So a supplemantary question - how do the insurance companies actually determine a vehicle's true MoT status? The red output says the MoT has expired! - which ordinarily would invalidate your insurance, I beleive?
Hi Gilbo,
Provided you have hold a valid driving licence, or,,have held a licence, and are not disqualified, then your insurers will find it very difficult to avoid liability for injury to a third party (which presumably includes mandatory cover for passengers). This is covered in the Road Traffic Acts .... I think Para 143, but don't trust my memory on that.
I suspect that our Glorious Leaders do not want lots of injury claims being refused on technicalities.
I think RTA Para 143 covers insurance. Somewhere it says the insurers MUST pay Third Party claims, but gives them the right to sue their insured, to recover their losses. I have never heard of that happening.
You can also insure yourself by depositing £1,000,000 with the Attorney General. Barbara met this when an articulated pantechican, owned by a large chain of supermarkets, overtook on the inside, then pulled out, writing off her SAAB. The supermarket ignored all correspondence. Luckily, we had paid the extra £10 for Legal Cover. The supermarket settled on the court-house steps, which re-instated Barbara's full-NCD, and gave her a refund of the "First £1,000". That £10 was well spent.
602
I do not know if once holding a provisional licence to ride a motorcycle counts as having held a licence. I once held a full Malaysian bike licence, on the strength of my UK Moped entitlement. I would hate to have to prove to Their Worships that I HAD held a bike licence.
Similarly, I would hate to argue about driving a B+E vehicle, if I only held a B licence. At the very least, I would expect to be "done" for being un-accompanied, and no L-plates, but that might not obviate my insurance.
Barbara passed her driving test, January the First 1971, in South London, driving a bog-standard (but very rusty) Mini, that she drove for the first time the previous day. Her licence then restricted her to driving a MOTOR CAR or a MOTOR TRICYCLE, with NO provisional entitlement, so presumably the examiner didn't want her driving on two wheels. Over the years, her entitlement has increased with renewals, and she now has an unrestricted B+E
licence. She has no plans to ride a two wheeler.
In my day, it was DVLA policy not to penalise the disabled more than absolutely necessary ... there were many bikers with one limb missing.
Back to DVLC's library ... I read an Appeal Court ruling that for insurance purposes, a Medical De-barment, was not a Disqualification. Only a criminal court can disqualify. You can appeal against a medical de-barment, which will probably lead to a special driving test ... I think less stringent than the ordinary test. Prior to the Thalidimide scandal, your disabilities would be spelled out in detail, on your driving licence.
I knew one Thalidimide victim ... she had both hands, but no arms. She usually drove a Mini, but also had a Land Rover to pull her horse-box trailer. She could fit a bridle and saddle to her horse, and mount, without assistance.
I also read that a four-wheeler can be driven on a bike licence, if only three wheels can touch the ground at any one time.
But please do your own research.
I read somewhere, many years ago, can't remember where (maybe DVLA's library in my lunch hour?) that Disqualification means by a CRIMINAL Court, and does not include Medical Debarment. DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH.
602
