RiderSite.com - Motorcycle Forums

The worst part of it all is, it makes legal sense.. Moral sense on the other hand? Well, we all know those bastards haven't got anything going on in that department.

http://britishbikersassociation.org/blo ... s-old-bike

Very sad.

There is a word (or several) to describe the insurance company here.

None of them are fit for polite company.

The law can be an arse at times!!!!!

What a load of the proverbial. How can someone be liable for someone else riding without insurance? How can you give permission to someone to ride a bike that is no longer yours? How can MCE be liable for a rider not insured by them?

Sounds more like MCE have figured it's easier just to pass everything on to the old owner than argue the point. Not even sure about a legal loophole at work, more like no-one has bothered to argue...

That is total and utter bullshit, whether he's insured or not that has nothing to do with him once he's sold the bike.

I hope everyone involved in deciding it was the previous owners fault burns in hell.

This is nothing new, it has been happening for years. It is legal and has been an accepted practice for many years that if a policy is in force, then it can be claimed against even though the policy holder had no control or influence on the crash other than they failed to cancel their policy.

I know of half a dozen cases where this has happened, although fortunately they did not invlve a fatality.

It has even happened where a vehicle has been stolen, been crashed and the policy has been claimed against. If I remember correctly though, the crashes have occured before the theft of the vehicle was reported, but still not right

What doesn't make sense is that the policy that hasn't been cancelled HAS been paid for! So either the insurance company should pay out, or the bloke that caused the crash should pay!

It probably wouldn't happen at all if the money-grabbing insurance companies didn't charge a fortune to cancel the policy.

When I was young you had a policy and if you changed the vehicle you just told the insurers and they transferred the policy to your new vehicle, and you paid the difference if any in the cost of the insurance. They didn't charge stupid admin fees to do it either, although back then someone in an office had to physically produce new paperwork, unlike now when it's a couple of minutes on a computer.

BikerGran wrote:What doesn't make sense is that the policy that hasn't been cancelled HAS been paid for! So either the insurance company should pay out, or the bloke that caused the crash should pay!

It probably wouldn't happen at all if the money-grabbing insurance companies didn't charge a fortune to cancel the policy.

When I was young you had a policy and if you changed the vehicle you just told the insurers and they transferred the policy to your new vehicle, and you paid the difference if any in the cost of the insurance. They didn't charge stupid admin fees to do it either, although back then someone in an office had to physically produce new paperwork, unlike now when it's a couple of minutes on a computer.

Minutes? everything is done while they are still on the phone to you. They have to do nothing else.

Insurance administration is a massive con - the only way they can get away with it is because the law makes us have it.

Insurance is all a big con, I accept that you need it and I always have it, but it is about time that somebody stepped in and had a massive shake up of the whole insurance circus (the only way I can describe it without too many profanities).

T.C. you know more than all of us together, if we all vote you for prime minister will you shake it up for us? :)

This is the law at its worst. There can be no doubt whatsoever that the guy who bought the bike was an irresponsible arsehole, the policy was still in force so the bike was insured even though the insured was not the rider at the time.
If this ends up in court I hope that some judge has the balls to say ' Fuck the historical precedents, this is shit and needs a fucking kick up the arse and into reality'
Really feel for the guy who sold the bike, his personal circumstances are not good and now this.
I for one would be happy to donate to this mans cause should a national appeal be set up to cover legal costs

Same here - and I've seen a lot of other bikers say the same on facebook!

It may be an international appeal in a couple of weeks though.

Falcorob wrote:It may be an international appeal in a couple of weeks though.

Do you know something we dont Rob ?
This is awful, anything any of us can do to influence the outcome really needs to be done

fatboy wrote: I for one would be happy to donate to this mans cause should a national appeal be set up to cover legal costs

Although this case is in Scotland, I think that if he gets some decent legal representation his case should be funded under a CFA (no win no fee) which, if ATE insurance is taken out should cover al his costs win or lose.

I imagne that this is a case where it may well end up in the High Court and we will get a sensible judgement, but the reason I menton Scotland is that because Scottish law often mirrors English law and vice versa, there is no guarantee that it would set a precedent under English law.

The simple solution is, as soon as you sell the bike, tell the insurance company which I appreciate may be teaching some of you to suck eggs which is not my intention, but the number of people who don't bother is horrifying, and then they complain when it comes back to bite them in the bum.

What you have to appreciate that whilst the rider was disqualified and therefore uninsured, had this gone to the MiB under the unisured route, they would do exactly the same and checked with the Association of British Insurers to determine whether a valid policy was in force because thrd party cover remains even in a case like this, and the estate of the deceased are entitled to make a claim off any valid and current policy.

It is not so much the law that sucks, it is the greedy insurers who make so many people jump through hoops and then charge them for the privelege that sucks. If the insurers were more reasonable and prices more realistic we would not have so many unisured drivers on the road and subsequently not so many disqualified drivers.

I know it is all subjective, but the problem starts with the insurers.

What I don't get is it is either insured or it isn't and if it is barring a criminal conviction then the insurer should pay up and shut up. On the other hand if it isn't then it ends there and should be paid out of Tre uninsured losses fund

...and don't get me started on the bill@cks about claims forcing premiums up! IME it is the gross mishandling of genuine claims that forces premiums up... That and the fact that the insurers are one step away from the banks