opens a can of worms as far as the MID ad the vogue ins co's have for ssig 'e-certs' that are still in something of a grey area as far as actual law goes; but still.
Point is.. if there's a cert, the there's 3rd party cover; they at seize a bike for being uninsured, if there's a policy o it, and it IS the vehicle that is registered and referenced on the cert... though thy do have many other provisions of law under which they can seize it, and I believe that general police powers do provide for them to seize any artifact instrumental in the perpetration of a crime... and a motorcycle, being ridden on the motorway by some-one with no licence would fall under that! |
so working on that theory you can purchase a policy, cancel your payments and as long as you have the certificate and dont send it back when they ask then your covered. you have this cert that cannot be revoked until the expiry date or day of cert destruction afterall
doesn't make sense.
____________________
Current : '08 Yamaha FZ1s
Previous: '99 Honda CBR 600FX, 03 ZX636 B1H, 99 Fazer 600 (red), 02 GSX-R 600 K2, 00 SV650s (red), 2008 ZX10R, 97 Bandit 1200N, 04 ZX6RR K1H, 04 GSX-R 1000, 98 Fazer 600 (gold), 05 Madness 110 Pit bike, 04 CR125R, 00 SV650s (black), 06 KTM 625 SMC, 99 SRAD 600 track bike, 03 SV650, 98 Bandit 1200N, Bandit 600SY, 03 GSX-R 600 K3, 01 GSX-R 600, 01 Fazer 600 (black), VFR 400 NC30 x3, 78 Honda Dream, 00 Speedfight 50 |
|
| Back to top |
 |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Teflon-Mike |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Teflon-Mike
tl;dr
Joined: 01 Jun 2010
Karma :
|
| Posted: 03:57 - 26 Jun 2017 Post subject: |
|
|
| Keir wrote: | so working on that theory you can purchase a policy, cancel your payments and as long as you have the certificate and dont send it back when they ask then your covered. you have this cert that cannot be revoked until the expiry date or day of cert destruction afterall
doesn't make sense. |
It does; trouble is that insurance is an 'idea' not an 'artifact'. A-N-D, when you buy insurance on the monthly plan, you aren't buying it 'pay as you go', you are usually buying a 12 month policy, paid for with a loan.
If you bought a motorbike in a shop on a HP deal; you would get a tangible 'artifact', not an 'idea', and wouldn't matter whether you had cleared the HP deal or not, the motorbike, the 'artifact', wouldn't stop being a motorbike, if you were late making a monthly installment or stopped paying the monthly installments all together; the motorbike would still be a motorbike, and until they sent the Repo-Men round to take it off you, you could continue to make use of it... the matter of whether its paid for or who legally owns it doesn't matter.
When you buy insurance, in the same way, on a credit deal, the Ins-Co providing the 'insurance' paid for by a loan company, on your behalf, who you then pay in installments; same basic principle applies; only difference is that if you stop paying the installments, there's no tangible artifact, other than the certificate of insurance for them to Repo....
Now it gets a bit messy; but if you stop paying the monthly installments on a motorbike, its difficult for the loan co, to stop you using it, unless they can Repo it. They cant from their office press a button that stops the engine starting, or makes it turn into a pumpkin.
Insurance is a 'promise'; if you crash, Is-Co 'promise' pay to fix any damage you cause a 'third-party'. The Ins-Co are the 'first party', the policy holder is the 'second party', as both are 'party' to the agreement of insurance; any-one else, isn't, they are a 'third-party'..
Now, if you stop paying the monthlies on an insurance policy; as it's NOT an artifact, its an idea; the Insurance co CAN effectively make the policy stop working, or turn into a pumpkin; they just refuse to pay out for any claim, or honor their 'promise', as you have't honored yours to pay them.
Except, YOU didn't pay them, the loan-co did! AND, the law that makes 3rd party insurance a mandatory requirement of traffic law, ALSO makes the certificate of insurance, an 'artifact', like the motorbike, that grantees the 'promise' to provide 3rd-Party indemnity.
So now, just like the motorbike example; as long as that certificate of insurance exists, and as long as its in your possession, a third party is eligible to make a claim against it... and legally the Ins-Co HAVE to honor their promise to provide indemnity against 'loss'.
Opens something of a can of worms as far as e-certs and the MID; as far as what they may or may not do or try and do, or try and imply;in the absence of a physical artifact that is the insurance certificate....
Whatever a coppa may try ad tell you at the side of the road, however, the MID has little or no legal standing; a policy does not have to be registered o the MID, and often isn't, and is commonly not, for some time after a new policy is activated. Entry on the MID has o legal standing AFAIK no matter what a coppa may try and imply at the side of the road.
Likewise, 'instant cover' offered over the telephone; has little or no legal standing. You may have a verbal promise that they will honour cover, BUT without a physical certificate of Insurance, there is no proof of it.
And it was, until recently, actually a stipulation of the RTA, that it is a driver's responsibility to 'ensure' they have 3rd party cover to use a motor-vehicle, and provided that a physical insurance certificate was the only 'grantee' that that was in force... ie: you ride or drive before you get the paper cert, you do so at risk...
Coppa calling your broker at the side of the road and asking the insurance co.. likewise is NOT an insurance certificate or substitute for one; so by inversion, a broker denying cover, if they haven't been paid or have decided to cancell the cover, also has little or o legal stading.
What matters is the actual legally required, and legally recognized 'certificate of insurance'.
Of which debate remains over whether an 'e-cert' issued electronically may be....
A photo-copy of an insurance certificate, was never given legal status as anything but a facsimile of a original document; was not itself an Insc-Cert or proof that one existed, just that one probably had existed, of which the facsimile was made....
An e-cert, on a smart-phone screen, or even a computer print-out of one, is also rather nebulous, and effectively no more than a facsimile.. of a 'virtual' document that may never have actually existed!
A-N-D... chucks the matter back to the hear-say of what a broker may say over the 'phone, or have entered into a data-base..... and does give them some wiggle room, to effectively 'repo' an insurance cert, without having to send the goons round to get it....
And its an issue that the law is still trying to rationalize, I believe, and whilst the RTA now makes reference to and gives some legal weight to an 'e-cert', there is still a lot of gray area as to what that actually means, and what legal standing it has, NOT being a physical artifact, that remains to be tested in the courts.. and does appear to practically mean that Ins-Co's can make up the rules to suit themselves as they go, never issuing a paper cert to start with, then deciding whether or not to agree they provide cover, and if and when they may honor it!
There was a test-case a few years ago; Rog will probably able to site the parties and dates; BUT essentially a chap borrowed a car that wasn't insured by ts owner. He had "Any Vehicle With Owner's Consent" extension on his own policy for his own car. Plod stopped him, because the reg of the car he was driving 'pinged' on ANPR as not on the MID as insured; Driver argued that the car didn't HAVE to be insured, because he was; and produced his insurance cert for his car and showed the "Any Vehicle" cover on the policy. Coppa insisted that that only applied to vehicles to which another policy already applied, and called the broker, who agreed with coppa, who the seized the vehicle! Driver then attempted to get the car out of the impound, showing his insurance certificate showing he was sured to drive it; ad the pound refuses insisting that the car had to have it's own insurance... and the car was crushed, before the matter came to court, and the driver was charged with driving without insurance....
I court, the solicitors waved lots of paperwork about, showed lots of exclusions ad limitations the policy schedule, and agreed small print; ad quite wonderfully, IMO and displaying the pragmatism of the UK Court system, over the bureaucratic ego-egocentricity of the civil service... pulled the RTA and pointed to the statement that said a driver MUST have a valid Ins-Cert ... and asked for the actual, legally recognized 'artifact'... read it, looked at the "Any Vehicle with Owner's Consent" clause, asked the driver whether he had the owner's consent; checked with the owner he'd given it; asked for any arguments.. got a few, and then over ruled the lot, replying that the RTA said an Ins Cert was the definitive requirement of law; chap had one and NO-WHERE on that certificate did it provide ANY limitation to the cover it offered, or requirement or exclusion OTHER than owner's consent. that the driver DID have. Case dismissed!
Raising a case by the car owner against the police, I believe for 'damages' illegally seizing and crushing his car.
Set a precedent in UK case law... which is that t s the paper artifact of a insurance Cert, and actual statements written on it that has definitive legal standing, as far as the requirements of RTA, NOT what is written into the policy schedule or 'contract' of insurance, or any interpretation that a broker or Ins-Co Representative may wish to believe, or report to a road side coppa on a smart 'phone!
I buy my insurance up-front, paying the lump-sum; its only about £120 a year, so o great hassle; and 'sorry' I don't have an e-mail, please send me paper certificate in the proper post.. THAT s what a judge will go by; precedent has been set.. no matter what road side coppas brokers clerks or other bureaucrats would like to argue...
And as long as I possess that physical Insurance Cert, as far as I am concerned, that 3rd Party insurance is in force, and legally enforceable; that is MY understanding and interpretation of the law, as stands.
____________________
My Webby'Tef's-tQ, loads of stuff about my bikes, my Land-Rovers, and the stuff I do with them!
Current Bikes:'Honda VF1000F' ;'CB750F2N' ;'CB125TD ( 6 3 of em!)'; 'Montesa Cota 248'. Learner FAQ's:= 'U want to Ride a Motorbike! Where Do U start?' |
|
| Back to top |
 |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| grr666 |
This post is not being displayed .
|
grr666
Super Spammer
Joined: 16 Jun 2014
Karma : 
|
Posted: 08:06 - 26 Jun 2017  Post subject: |
|
|
Ouch! Tef'd in both holes.
____________________
Currently enjoying products from Ford, Mazda and Yamaha
Ste wrote: Avatars are fine, it's signatures that need turning off.  |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| trevor saxe-coburg-gotha |
This post is not being displayed .
|
trevor saxe-coburg-gotha
World Chat Champion
Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Karma : 
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Rogerborg |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Rogerborg
nimbA
Joined: 26 Oct 2010
Karma :
|
| Posted: 10:02 - 26 Jun 2017 Post subject: |
|
|
Tef's on about Pryor vs GMP in which the Court of Appeals held that the seizure of a vehicle was unlawful since a certificate of insurance had been produced.
However, this was a case brought by the owner against the police and was only about the seizure, and the technicality of showing a certificate of insurance.
It was not the case of the crown versus the driver about whether the driver was actually insured or not. That was covered separately. Despite the broker's lies, it turns out that they were insured, so great justice was achieved eventually.
On the issue of retaining a physical certificate of insurance after cancelling the policy:
(4) Where a [physical] certificate has been delivered under this section and the policy or security to which it relates is cancelled by mutual consent or by virtue of any provision in the policy or security, the person to whom the certificate was delivered must, within seven days from the taking effect of the cancellation—
(a) surrender the certificate to the person by whom the policy was issued or the security was given, or
(b) if the certificate has been lost or destroyed, make a statutory declaration to that effect.
(5) A person who fails to comply with subsection (4) above is guilty of an offence.
____________________
Biking is 1/20th as dangerous as horse riding.
GONE: HN125-8, LF-250B, GPz 305, GPZ 500S, Burgman 400 // RIDING: F650GS (800 twin), Royal Enfield Bullet Electra 500 AVL, Ninja 250R because racebike |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Keir |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Keir
World Chat Champion
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Karma :
|
| Posted: 14:07 - 26 Jun 2017 Post subject: |
|
|
so in a nutshell, if I stop paying the insurance loan but keep the cert I'm insured TPO?
seems silly and not really fit for the purpose its designed if that's the case.
____________________
Current : '08 Yamaha FZ1s
Previous: '99 Honda CBR 600FX, 03 ZX636 B1H, 99 Fazer 600 (red), 02 GSX-R 600 K2, 00 SV650s (red), 2008 ZX10R, 97 Bandit 1200N, 04 ZX6RR K1H, 04 GSX-R 1000, 98 Fazer 600 (gold), 05 Madness 110 Pit bike, 04 CR125R, 00 SV650s (black), 06 KTM 625 SMC, 99 SRAD 600 track bike, 03 SV650, 98 Bandit 1200N, Bandit 600SY, 03 GSX-R 600 K3, 01 GSX-R 600, 01 Fazer 600 (black), VFR 400 NC30 x3, 78 Honda Dream, 00 Speedfight 50 |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Kentol750 |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Kentol750
World Chat Champion
Joined: 24 May 2016
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| bhinso |
This post is not being displayed .
|
bhinso
World Chat Champion
Joined: 21 Jun 2008
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| trevor saxe-coburg-gotha |
This post is not being displayed .
|
trevor saxe-coburg-gotha
World Chat Champion
Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Rogerborg |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Rogerborg
nimbA
Joined: 26 Oct 2010
Karma :
|
| Posted: 20:06 - 26 Jun 2017 Post subject: |
|
|
| Keir wrote: | so in a nutshell, if I stop paying the insurance loan but keep the cert I'm insured TPO? |
No.
No, you're not.
I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough. It does not mean that you're insured. The Pryor case was purely about the legality of the seizure based on the strict wording of the law regarding showing a certificate. The fact that it turns out that the driver was actually insured was neither here nor there - Pryor might conceivably have won even if the driver had been convicted of no insurance.
Also, you've committed another offence by retaining the certificate - good job incriminating yourself.
And I'd be pretty certain that it wouldn't prevent the seizure anyway. Copper isn't going to care. Pryor had to go all the way to Appeals to win, and it takes decades for that sort of information to filter down to the rank and file.
____________________
Biking is 1/20th as dangerous as horse riding.
GONE: HN125-8, LF-250B, GPz 305, GPZ 500S, Burgman 400 // RIDING: F650GS (800 twin), Royal Enfield Bullet Electra 500 AVL, Ninja 250R because racebike |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Keir |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Keir
World Chat Champion
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Karma :
|
| Posted: 13:39 - 27 Jun 2017 Post subject: |
|
|
| Rogerborg wrote: | | Keir wrote: | so in a nutshell, if I stop paying the insurance loan but keep the cert I'm insured TPO? |
No.
No, you're not.
I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough. It does not mean that you're insured. The Pryor case was purely about the legality of the seizure based on the strict wording of the law regarding showing a certificate. The fact that it turns out that the driver was actually insured was neither here nor there - Pryor might conceivably have won even if the driver had been convicted of no insurance.
Also, you've committed another offence by retaining the certificate - good job incriminating yourself.
And I'd be pretty certain that it wouldn't prevent the seizure anyway. Copper isn't going to care. Pryor had to go all the way to Appeals to win, and it takes decades for that sort of information to filter down to the rank and file. |
good. I wasn't looking to do it, I was hoping that theres no easy loophole for 300cc ped wanker to wriggle through.
____________________
Current : '08 Yamaha FZ1s
Previous: '99 Honda CBR 600FX, 03 ZX636 B1H, 99 Fazer 600 (red), 02 GSX-R 600 K2, 00 SV650s (red), 2008 ZX10R, 97 Bandit 1200N, 04 ZX6RR K1H, 04 GSX-R 1000, 98 Fazer 600 (gold), 05 Madness 110 Pit bike, 04 CR125R, 00 SV650s (black), 06 KTM 625 SMC, 99 SRAD 600 track bike, 03 SV650, 98 Bandit 1200N, Bandit 600SY, 03 GSX-R 600 K3, 01 GSX-R 600, 01 Fazer 600 (black), VFR 400 NC30 x3, 78 Honda Dream, 00 Speedfight 50 |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
Old Thread Alert!
The last post was made 6 years, 298 days ago. Instead of replying here, would creating a new thread be more useful? |
 |
|
|
This page may contain affiliate links, which means we may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. By clicking on an affiliate link, you accept that third-party cookies will be set.
|
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
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
Read the Terms of Use! - Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
Debug Mode: ON - Server: birks (www) - Page Generation Time: 0.11 Sec - Server Load: 0.22 - MySQL Queries: 17 - Page Size: 97.77 Kb
|
Help & FAQs
Search BCF
Members
Groups
Events Calendar
rating
rating