4. Is actually based on balance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt, it’s a magistrate / JP that will take the hearing, there isn’t a jury and summing up statements etc.
-
Happy St George's Day Guest
Legal Bods
- Thread starter mickonline
- Start date
4. Is actually based on balance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt, it’s a magistrate / JP that will take the hearing, there isn’t a jury and summing up statements etc.
Deleted User 2893
Striker
It’s not. It is a criminal trial and the burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt regardless of which court hears the trial. Civil cases have the balance of probabilities burden of proof.
Magistrates court cases are sometimes heard by district judges too.
the boot
Winger
Just to put this in context.
It is illegal to drive or keep a car with no mot on a uk road (unless your taking it for a test).
Does it void your insurance? No
They just won’t pay you as much for your car as they would if it were mot’d. But the insurance will still cover 3rd party payout. That’s why you only get done for no mot.
It is illegal to drive or keep a car with no mot on a uk road (unless your taking it for a test).
Does it void your insurance? No
They just won’t pay you as much for your car as they would if it were mot’d. But the insurance will still cover 3rd party payout. That’s why you only get done for no mot.
Vinny the Mackem
Winger
It's criminal law. Not having insurance is a crime. It's beyond reasonable doubt.
Noticed this after I'd posted!
Last edited:
Deleted User 2893
Striker
Just to put your massively out of context post into context.
They are two completely different things.
Vinny the Mackem
Winger
That is very incorrect. Contracts of insurance are what's known in law of uberrima fides, which translates as "utmost good faith". If you have knowledge that ought to be disclosed to the insurance company, even if they don't ask, then the contract can be treated as void ab initio, in other words, treated as if it never existed in the first place. For example, even if they don't ask you if you've had an accident in the past year, if you have it's your duty to tell them. The onus is on the purchaser of the policy.
Just remember mate that you don’t have to disclose anything to your insurance company that they don’t ask a direct question for.
So if they did not ask you if the other car had valid insurance you don’t have to inform them it didn’t.
As the pc might say to you did you inform them this that and the other, you just tell him you answered all their questions.
Any information you possess which is capable of effecting the terms of the policy, it's terms, it's premiums etc must be disclosed to an insurer, whether they ask you or not. That's an exceptionally wide obligation upon the purchaser, but one that very much exists and has been used on countless occasions over many years by insurance companies to avoid payment.
Deleted User 2893
Striker
Nah, some random anonymous bloke on the SMB said that’s not the case so I blindly believe them
Vinny the Mackem
Winger
I'll just qualify the last post. There is a new act (I knew there had been lengthy discussions and consultations etc, but didn't know the act had been brought in).
It's not automatic that a piece of missing information will void a contract. If they think it's deliberate or reckless, the contract can still be avoided.
If it's not deliberate or reckless, then effectively they need to honour the contract but they are entitled to amend that to the state it would have been in had the information been available to them initially. Therefore, if there is information you possess and, say, your premium was £100, but would have been £500 per month, they're entitled to reclaim the £400 from anything they are due to pay out. Looks to me like it is tipping the balance to a more fair assessment of claims where information hasn't been forthcoming, but crucially, the "deliberate or reckless" clause would still be concerning to me. I think if they void the contract by considering any information new to them was withheld deliberately or recklessly, it would be for the insured person to take the matter to court to test the evidence. Still far from ideal, and still makes me concerned about the prospect of withholding information simply because the insurance company doesn't ask.
*Note to self - remember to check the law hasn't change in the past 20 odd years since you were taught it an university before providing an opinion"
It's not automatic that a piece of missing information will void a contract. If they think it's deliberate or reckless, the contract can still be avoided.
If it's not deliberate or reckless, then effectively they need to honour the contract but they are entitled to amend that to the state it would have been in had the information been available to them initially. Therefore, if there is information you possess and, say, your premium was £100, but would have been £500 per month, they're entitled to reclaim the £400 from anything they are due to pay out. Looks to me like it is tipping the balance to a more fair assessment of claims where information hasn't been forthcoming, but crucially, the "deliberate or reckless" clause would still be concerning to me. I think if they void the contract by considering any information new to them was withheld deliberately or recklessly, it would be for the insured person to take the matter to court to test the evidence. Still far from ideal, and still makes me concerned about the prospect of withholding information simply because the insurance company doesn't ask.
*Note to self - remember to check the law hasn't change in the past 20 odd years since you were taught it an university before providing an opinion"
Last edited:
Deleted User 2893
Striker
I'll just qualify the last post. There is a new act (I knew there had been lengthy discussions and consultations etc, but didn't know the act had been brought in).
It's not automatic that a piece of missing information will void a contract. If they think it's deliberate or reckless, the contract can still be avoided.
If it's not deliberate or reckless, then effectively they need to honour the contract but they are entitled to amend that to the state it would have been in had the information been available to them initially. Therefore, if there is information you possess and, say, your premium was £100, but would have been £500 per month, they're entitled to reclaim the £400 from anything they are due to pay out. Looks to me like it is tipping the balance to a more fair assessment of claims where information hasn't been forthcoming, but crucially, the "deliberate or reckless" clause would still be concerning to me. I think if they void the contract by considering any information new to them was withheld deliberately or recklessly, it would be for the insured person to take the matter to court to test the evidence. Still far from ideal, and still makes me concerned about the prospect of withholding information simply because the insurance company doesn't ask.
*Note to self - remember to check the law hasn't change in the past 20 odd years since you were taught it an university before providing an opinion"
There are some things an insurance company will cancel your cover for from that point and other things they can void it from inception.
Complicated old world is insurance.
Goat Eyes
Striker
Not if you have it and declare everything it’s not.
the boot
Winger
Ooof vinny. Changed mate. It used to be this.
Didn’t see this. Before I posted.I'll just qualify the last post. There is a new act (I knew there had been lengthy discussions and consultations etc, but didn't know the act had been brought in).
It's not automatic that a piece of missing information will void a contract. If they think it's deliberate or reckless, the contract can still be avoided.
If it's not deliberate or reckless, then effectively they need to honour the contract but they are entitled to amend that to the state it would have been in had the information been available to them initially. Therefore, if there is information you possess and, say, your premium was £100, but would have been £500 per month, they're entitled to reclaim the £400 from anything they are due to pay out. Looks to me like it is tipping the balance to a more fair assessment of claims where information hasn't been forthcoming, but crucially, the "deliberate or reckless" clause would still be concerning to me. I think if they void the contract by considering any information new to them was withheld deliberately or recklessly, it would be for the insured person to take the matter to court to test the evidence. Still far from ideal, and still makes me concerned about the prospect of withholding information simply because the insurance company doesn't ask.
*Note to self - remember to check the law hasn't change in the past 20 odd years since you were taught it an university before providing an opinion"
Stop back pedalling man I was right.
For once. Let me enjoy it.
Last edited:
mickonline
Winger
Well I contacted the charging officer today and if my insurance company confirm (when he telephones them) that i would have been insured third party in the result of an accident he will cancel the charge. He did mention that he had never heard of an insurance company that did this before. I mentioned rather than speaking to customer services advisor he needed to speak to a supervisor.
Fingers crossed.
Fingers crossed.
the boot
Winger
Glad to hear that mate. I told you the cops find it hard to understand.
MalmöMakem
Midfield
I'll just qualify the last post. There is a new act (I knew there had been lengthy discussions and consultations etc, but didn't know the act had been brought in).
It's not automatic that a piece of missing information will void a contract. If they think it's deliberate or reckless, the contract can still be avoided.
If it's not deliberate or reckless, then effectively they need to honour the contract but they are entitled to amend that to the state it would have been in had the information been available to them initially. Therefore, if there is information you possess and, say, your premium was £100, but would have been £500 per month, they're entitled to reclaim the £400 from anything they are due to pay out. Looks to me like it is tipping the balance to a more fair assessment of claims where information hasn't been forthcoming, but crucially, the "deliberate or reckless" clause would still be concerning to me. I think if they void the contract by considering any information new to them was withheld deliberately or recklessly, it would be for the insured person to take the matter to court to test the evidence. Still far from ideal, and still makes me concerned about the prospect of withholding information simply because the insurance company doesn't ask.
*Note to self - remember to check the law hasn't change in the past 20 odd years since you were taught it an university before providing an opinion"
I've had insurance voided on the roadside due to people not disclosing points on their licence etc, albeit for naughty people and not hard working Joe Bloggs. How could you actually prove if someone knew about it or not? The burden of proof is on the driver not the insurance company/Police. If you don't disclose something, insurance isn't valid.
It's why when doing your insurance quotes online you should do it incognito mode, otherwise it remembers what you've put in. Insurance is a weird area, I've known people who's insurance company had them down at fault for an accident. They called them to change it as it wasn't, and when they changed it to not at fault, the insurance was more...
Also, if you don't disclose something to save money, it's a form of fraud.
All sounds promising. I think he'll drop it once he's spoken to them and sees there is new insurance on the other car. Unless he's an arse and sticks your wife on
Last edited:
mickonline
Winger
I am worrying as its been over six hours since I spoke to him..........
Goat Eyes
Striker
the boot
Winger
I laughed and I’m drinking coffee but unfortunately nowt happened.
Deleted User 2893
Striker
You weren’t right at all, even your son has looked at you through shame bearing tears and told you that you were wrong.
Probably gone home.
Last edited:
