|
|
Post by welshwizard on May 24, 2009 21:46:52 GMT
I've finally found my way from BFF to here! I had the misfortune earlier today of being involved in a head on smash on a single track road near home. As I know the road well, I had slowed right down for a bend, but coming the other way was an idiot going far too fast for the road. I managed to stop, but he couldn't, skidded and ploughed straight into me. My car is drivalble but probably a write off with significant damage to the wing and bonnet. The other guy admitted responsibilty on the spot, saying that he was going too fast and didn't know the road. I made him put this in writing, and filmed him with my camera phone doing so! He then said that it as his mother's motability car. I couldn't believe it - what was he doing taking his mates for a spin in a car paid for by the taxpayer for the benefit of a disabled person? I have been looking up on the net, and it seems that this could be a complete misuse of a motability car, but where does that leave him in terms of being insured. I have no doubt that he is insured, because a motability car can have two named drivers apart from the main beneficiary. But if he is not using it for the benefit of his mother, as was the case, could the insurance be void? In any case, it looks like motability car misuse is in the same class as benefit fraud.
What do you reckon?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2009 21:53:02 GMT
I reckon you need proper legal advice first thing Mon am.
Glad you found us and also that no-one was hurt!
Joyce
|
|
|
|
Post by quadbod on May 24, 2009 22:02:38 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ploughman24 on May 24, 2009 23:06:49 GMT
if he not named on the insurance then he is in trouble and there is a bit about not using the car without consent of the named party on agreement i have one of there cars and my wife is on the insurance aand me noone else can drive it even if they are fully comp so hopefully it will be ok for you but beware as you said it is misuse of the vechile its the same as people who use blue badges when they do not need them or have not got one at all parking in disabeled bays can get you £60 fine for misuse or parking without one  |
|
|
|
Post by bigvern on May 25, 2009 8:02:59 GMT
Welshwizard
Glad you are ok shame about the motor. welcome to ''bad boys'' site.
MMM difficult one about the car certainly dont claim to be expert, as I see it he admits resposability yadda yadda thats ok BUT if hes driving with out consent then no insurance, and if he has consent then needs to be named or at least have 3 party cover..
Cupla year ago was hacking home with a load of spuds down country lane and had a meeting with an escort van (9 oclock) sat nite, van was fairly ill fastrac had a few scrathes on offside whell and chipped paint, young lad(early 20's) bit shook up going like clappers wiv mate in WORKS van, Knock for knock I said. police called van pulled off road, turns out the blokes boss was in to see my gaffer 2 days later demanding £700 or summat to put front wheel back. a bit more digging see that young lad is in works van on sat nite when hes not working as is thus not insured and his boss is trying it on.. gaffers father in law is ex Peeler who basically told him to sling hook mentioned fraud etc..
Think what I'm trying to say is make sure that you and your insurers get all the facts.
Hope you get a satisfactory outcome.
BV
|
|
|
|
Post by tj on May 25, 2009 8:49:25 GMT
My wife and I used to have a Motability vehicle for the benefit of our disabled son who has sadly since died, so we are no longer in the scheme.
Motability is basically a car leasing scheme which covers all the vehicle's running costs (except fuel) including insurance. The scheme insurance policy allows two named drivers, although additional drivers can be named but this costs extra.
There are two potential problems with this incident:
1. The Motability contract scheme allows only use for the benefit of the disabled person. However this covers for example someone going out to do some shopping on their behalf or representing them in some other capacity. It does not however cover the cost a named driver or anyone else using the vehicle for their own purpose e.g. travelling to work. If they do so they are in breach of the leasing contract and probably therefore not insured.
2. If the driver is not named on the insurance policy, he is driving without insurance.
In any of the above eventualities the probably only option may be to sue the driver personally.
|
|
|
|
Post by 4wd on May 25, 2009 9:02:06 GMT
I'm surprised you got him to admit responsibility - to be fair insurers suggest you should never do this at the scene anyway.
Accidents do bring out the worst in people and often a 'clear cut case' suddenly gets more complex a few days later when insurance get involved.
|
|
|
|
Post by welshwizard on May 25, 2009 10:52:09 GMT
My insurance has now passed the claim on to a firm called Accident Exchange to handle - anyone had any dealings with them? They reckon they can get a car to me today. 4wd - I don't know how I got him to admit full responsibility, but he was a bit dim and I got him to put it in writing, and filmed him doing it!
The biggest worry is the situation of his insurance cover due to his misuse of a motability car, which it clearly was. I hope that we can get everything resolved asap. Quite annoyed really though, because if he was sticking to the terms of the motability agreement, he wouldn't have been taking his mates for a spin, and wouldn't have crashed into me! But there we go!
|
|
|
|
Post by tj on May 25, 2009 11:18:03 GMT
It could get quite complicated. The lease contract for the vehicle would be between the guy's mother and Motability irrespective of whether or not she is a named driver. So Motability might decide to sue her for the damage to their vehicle and for breach of contract if she gave him permission to use it. Seperately, the driver may have committed an offence of driving without insurance, so your insurance company might seperately sue him for the damage he did to your vehicle.  |
|
|
|
Post by welshwizard on May 25, 2009 11:23:50 GMT
That's the big problem - he shouldn't have been taking his mates for a spin in a car that is funded by the state for the benefit of his disabled mother. I can imagine it's going to get quite tricky for them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2009 12:02:04 GMT
actually it doesnt matter who was driving ,as long as the car was insured for third party liability then the insurer must pay out to involved third parties .third party insurance is cover for the car against other parties hence its name .
if there are any issues about the driver not being covered then that is between the insurance co and the driver ,they may well claim against the driver if he has no cover but thats not your worry
glad you are not hurt ,anything else is only a bit of tin and can be replaced
|
|
|
|
Post by cidergirl on May 25, 2009 14:09:59 GMT
If you think he will not be insured if he was using it for his own use you would probably be better off asking him to tell his insurance he was going on a errand for his mum. Not exactly right but at least it will be easier to claim off the insurance rather than trying to sue him.
BTW a mobility car is not completely paid for by the government as an extra. Anyone who is entitled to Mobility benefit can have the money in cash to pay for buses/taxi's etc but they have to sign it all over to the leasing company in order to get a car.
CM
|
|
|
|
Post by matthew on May 25, 2009 16:51:07 GMT
Glad you're OK WW. That's the main thing. The last but one time I had someone run up the back end of the car, I too got an admission of liability - on the back of a shopping list but it was legible  Turns out the car was hired, the garage was broke and then it burnt down! We didn't get any excess charges because of the trouble we'd been to to get the admission. Motobility drives me nuts. I qualify for a blue badge  and use it with gratitude, when I have to. I also qualify for the road tax and /or vehicle supply, but, and it's a big but, if I take this up, then the Disco cannot be used by OH for towing cattle to market. In effect it means we have to run another car - especially for me. So I haven't used it - although if dear old Darling puts the Disco's road tax up to £900 / year, I just might have to. Means I get to go out more. As has been said, the motobility system operates exclusively for and on behalf of the person to whom the concession is issued. Good luck with it all WW. |
|
|
|
Post by welshwizard on May 25, 2009 17:12:48 GMT
If you think he will not be insured if he was using it for his own use you would probably be better off asking him to tell his insurance he was going on a errand for his mum. I think that he would have difficulty carrying that one off - he was 70 miles away from home on a country road so isolated that it serves no real purpose apart from accessing a few mountain farms and forestry! |
|
|
|
Post by loftyrules on May 26, 2009 10:33:00 GMT
I used Accident Exchange they were very good, and very helpful, although my case is now going to a solicitors as Accident Exchange havent been paid by the insurers yet
|
|
Turns out the car was hired, the garage was broke and then it burnt down! We didn't get any excess charges because of the trouble we'd been to to get the admission.
and use it with gratitude, when I have to. I also qualify for the road tax and /or vehicle supply, but, and it's a big but, if I take this up, then the Disco cannot be used by OH for towing cattle to market. In effect it means we have to run another car - especially for me. 
