John Wright Posted September 3, 2021 Share Posted September 3, 2021 31 minutes ago, Annoymouse said: Tell me more please John, how does that work? Our insurances policy’s are based on individual risk and sometimes feels like there is no rhyme or reason as to how they’ve calculated the policy cost. So you buy a policy for the car to cover any legal driver (how about convictions or health conditions etc?!) so effectively third party cover, you then have the option to insure named drivers at what would be fully comp? I’m not sure how it works. But the statutory cover in BG is very low. That’s why I buy top up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted September 3, 2021 Share Posted September 3, 2021 1 hour ago, Barlow said: With the cost of insurance, the fine should be much more. Just now, get away with it for a year or two and a scrote is always going to be on a winner. Not really. If you read the article it's clear that the Fiesta was insured for his partner, just not for him. The extra cost of adding him on her policy wouldn't have been great. He just seems to be rather disorganised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted September 3, 2021 Share Posted September 3, 2021 1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said: Not really. If you read the article it's clear that the Fiesta was insured for his partner, just not for him. The extra cost of adding him on her policy wouldn't have been great. He just seems to be rather disorganised. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
germann Posted September 3, 2021 Share Posted September 3, 2021 3 hours ago, wrighty said: In Australia cars have compulsory 3rd party insurance as part of the 'tax disc', so assuming a car is appropriately registered, these sorts of things are avoided, and any qualified permitted (ie owner's consent) driver is legally allowed to drive any vehicle. It's a good system in my view. Yeah same in Abu Dhabi- have to get annual insurance policy & MOT (for cars over 3 years' old) before they'll issue registration. All offending plates are now picked up by roadside cameras that can read the plates & alert the cops. Orwellian but effective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted September 3, 2021 Share Posted September 3, 2021 1 hour ago, Andy Onchan said: Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Which is why he was convicted and fined. The point is, it wasn’t his car. It was his partners car. Unless he had her permission he shouldn’t have been driving. If he had permission she should have confirmed, and he should have checked, that he was either, covered under her policy, or his policy covered him to drive cars belonging to someone else. If she gave permission she’s possibly aid and abet no insurance. The third party cover when driving a vehicle belonging to someone else was a fairly usual part of comprehensive insurance. However premium cost cutting over the last 30 years has seen it removed. But lots of people still think they have it. Whilst any no insurance driving is serious this is at the lower end. It’s not blatant, long term uninsured use of his own vehicle, however he should have been doubly vigilant because of the old incident. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted September 3, 2021 Share Posted September 3, 2021 3 hours ago, wrighty said: You might be right - 18 years since I lived there. It was probably to cover medical bills - RTA victims were treated more like private patients and the consultants and hospital could claim from their '3rd party cover'. I think AUS and NZ are similar in that there are no 3rd party injury claims. The state pays the lot (including incapability) but you pay more tax. Its like the opposite of the US Because of this the (optional) car insurance is very cheap. If you rear-end some one and they get whiplash, its not your insurers problem (only the damage to the vehicle). The state care for the injured person including their wages. Strangely enough whip lash is not a big issue in NZ or Australia! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annoymouse Posted September 3, 2021 Share Posted September 3, 2021 3 hours ago, Roger Mexico said: Not really. If you read the article it's clear that the Fiesta was insured for his partner, just not for him. The extra cost of adding him on her policy wouldn't have been great. He just seems to be rather disorganised. How many other times has he driven her car or others whilst not being properly insured? The fact is when you’ve already been convicted of having no insurance previously you’d make damn sure it doesn’t happen again........... well most people would! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted September 3, 2021 Share Posted September 3, 2021 52 minutes ago, Annoymouse said: How many other times has he driven her car or others whilst not being properly insured? The fact is when you’ve already been convicted of having no insurance previously you’d make damn sure it doesn’t happen again........... well most people would! Oh I wasn't saying he shouldn't have been prosecuted - just that he wasn't even saving the money some thought he was. He was also disorganised enough not to produce his documentation in time or pick up his conked-out BMW for days despite the Police nagging him. He basically got prosecuted for behaving like a dick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted September 3, 2021 Share Posted September 3, 2021 2 hours ago, Annoymouse said: How many other times has he driven her car or others whilst not being properly insured? The fact is when you’ve already been convicted of having no insurance previously you’d make damn sure it doesn’t happen again........... well most people would! We don’t convict and sentence based on minority report type assumptions, fortunately. The £650 was higher than a first offence fine with similar facts. He was sentenced on the facts, as known and admitted. It’s in line with my experiences and expectations, over the years. The £700 for due care was also in line. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted November 3, 2021 Share Posted November 3, 2021 (edited) A £50,000 Benefit Fraud committed by a PS employee attracts only a twenty-six week, two-year suspended sentence? Surely if anybody steals that sort of sum from somewhere, they should be enjoying a period at Her Majesty's pleasure? Edited November 3, 2021 by Non-Believer Typo 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted November 3, 2021 Share Posted November 3, 2021 It just shows how on the ball the fraud investigation team aren't. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2112 Posted November 3, 2021 Share Posted November 3, 2021 10 minutes ago, quilp said: It just shows how on the ball the fraud investigation team aren't. Not really clued up. Most of the cases coming to court which involve dole fiddling or benefit fraud, are not attracting a prison sentence. It’s a slap on the wrist, suspended sentence, a fine and pay back the debt at a £10 week, which equates to an interest free loan, better than the banks or mortgage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Layman Posted November 3, 2021 Share Posted November 3, 2021 13 minutes ago, quilp said: It just shows how on the ball the fraud investigation team aren't. If it wasn't for people having a grudge and grassing them up, I doubt that ineffective department would catch anybody 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2112 Posted November 3, 2021 Share Posted November 3, 2021 It also shows there isn’t any cross referencing between the tax and benefits department, and also anyone working would pay tax and NI. One area of Treasury speaking to another area of Treasury. Treasury are in charge of benefits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted November 3, 2021 Share Posted November 3, 2021 1 hour ago, offshoremanxman said: Not unusual probably has kids and so no real benefit derived from prison. Similar case below. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-58122879 With the criminal record her chances of finding future employment and starting over are going to be restricted. It's theft, isn't it? Deceitful behaviour at the very least. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.