Do uninsured drivers really make significant numbers of claims through the MIB when other uninsured drivers? Also why isn't the MIB reporting all these miscreants to the police?
"The cost of the average motor insurance premium is increased by £53 a year to cover claims for crashes caused by uninsured drivers, according to the Association for British Insurers (ABI) trade body."
The meatshield story suggests that this will be a fall in insurance premiums - but it won't because almost all of that premium is going to cover insured drivers or uninsured passengers or pedestrians damaged or injured by uninsured or hit and run drivers.
I remember when it was sunlit uplands and bucaneering global britain and what did we get? a few cheap and tawdry lies sent out to die in the Mail
Is there no story stupid and rake fulfilling enough that Dalek won't rush to post it?
(I'm also doubtful it is an EU requirement to pay out to uninsured drivers, I suspect it is a result of the law of tort but I can't be arsed fact checking that)
If I have third party, fire & theft cover only, I am "uninsured", but I am not breaking the law in driving.
If I am involved in a crash with another driver who has no insurance at all, I have two options: sue the other driver, or claim from the MIB (as the other driver's insurer will not cover my loss).
So this change will deprive me of my right to recover from MIB, right?
No Gloria. It will only stop people claiming who are uninsured. You might well think it’s remarkable that uninsured people were able to claim in the first place, but that’s the eu for you.
If I do not have third party cover for my car, I am breaking the law.
If my car is involved in a crash and it is not my fault, I would expect the other driver to pay for the damage to my car and compensation for any personal injury to me.
My lack of third party cover is irrelevant to my claim. Yes, I have broken the law, and this change will "punish" me for that and therefore, in theory, incentivise me to insure my car.
However, to suggest that uninsured people are pushing the burden of their failure to insure onto law-abiding motorists is a bit of a stretch.
For example, if my bicycle is hit by an uninsured driver, I am "uninsured", yet I could claim under the MIB. My lack of insurance would not be a breach of the law, but is that relevant to my claim?
This slightly less breathless summary of the consultation points out that the "uninsured" drivers will still be able to claim from MIB for personal injury (it is only the damage to their car that they can't claim). Why should that be allowed, Dalek?
The point of the MIB is to pay out when the person whose fault an accident was was uninsured.
What difference does it make whether the person who didn’t cause the crash was insured? They, or their insurers if they had any, oughtn’t be paying anyway.
No Gloria. It will only stop people claiming who are uninsured. You might well think it’s remarkable that uninsured people were able to claim in the first place, but that’s the eu for you.
it's the EU that created the law of negligence where if you have done nothing wrong and someone injures you or smashes up your car you can claim against them
the absoulte level of desperation, I honestly didn't think it could get worse
I can see, gloria, that you are truly on the side of the criminal. I suspect you are the sort who thinks that if a householder responds to a home invasion in the middle of the night, they should be prosecuted and the criminal rewarded.
Meanwhile Brexit means that Lloyds has had to create an entity in Brussels and it's now v difficult to attract Europeans to work in London who are now working and generating business in Zurich.
and we didn't even get to a discussion on whether this impacts claims by uninsured drivers against insured drivers
or to the bit about;
The Government is now consulting on the issue to decide what to do next, but has said its current plan is to end the loophole and stop uninsured drivers claiming from the MIB.
However, uninsured drivers would only be barred from claiming for damage to their car, and could continue claiming for physical injuries caused by crashes.
Motor premiums could fall if the Government does ban uninsured drivers from making claims.
0
2
Do uninsured drivers really make significant numbers of claims through the MIB when other uninsured drivers? Also why isn't the MIB reporting all these miscreants to the police?
0
2
It looks like a classic New Lavour style make a new law when the existing ones couldcould already put an end to the mischief.
2
2
Another brexit dividend
Dalek 19 Mar 24 17:49
_________________________________________________________
Another one of Dalek's lies
the key is this
The meatshield story suggests that this will be a fall in insurance premiums - but it won't because almost all of that premium is going to cover insured drivers or uninsured passengers or pedestrians damaged or injured by uninsured or hit and run drivers.
I remember when it was sunlit uplands and bucaneering global britain and what did we get? a few cheap and tawdry lies sent out to die in the Mail
Is there no story stupid and rake fulfilling enough that Dalek won't rush to post it?
(I'm also doubtful it is an EU requirement to pay out to uninsured drivers, I suspect it is a result of the law of tort but I can't be arsed fact checking that)
0
3
Not a reply to the poster immediately above, but 🎣
0
3
If I have third party, fire & theft cover only, I am "uninsured", but I am not breaking the law in driving.
If I am involved in a crash with another driver who has no insurance at all, I have two options: sue the other driver, or claim from the MIB (as the other driver's insurer will not cover my loss).
So this change will deprive me of my right to recover from MIB, right?
Does that seem fair?
1
2
No Gloria. It will only stop people claiming who are uninsured. You might well think it’s remarkable that uninsured people were able to claim in the first place, but that’s the eu for you.
1
4
If I do not have third party cover for my car, I am breaking the law.
If my car is involved in a crash and it is not my fault, I would expect the other driver to pay for the damage to my car and compensation for any personal injury to me.
My lack of third party cover is irrelevant to my claim. Yes, I have broken the law, and this change will "punish" me for that and therefore, in theory, incentivise me to insure my car.
However, to suggest that uninsured people are pushing the burden of their failure to insure onto law-abiding motorists is a bit of a stretch.
For example, if my bicycle is hit by an uninsured driver, I am "uninsured", yet I could claim under the MIB. My lack of insurance would not be a breach of the law, but is that relevant to my claim?
This slightly less breathless summary of the consultation points out that the "uninsured" drivers will still be able to claim from MIB for personal injury (it is only the damage to their car that they can't claim). Why should that be allowed, Dalek?
Removal of uninsured drivers’ access to property damage compensation - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
0
2
I don’t understand the supposed mischief here.
The point of the MIB is to pay out when the person whose fault an accident was was uninsured.
What difference does it make whether the person who didn’t cause the crash was insured? They, or their insurers if they had any, oughtn’t be paying anyway.
2
2
‘Another’? Did I miss the other benefit?
0
2
Dalek19 Mar 24 18:22
No Gloria. It will only stop people claiming who are uninsured. You might well think it’s remarkable that uninsured people were able to claim in the first place, but that’s the eu for you.
____________________________________________________________________________________
oh oh
it's the EU that created the law of negligence where if you have done nothing wrong and someone injures you or smashes up your car you can claim against them
the absoulte level of desperation, I honestly didn't think it could get worse
0
1
Wait til democracy wins this year..
1
1
I can see, gloria, that you are truly on the side of the criminal. I suspect you are the sort who thinks that if a householder responds to a home invasion in the middle of the night, they should be prosecuted and the criminal rewarded.
0
2
Oh FFS.
1
1
What if a person is in a car crash with an uninsured driver, not their fault and:
they have illegal tinted windows
should these people have access to the MIB to make a claim? It seems not, by your logic?
0
1
I work in motor insurance and reinsurance. The proportion of the £53 arising from uninsured drivers claiming against other uninsured drivers is tiny.
0
2
Meanwhile Brexit means that Lloyds has had to create an entity in Brussels and it's now v difficult to attract Europeans to work in London who are now working and generating business in Zurich.
0
2
Does this boon add up to £350m a week?
2
1
tumbleweed from the Brexiteers...
4
2
THIS IS TRULY FANTASTIC NEWS!!
THANK YOU FOR SHARING!!
AND TO THINK THEY SCOFFED WHEN WE TOLD THEM OF THE SUNLIT UPLANDS!!
3
1
jeebus
what a classic Dalek dumpster fire
and we didn't even get to a discussion on whether this impacts claims by uninsured drivers against insured drivers
or to the bit about;
2
2
I CANNOT WAIT TO POINT THE NEXT REMOANER WHO ASKS WHAT THE TANGIBLE BENEFITS OF BREXIT ARE TO THIS THREAD!!
Join the discussion