Driving Other Than In Accordance With A Licence

Hixxy · 12 Jul 2006 at 02:10

Lopéz said:
Much like : OMG A GUY WITH AN UNDECLARED SPOILER ON HIS CORSA CRASHED INTO ME, NAW I WONT GET A PAYOUT

Yes you will.

they will pay out to any third parties but reserve the right to recoup their losses in any case that the insured is found to be over the legal limit. not unreasonable for them (the insurers) to expect the insured driver to be sober/not under the influence of drugs while driving is it?

Slime101 · 12 Jul 2006 at 08:46

Sounds like they have screwed up and this is your ticket to freedom over your drink-driving charge, cos if they get it wrong thats their fault and you will probably get off on a technicality. (Not that you deserve to)

merlin · 12 Jul 2006 at 08:50

MOST insurers will pay for EVERY aspect of the claim if you are drunk/high etc.

MOST...

Durzel · 12 Jul 2006 at 09:22

moss said:
Is it related to the drink driving offence? If so, that might explain it.

I think some insurance companies will refuse to pay out if you have an accident whilst breaking the Law, but its at their discretion. Driving whilst unfit through drink wouldn't make your car unroadworthy either.

Make sure you take your documents to court because it sounds like they think that in addition to drink-driving you were driving without insurance or a valid MOT. :eek:

merlin · 12 Jul 2006 at 09:28

M0T said:
Yes I can prove I am insured and have a valid mot and licence. So I don't quite understand it.

In this case, you have nothing to worry about.

Just take proof to court.

There is no way, absolutely no way whatsoever, that you can be done for no insurance if you have it. Even if, and I want to make this perfectly clear - even if they do say jehova.

Sorry

- anyway, even if you have a clause in the insurance saying cover is limited if you are found to be drunk - that does not mean you are not insured. You ARE still insured as required by the Road Traffic Act, so there's no way they can do you for it.

It would actually be illegal for an insurer to clause their policy to totally void your Third Party cover if you are found to be drunk.

merlin · 12 Jul 2006 at 09:29

Durzel said:
I think some insurance companies will refuse to pay out if you have an accident whilst breaking the Law, but its at their discretion.

Don't agree with that Durzel, that's pub talk dude. Ignore it.

F355 · 12 Jul 2006 at 11:11

merlin said:
Don't agree with that Durzel, that's pub talk dude. Ignore it.

It was over a year ago now, but when I phoned for my policy with Admiral, I am sure they said something along the lines of "they can limit their liability under the road traffic act" if you drive under the influence.

JRS · 12 Jul 2006 at 11:13

F355 said:
It was over a year ago now, but when I phoned for my policy with Admiral, I am sure they said something along the lines of "they can limit their liability under the road traffic act" if you drive under the influence.

Yeah, but Third Parties will still be covered. AFAIK, it would only be damage to your property that they wouldn't pay out for with such a clause.

M0T · 12 Jul 2006 at 11:14

Well all those charges were dropped apart from the driving with excess alcohol one for which I was fined £243 and given 20 months driving ban reduced to 15 months on completion of a driver awareness course.

merlin · 12 Jul 2006 at 11:14

F355 said:
It was over a year ago now, but when I phoned for my policy with Admiral, I am sure they said something along the lines of "they can limit their liability under the road traffic act" if you drive under the influence.

They can limit their liability TO the road traffic act - which means Third Party cover, which is my point.

TP cover - you are still insured.

JRS · 12 Jul 2006 at 11:15

M0T said:
Well all those charges were dropped apart from the driving with excess alcohol one for which I was fined £243 and given 20 months driving ban reduced to 15 months on completion of a driver awareness course.

About the best you could have hoped for really. Long as you take something from this

F355 · 12 Jul 2006 at 11:16

M0T said:
Well all those charges were dropped apart from the driving with excess alcohol one for which I was fined £243 and given 20 months driving ban reduced to 15 months on completion of a driver awareness course.

Harsh but fair I suppose.

I hope you are back on the road in 15 months and have learnt your lesson.

L Plate · 12 Jul 2006 at 13:09

why harsh?

thats the law, no-one forced him to drink and its not as if its something that is new to the UK, its not like they made an example of him either, as long as its consistant with other fines and punishments it can hardly be considered harsh.

personnaly speaking i would be in favour of a 24 month ban and a prison sentence of 6 months for anyone that actually decides to drive whilst banned.

soap box out of the way, its a case of do the crime do the time, but to say that someone has been treated harshly for a drink drive offence is ludicrous

Ish · 12 Jul 2006 at 13:20

drink driving :rolleyes:

he got what he deserved imo

Scuzi · 12 Jul 2006 at 13:21

L Plate said:
why harsh?

thats the law, no-one forced him to drink and its not as if its something that is new to the UK, its not like they made an example of him either, as long as its consistant with other fines and punishments it can hardly be considered harsh.

personnaly speaking i would be in favour of a 24 month ban and a prison sentence of 6 months for anyone that actually decides to drive whilst banned.

soap box out of the way, its a case of do the crime do the time, but to say that someone has been treated harshly for a drink drive offence is ludicrous

I agree. I have no sympathy for people who drive whilst intoxicated. As you say, 'do the crime, do the time'.

Hopefully the OP has learned his lesson, 15 months of public transport should see to that

F355 · 12 Jul 2006 at 13:31

L Plate said:
why harsh?

I also said it was fair. There is no excuse for drink driving like you say.

agw_01 · 12 Jul 2006 at 13:34

Will you guys please read the original thread before going all keyboard warrior on him.

He did what he thought was the right thing and got punished for it.

What are you going to do with the car Tom?

Trojan · 12 Jul 2006 at 13:39

agw_01 said:
Will you guys please read the original thread before going all keyboard warrior on him.

He did what he thought was the right thing and got punished for it.

Not quite... iirc he got in the car and drove it down the road whilst ****** out of his skull. Hardly the right thing, is it?

Trojan · 12 Jul 2006 at 13:42

M0T said:
Well all those charges were dropped apart from the driving with excess alcohol one for which I was fined £243 and given 20 months driving ban reduced to 15 months on completion of a driver awareness course.

A little over a year of no driving and a small fine? I'd say you've been pretty lucky there fella.

Hope you've learnt your lesson

Scuzi · 12 Jul 2006 at 13:48

agw_01 said:
Will you guys please read the original thread before going all keyboard warrior on him.

He did what he thought was the right thing and got punished for it.

What are you going to do with the car Tom?

Yes, he did the right thing by stopping when he realised he was too drunk to drive. He did the wrong thing by even considering getting in the car with drink on him. Whilst I admire his responsibility for stopping I cannot ignore his incredible stupidity for driving in the first place.

At least he's off the roads for at least 15 months in which time I hope he gets it into his skull that alcohol and cars don't mix. The system seems to work in this instance